The Real Reason Boeing Is Being Vilified

Text BlackEver since MSM dogpiled on Boeing I knew there was more than was being said. Finally, some information that makes more sense! It's all about the money-and 10% for the Big Guy.

China’s Commercial Aircraft Corp of China (Comac) has developed a new passenger jet, the C919, which is awaiting regulatory approval to enter the global market. The C919 is a single-aisle airliner designed to compete with the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320. The aircraft has completed its first pre-delivery test flight in Shanghai and is expected to be put into service by China Eastern Airlines by the end of the year.

Key Features and Comparison

The C919 has a list purchase price of approximately $90 million, which is lower than the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320. However, the aircraft’s range is shorter, with a maximum range of 2,500 nautical miles, compared to the Airbus A320neo and Boeing 737 MAX. The C919’s technology is not considered cutting-edge, partly due to foreign suppliers’ reluctance to provide state-of-the-art components due to concerns about intellectual property theft.

Implications and Competition

The C919’s entry into the market could potentially disrupt the dominance of Boeing and Airbus in the commercial aircraft industry. However, the aircraft’s limitations in terms of range and technology may make it less competitive in the short term. The success of the C919 will depend on its ability to offer competitive pricing, efficient operations, and reliable performance.

Timeline and Regulatory Approval

The C919 is awaiting regulatory approval from Chinese authorities before it can enter the global market. The aircraft has completed its first pre-delivery test flight and is expected to be put into service by China Eastern Airlines by the end of the year. The regulatory approval process is expected to be completed soon, paving the way for the C919 to enter the global market.

Conclusion

China’s new passenger jet, the C919, is a potential replacement for the Boeing 737, but its success is uncertain due to its limitations in terms of range and technology. The aircraft’s entry into the market could disrupt the dominance of Boeing and Airbus, but its competitiveness will depend on its ability to offer competitive pricing, efficient operations, and reliable performance.

AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts. Learn more

"its success is uncertain due to its limitations in terms of range and technology"

I think the forthcoming lawsuits, destruction of Boeing's reputation and senate hearings will drag the company down to a minor player, if they can survive at all. I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing absorbed by one of the bigger players.

That's my take, anyway.

a reply to: nugget1

Boeing has recently been showered with govt funding.

Can these two positions both exist? Or are they simply a double dip?

a reply to: nugget1

and reliable performance.

i've never purchased anything made by a CCP owned / controlled company that has provided repeated reliable performance.
sure it does what it was designed to do, but breaks not long after repeated use, not good for a aircraft that will be counted on to fly many extended hours.

a reply to: nugget1

Just like most topics, this one has several causes culminating into one much larger issue.
The biggest long term issue here is that without Boeing, the US doesn’t have an airline maker.

Being dependent on others is never good at the negotiating table.


And I’m not fond of the idea of boarding a Chinese airliner. 🫤

I honestly believe that Boeing is being attacked, an act of war.

If Boeing goes bankrupt,we lose a major military equipment provider. It will make us weaker.

I believe it is part of a larger plan:

- Food suppliers hit with fires
- train derailments
- infrastructure attacks ie bridges, substations,etc
- ILLEAGAL immigrant invasion

We are in a soft insurrection from within, being supported by foreign interests.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: nugget1


And I’m not fond of the idea of boarding a Chinese airliner. 🫤

Well:

1. Be thankful it is not made by capitalist scum, comrade.

2. Be thankful you are even allowed to board a plane, it means you are travelling more than 15 minutes, so you must be special.

/end Future Prediction

Boeing is a wreck, but I would rather fly on their wrecks than trust Chinese made airplanes.

I dont plan to fly much anymore but I certainly pay attention to what airplanes are listed to fly on.

a reply to: nugget1
The Chinese can do as they usually do. Buy advanced Russian engines produced by Perm Motors and install them on your aircraft. And then copy the engines and release their own, although they are worse in performance and reliability, but fly.

Moreover, Russian titanium, without which Boeing cannot produce aircraft and which accounts for up to 30% of the cost of the aircraft, is no longer supplied to the USA (sanctions), but China is happy to buy it.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Advanced Russian engines that have less than half the life of advanced western engines, with significantly less efficiency.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This is just your opinion. It has a right to exist, as does the opinion of all of us. In fact, you need to study engine passports indicating mileage, hours of actual work, repairs of varying degrees and study of emergency incidents with engines.
If Russian engines were so bad, then there would not be a queue of buyers from the Arab world, India and China for them.

Until recently, Russian civil aircraft engines were inferior to Western ones in only one characteristic - noise.
Modern Russian aircraft engines have already gotten rid of this drawback and are on par with Western ones.

More Boeing IRONY . . . _ _ _ . . .

Sabotage ?? ☠️💥


Failure to Launch: Boeing’s First Manned Space Flight Aborted at Last Minute Due to Unidentified “Problem” (VIDEO)

a reply to: RussianTroll

Moreover, Russian titanium, without which Boeing cannot produce aircraft and which accounts for up to 30% of the cost of the aircraft, is no longer supplied to the USA (sanctions), but China is happy to buy it.

do you ever speak the whole truth? china produces almost 120 metric tons 4 times the titanium than russia does at 27,000 metric tons, japan is the second leading country at 35,000 metric tons. why would they need to buy it from russia other than to hold ol farty over a oil barrel.

The U.S is also on friendly terms with other countries that don't produce as much, and two who have even more including Australia the largest reserve in the world and Canada who in 2021 produced 600 thousand metric tons. so there's plenty of folks for Boeing to buy from.

to add insult to injury, Boeing could buy what Ukraine can produce.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: nugget1

Boeing has recently been showered with govt funding.

Can these two positions both exist? Or are they simply a double dip?

The amount of guv funding hasn't been publically released, but I'm thinking this has shwn Boeing who's boss; they're being brought to their knees and will either co-operate, or sink. If that means sharing tech with China and letting them take the number one spot in air transportation, I'm sure they'll be rewarded with another venture.

I watched Zuckerberg get raked over the coals twice now, and it seems to me he made a blood deal with the devil to keep his platform-and wealth in exchange for spying on citizens in a way that rivals China's TikTok....maybe even surpasses it.

a reply to: nugget1

While I could agree that not *all funding to Boeing has been publicly released, I provided the latest publicly released figures.

originally posted by: theatreboy
I honestly believe that Boeing is being attacked, an act of war.

If Boeing goes bankrupt,we lose a major military equipment provider. It will make us weaker.

I believe it is part of a larger plan:

- Food suppliers hit with fires
- train derailments
- infrastructure attacks ie bridges, substations,etc
- ILLEAGAL immigrant invasion

We are in a soft insurrection from within, being supported by foreign interests.

You forgot the latest; at least once a week a building explodes from a natural gas leak. Has this always been a thing and just not MSM news worthy, or are buildings suddenly exploding because the entire gas industry goes against policy?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: nugget1

While I could agree that not *all funding to Boeing has been publicly released, I provided the latest publicly released figures.

And thank you for that, JinMi !

Boeing Defense, Space & Security

It looks to me like Boeing is being forced out of the public transportation side of things and being shifted into military contracts.

I could be wrong; I was once before.

a reply to: nugget1

It's possible and I certainly don't know enough in this area.


It just seems like a riskier market to collect 10 percent for the big guy than say foreign energy ...

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: nugget1

Boeing has recently been showered with govt funding.

Can these two positions both exist? .....

Sure.

On the one hand, Boeing is too big to fail. They have ended up being the sole source for certain products--civilian transport aircraft being the obvious one. They got the contract for Star Liner (NASA's latest manned spacecraft capsule) based on their reputation and experience with manned spacecraft from the Apollo days. They also have contracts to support legacy aircraft--like the B-52, for example. So there are a lot of products where if you didn't choose Boeing to supply them, you would have to invest huge amounts of money to bring another supplier up to speed. And that's too expensive in most cases, so it's easier to just keep buying legacy products from the original supplier.

One the other hand, Boeing's quality control turned to crap somewhere along the line and started being really noticeable about 10 years ago or so. And their crappy quality isn't just in their commercial aircraft; it seems to be across the board in most of their product lines. That's what makes most knowledgeable observers think that it's a problem with Boeing management. During the time Boeing was building up its reputation for producing exceptional aerospace products, all the senior management team were engineers who had worked their way up the ladder and knew what was important and what wasn't. That management team supposedly got slowly displaced by MBAs and other "money people" who had no clue technically what goes into an aerospace system. They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. So they made decisions to improve Boeing's bottom line in the short term with no concept of what that would mean for the quality of their products in the long term.

This is actually fairly common in the history of large companies that are based on technological products. Hewlett-Packard is an obvious example that comes to mind.

My insider says that Boeings real problem is DEI and in particular DEI in Seattle. They have spent years hiring unqualified people for various positions and when said people screw up, they cover up. Their main purpose is not to make a great product but to hire as many POC and sexual deviants as possible.