China Civil Aviation Industry, Technology, Infrastructure: News & Discussions

[Nilgiri]

I think that's more related to Chinese Domestic Aerospace business, since it said "IN addition to supporting Boeing in the begining". The Chinese will need these outlying business to support a plants in this scale. Unless Boeing also have a hand on this, I would think it's about Chinese Domestic industry.

Yeah...I guess it would be a bit of a stretch to transport wings, fuselage, empennage over the ocean for assembly in China...for just Chinese domestic market. I have seen the issues of this at play in Europe at a smaller scale (but they are kinda forced to do it for political reasons).

I guess this will basically be an MRO "plus" facility.

Kind of humorous to see all these Chinese members replies though...

 

[jhungary]

Yeah...I guess it would be a bit of a stretch to transport wings, fuselage, empennage over the ocean for assembly in China...for just Chinese domestic market. I have seen the issues of this at play in Europe at a smaller scale (but they are kinda forced to do it for political reasons).

I guess this will basically be an MRO "plus" facility.

Kind of humorous to see all these Chinese members replies though...

lol no........

Both center were casted as Post-Production. It would not be economical to transport everything to China just to build it there, either you fly that plane to China or you have them made there from ground up...

EU have a stupid regulation regarding airbus, making a planes would means a few country involvement. If I remember correctly, italy make the wings, UK Make the engine, France make the fuselage and Germany make everything else........

Was actaully quite surprise they can make money building aircraft that way....

And yes, looking at the Chinese member here response to this news is priceless.

 

[Nilgiri]

EU have a stupid regulation regarding airbus, making a planes would means a few country involvement. If I remember correctly, italy make the wings, UK Make the engine, France make the fuselage and Germany make everything else........

Yah makes no sense to me either. I talked with an Airbus engineer about it at some depth cpl years back. Essentially they get a large subsidy to make this competitive on the world market against Boeing (no such issue, Boeing can simply buy outsourced minor components in its supply chain but keep key assembly capital integrated and concentrated which saves on logistics big time). Airbus (as far as EADS model goes) will essentially implode now if the EU breaks up given the dispersed capital assets....its already going to suffer from brexit.

Both center were casted as Post-Production. It would not be economical to transport everything to China just to build it there, either you fly that plane to China or you have them made there from ground up...

Yah I don't see it either...the hypothetical amount of tariff/market size ratio Chinese govt could display would still not justify the capital costs for Boeing (to set up a full fledged manufacturing + assembly line)...which is what I think many Chinese members initially thought which got them salivating (with cherry on top to stick it to Trump).

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Shoukd we trust any statistics coming from an Indian or the US, especially on issues related to China?

Is this statistic number kind of "40% NASA scientists are Indian"news?.

Sorry, i am serious. I started to doubt any claim by the US regarding their capabikity long time ago. The primitive North Vietnamese should surrender immediately iin 1955 if they believed in the mighty of the US techonology.

You should see the source, their past credibility, and use rational judgement.

There are many very brilliant analysts who report accurately on China in the west as well.

Manufacturing, value added (% of GDP, WB)

View attachment 384024

Manufacturing, value added (current US$, WB)

View attachment 384027

This is what I EXACTLY said in my post.

And while MVA of China may be higher in absolute terms, the MVA for US is significantly higher than China in high tech manufacturing.

Just a recent case:
China is beginning to become a serious player in Cryo-EM space.

Yet, ALL the machines capable to give a Cryo-EM image come from US!

I think for market optimization. To be closer to one of the largest aviation markets in the world makes sense. Otherwise, China would put certain sanctions, hurting Boeing.

Besides, China's own industry is catching up, now putting in service a narrow body regional jet and getting prepared (probably in cooperation with Russia) for a wide body one.

China can't put sanctions on Boeing ever. Boeing is politically connected, and a sanction on it would invite a retaliation against a whole host of Chinese companies who sell insane amounts of stuff to US.

As to your second point, China is right now a kid in front of US in aviation. It is moving ahead, BUT IT IS NOWHERE NEAR CATCHING UP.

ANY RATIONAL PERSON WOULD SEE THAT.

Let them live in their dream world, who really cares what they claim. The fact not even 1% of the CCP trolls understand how larger trade volumes push nominal (current dollar output) as % of PPP frontier tells you all one really needs to know.

Please don't pick on China.

Blind Nationalism is extremely prevalent in Indian circles as well.

Until recently some Indian members, without applying any modicum of rationality were harping on how India is supposedly going to unveil a 132 exaflop supercomputer soon.

Also, what do you mean by this: "how larger trade volumes push nominal (current dollar output) as % of PPP frontier"?

What will those ultra-nationalist RSSers who support Trump react to this news?
Why not move to the Supa Powa where labor is terribly cheap and there are abundant NASA-style scientists?

How about those low-skill low-education Americans in the Rust Bell who are desperate for jobs?
How about their medical insurance, pension and hope of life?
All being Trumped into the dustbin!

Boeing is building a factory in China to pacify Chinese demand.

Indian demand right now is miniscule in front of China.

When and if, India becomes a major aviation player, a fitting factory in India would be a very likely outcome.

As to prospects of Indian aviation market, in 2015, it was growing at double digit rates.

The IATA, the international body of aviation, predicts India to be the third largest market by 2026.

 

[TaiShang]

Trump：Fake news

Trump will remain in denial or concentrate on easy targets like Mexico.

How about those low-skill low-education Americans in the Rust Bell who are desperate for jobs?
How about their medical insurance, pension and hope of life?
All being Trumped into the dustbin!

Multinationals like Boeing won't really care about low-skilled US workers' fate. What they care about is profitability for the company/shareholders.

Hence, rationally, they will be tilted towards one of the world's largest aviation market not to be outdone by competition or face market constraints by decision makers in China.

Trump knows this, too, hence, outside the political rhetoric to please the gullible low-skilled, his own clan is seeking tremendous business in China.

 

[Nilgiri]

Please don't pick on China.

Blind Nationalism is extremely prevalent in Indian circles as well.

Until recently some Indian members, without applying any modicum of rationality were harping on how India is supposedly going to unveil a 132 exaflop supercomputer soon.

Trolls of all nationality are basically the same.

Also, what do you mean by this: "how larger trade volumes push nominal (current dollar output) as % of PPP frontier"?

Greater trade essentially means higher throughput of USD and interaction with global supply chains (both as seller and buyer). Its all on the back of a currency you dont print (essentially free seigniorage). Sustain this model over a cpl decades and you will get a greater % of your true estimated economy (PPP) as current dollars (nominal exchange rate).

Expressing everything in the latter (so they can say 5 - 10 or X times of India) is a common ploy by the chinese trolls to chest thump. They normally dismiss PPP as lacking taking into account "qualitative"/"standards" components of goods/services. I read through even the ICP 2005 method recently...and there is an inherent and deep foundational accounting of this factor actually.

Read this whole thread to get a basic take of where the limit lies in their arguments and the issues behind both issues:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/india-and-china-a-gdp-comparison.455611/

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Greater trade essentially means higher throughput of USD and interaction with global supply chains (both as seller and buyer). Its all on the back of a currency you dont print (essentially free seigniorage). Sustain this model over a cpl decades and you will get a greater % of your true estimated economy (PPP) as current dollars (nominal exchange rate).

Expressing everything in the latter (so they can say 5 - 10 or X times of India) is a common ploy by the chinese trolls to chest thump. They normally dismiss PPP as lacking taking into account "qualitative"/"standards" components of goods/services. I read through even the ICP 2005 method recently...and there is an inherent and deep foundational accounting of this factor actually.

Read this whole thread to get a basic take of where the limit lies in their arguments and the issues behind both issues:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/india-and-china-a-gdp-comparison.455611/

Actually, I totally disagree with you.

In PPP, China is the largest economy on Earth. If the intent of Chinese members was to simply chest thump, PPP was a perfect measure for them.

There are very very valid reasons to be skeptical about PPP.

1. PPP is based on a price correction mechanism, that completely depends on a market base of goods.
So, the decision of that market base itself is questionable.

2. Nominal is what really matters for national strength, and a nation's interaction with other countries.

3. It just doesn't make sense to take a PPP correction into account for counting the MVA of a country. Because industrial products are the most traded products in the world, relatively freely, and this leads to a relative amount of price equilibrium around the world.

4. In terms of just the manufacturing strength, man, there is no denying the fact that China is just 10 times the size of India.

Look at almost any commodity produced, and you will usually see a big multiple.

 

[AndrewJin]

Trump will remain in denial or concentrate on easy targets like Mexico.



Multinationals like Boeing won't really care about low-skilled US workers' fate. What they care about is profitability for the company/shareholders.

Hence, rationally, they will be tilted towards one of the world's largest aviation market not to be outdone by competition or face market constraints by decision makers in China.

Trump knows this, too, hence, outside the political rhetoric to please the gullible low-skilled, his own clan is seeking tremendous business in China.

I am always amazed by Trump supporters' ignorance and how RSSers justify their own incompetence using the glorious PPP.

 

[Nilgiri]

Actually, I totally disagree with you.

In PPP, China is the largest economy on Earth. If the intent of Chinese members was to simply chest thump, PPP was a perfect measure for them.

There are very very valid reasons to be skeptical about PPP.

1. PPP is based on a price correction mechanism, that completely depends on a market base of goods.
So, the decision of that market base itself is questionable.

2. Nominal is what really matters for national strength, and a nation's interaction with other countries.

3. It just doesn't make sense to take a PPP correction into account for counting the MVA of a country. Because industrial products are the most traded products in the world, relatively freely, and this leads to a relative amount of price equilibrium around the world.

4. In terms of just the manufacturing strength, man, there is no denying the fact that China is just 10 times the size of India.

Look at almost any commodity produced, and you will usually see a big multiple.

I really don't care to get into this with you (I am just explaining what I mentioned earlier - and its covered in more detail in the thread posted). The material is all out there for anyone to read at the ICP website regarding their methodology on basically every issue you have mentioned here....both nominal and PPP and any measure of the economy are essentially estimates...they all have pros and cons (the major con of nominal is precisely why the ICP was formed and PPP concept developed).

Basing the sum total of a country's demand/supply on its trade's demand/supply (which is a small fraction of it in most cases) is of limited utility for developing countries especially.

You are right the MVA multiplier would be less than the overall multiplier for GVA in almost any economy (for specifically what you mention....given MVA, esp medium to high end is generally much more integrated with the world wherever you go) ....but to get resolution on that needs more indepth data analysis (esp the bulk MVA that concerns low end and relatively insulated chains that make up a large portion of developing countries esp if they are not trading it internationally)....whereas the ICP only really cares about overall GVA/GDP to begin with.

I am always amazed by Trump supporters' ignorance and how RSSers justify their own incompetence using the glorious PPP.

I'm always amazed how you didnt reply anymore after this:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/india-and-china-a-gdp-comparison.455611/page-4#post-8812159

and how you and the rest of the trolls here think Boeing is going to manufacture aircraft from scratch in China....when the very source article mentions MRO and interior customisation only.

 

[AndrewJin]

Actually, I totally disagree with you.

In PPP, China is the largest economy on Earth. If the intent of Chinese members was to simply chest thump, PPP was a perfect measure for them.

There are very very valid reasons to be skeptical about PPP.

1. PPP is based on a price correction mechanism, that completely depends on a market base of goods.
So, the decision of that market base itself is questionable.

2. Nominal is what really matters for national strength, and a nation's interaction with other countries.

3. It just doesn't make sense to take a PPP correction into account for counting the MVA of a country. Because industrial products are the most traded products in the world, relatively freely, and this leads to a relative amount of price equilibrium around the world.

4. In terms of just the manufacturing strength, man, there is no denying the fact that China is just 10 times the size of India.

Look at almost any commodity produced, and you will usually see a big multiple.

All those products we discuss about in this forum are mostly trade goods, like drones, computers, cars, phones, trains and planes.

Why you people r so into PPP? We r not talking about the price of newspaper and apples.

The regime they use to gauge PPP is so problematic, especially for big countries like China where non tradable goods and services have huge price differences in different provinces.

I really don't care to get into this with you (I am just explaining what I mentioned earlier - and its covered in more detail in the thread posted). The material is all out there for anyone to read at the ICP website regarding their methodology on basically every issue you have mentioned here....both nominal and PPP and any measure of the economy are essentially estimates...they all have pros and cons (the major con of nominal is precisely why the ICP was formed and PPP concept developed).

Basing the sum total of a country's demand/supply on its trade's demand/supply (which is a small fraction of it in most cases) is of limited utility for developing countries especially.

You are right the MVA multiplier would be less than the overall multiplier for GVA in almost any economy (for specifically what you mention....given MVA, esp medium to high end is generally much more integrated with the world wherever you go) ....but to get resolution on that needs more indepth data analysis (esp the bulk MVA that concerns low end and relatively insulated chains that make up a large portion of developing countries esp if they are not trading it internationally)....whereas the ICP only really cares about overall GVA/GDP to begin with.



I'm always amazed how you didnt reply anymore after this:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/india-and-china-a-gdp-comparison.455611/page-4#post-8812159

and how you and the rest of the trolls here think Boeing is going to manufacture aircraft from scratch in China....when the very source article mentions MRO and interior customisation only.

I am not delusional to use PPP to make my country look too good.

We r not like Supa Powans who always find excuses for their own incompetence.

I am really tired of their behavior in this forum.

 

[Nilgiri]

I am not delusional to use PPP to make my country look too good.

We r not like Supa Powans who always find excuses for their own incompetence.

Yeah but nothing as incompetent like saying:

No date for county, smaller cities, townships, countryside.....
Most Chinese live in smaller cities and townships.
PPP is Estimated by the West.

And getting this in reply:

and fleeing from the conversation.

A paradigm of competence indeed...for all to see.

Just like this assertion that the Boeing "factory" in China taking jobs away from Boeing USA

 

[shjliu]

Currently, China is developing ARJ-21 and C919, with this new venture, will COMAC stop further development for new airplanes? that is what I am worried about!

 

[Nilgiri]

Currently, China is developing ARJ-21 and C919, with this new venture, will COMAC stop further development for new airplanes? that is what I am worried about!

No... given boeing is just putting up an MRO plus facility (basically final seats, interior integration in China).

Pretty sure the flight certification will be done before the aircraft arrives in China too.

COMAC will definitely have to keep developing new aircraft and compete with the best in the world over time.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

I really don't care to get into this with you (I am just explaining what I mentioned earlier - and its covered in more detail in the thread posted). The material is all out there for anyone to read at the ICP website regarding their methodology on basically every issue you have mentioned here....both nominal and PPP and any measure of the economy are essentially estimates...they all have pros and cons (the major con of nominal is precisely why the ICP was formed and PPP concept developed).

Basing the sum total of a country's demand/supply on its trade's demand/supply (which is a small fraction of it in most cases) is of limited utility for developing countries especially.

You are right the MVA multiplier would be less than the overall multiplier for GVA in almost any economy (for specifically what you mention....given MVA, esp medium to high end is generally much more integrated with the world wherever you go) ....but to get resolution on that needs more indepth data analysis (esp the bulk MVA that concerns low end and relatively insulated chains that make up a large portion of developing countries esp if they are not trading it internationally)....whereas the ICP only really cares about overall GVA/GDP to begin with.

Actually, I don't deny the uses of PPP as a measure.

It has many uses indeed.

Like, it guards against tyrannies of the market specially exchange rate fluctuations.

What I'm saying is that for our discussion, which basically related to Manufacturing, Trade, and usually National Strength, PPP is largely irrelevant.

Manufacturing, large parts of it, are highly international. In fact, the parts of a country's manufacturing chain that are already not connected to the world, would be incompetitive, and have prices that are already inflated.

Trade by definition is international. For a country like South Korea, it hardly matters what the PPP multiple is for India or China. If it exports to China 10 times as much as to India, that is what it is.

For national strength, PPP has some uses. But nominal, I think, is a far better metric.

 

[TaiShang]

Currently, China is developing ARJ-21 and C919, with this new venture, will COMAC stop further development for new airplanes? that is what I am worried about!

Quite unlikely. Other than job creating and cluster-making effects, which are all positive, I do not think the facility will have any negative impact on the development of China's own aviation industry. This investment by Boeing is mostly valuable for us from the standpoint of certain aviation parts makers that will cluster around the Boeing facility and gather further knowledge and experience.

Good for local economy, employment, and aviation parts makers.

***

Boeing facility to transform Zhoushan
By Zhu Wenqian (China Daily) March 14, 2017

Boeing Co will start building a B737 and B737 MAX completion and delivery center in Zhoushan, Zhejiang province, by the end of March, and is scheduled deliver the first aircraft in 2018.

The Zhoushan facility, located in eastern China near Shanghai, will consist of two parts: the B737 completion center, a joint venture between Boeing and Commercial Aircraft Corp of China, and the B737 delivery center, which is wholly owned by Boeing.

"We are continuing to discuss plans for the facility with our joint venture partner and government officials, and we will announce more information at a later date," said Wang Yukui, Boeing China's vice-president of communications.

Boeing earlier said that the center will deliver 100 planes every year, and the US aircraft manufacturer will cooperate with more Chinese interior suppliers, and help them raise their capabilities and competencies, from raw materials to assembly.

The joint venture will cover cabin installation activities such as the setup of seats and in-flight entertainment systems, as well as painting, flight testing and aircraft maintenance.

By 2025, the aviation industrial park in Zhoushan will form an aviation industry chain, and assemble, deliver and modify more than 600 jets. The worth of annual output is expected to reach 70 billion yuan ($10.1 billion), according to the Zhoushan Evening News.

The plant is also creating significant opportunities for local aviation-related businesses. Segments benefiting include assurance services, maritime patrols, aviation logistics, bonded processing, aeronautical research and aircraft manufacturing.

Additionally, the plant is expected to develop industrial tourism that includes duty-free shopping, and recreation and entertainment.

Being an archipelago, the city of Zhoushan has inconvenient land transportation, which provides opportunities for air transportation. Meanwhile, as part of the Yangtze River Delta region, neighboring cities such as Shanghai and Hangzhou will provide skilled human resources for Zhoushan.

"In the near future, Zhoushan will take an important position on the map of China's aviation industry, and even in the global aviation industry pattern," said Guo Qi, deputy director of the integrated planning institute, part of China Aviation Planning and Design Institute (Group) Co Ltd.

In September 2015, Boeing and COMAC signed an agreement to jointly establish a B737 completion center in China, after President Xi Jinping's visit to the Seattle area, home to the headquarters of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.