First Japan-Built Airliner in 50 Years Takes on Boeing and Airbus

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-17/first-japan-built-airliner-in-50-years-takes-on-boeing-airbus

by pseudolus • 7 years ago

406 112 7 years ago

throw0101a2• 7 years ago

I wonder if Boeing is going to sue Mitsubishi like they sued Bombardier.

nolok5• 7 years ago

I doubt Boeing want to antagonise the japanese, whose airlines recently and for the first time since ever did some Airbus orders. It could backfire pretty hard. Also, it didn't exactly work out with Bombardier ...

djsumdog3• 7 years ago

Especially after the 737-MAX disaster.

hinkley2• 7 years ago

Here's the bit I used to tease my Boeing employed friend about:

Mitsubishi Heavy built the wings for the 787. Boeing, in a rare moment of stupidity, outsourced the manufacturing of the wings (the internal policy has historically been "The wings are the plane" so outsource anything BUT the wings and we are cool).

So about the time the first 787 prototype rolls off the lines, Mitsubishi announces their Regional Jet.

He was calm about this every time I brought him an article about them making progress. It's a Bombardier class plane, it doesn't really compete with Boeing. And they need a lot of commuter jets in SE Asia so they'll sell a lot of them, sure, but it's gonna be a while before they build a plane three times as big.

And as it turns out, it took them a very long time just to build their first plane. Now, I don't believe the Japanese "school of business" is fond of people bungling a project and having no idea how to avoid all the problems the next time, so we could get surprised by a much faster turnaround on the next one. But they're still way behind schedule.

throw0101a2• 7 years ago

Here's the bit I used to tease my Boeing employed friend about:

Is it really "Boeing" anymore or more MD?

One hypothesis around the 787 problems I heard was that post-acquisition, all the MD people ended up in important positions (reverse take-over a la Apple and NeXT)

So when the Dreamliner program came a long it was developed under MD's more business-y thinking (outsource risk) instead of Boeing's engineering thinking (learn in-house). Then they had to put together a ten thousand piece jigsaw from hundreds of suppliers with varying tolerances.

nolok5• 7 years ago

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.’s new airliner is testing the skies just as rivals are moving to sell off their manufacturing operations for jets with up to 160 seats. Boeing Co. is set to buy 80 percent of the Embraer SA’s commercial operations in a joint venture, while Bombardier Inc. last year sold control of its C Series airliner project to Airbus SE and is exploring “strategic options” for its regional-jet operations.

This is completly misleading on the Bombardier's part, they're not looking to sell off anything. Boeing got bitter after losing to them a deal with Delta Airlines so they asked and got a ridiculous tariff in place on the canadian plane for sales in the USA. Instead of accepting the loss of that market / selling off, Bombardier doubled down on that path and they made the "Avions C-Series" joint venture with Airbus (ownership 50.01 % Airbus, 30.99 % Bombardier Inc., 19 % Québec gov), where Airbus got half+ ownership for a symbolic euro and Bombardier got access to the Alabama plant so their sales to US customers would not be affected by tariffs (also, access to Airbus network for maintenance, training, ...).

The plane is now sold as the Airbus A220, which coupled with the A320 Neo is a no small part of the threat that made Boeing take so many shortcuts on the 737 Max so it could have the training advantage.

A newcomer is always great for competition, and a revival of Japan's ability in that area is great, but claiming they come in a field that their competitors is leaving is simply untrue, the A220 is more alive and dangerous as competition than Bombardier could have ever dreamt to be "alone"; and Airbus is now free to concentrate on other areas and let Bombardier does what it does best, instead of having to field their own plane at that range.

The only losing party was Boeing, which from where I stand is Karma (not saying Bombardier was not getting subsidies, but saying any of Boeing/Airbus/Embraer/Bombardier/... complaining about subsidies to the others is ridiculous, especially the two big ones who have their hands in military contracts)

toyg• 7 years ago

for a symbolic euro

The world of business sometimes reads like a novel.

AnthonBerg• 7 years ago

In my experience, the business side of startups is just making stuff up. That is to say it feels that way. The world of business kind of is a giant ambling collaborative novel.

ckastner• 7 years ago

That symbolic Euro is important because it makes the deal a purchase instead of a gift. Legally, the consequences are significant.

There are numerous situations when paying nothing for something is entirely reasonable, for example when you are getting nothing (or even worse) in return (eg: bailout), or when you are giving something else in return (eg: future cooperation, access to new technology, access to a new market, etc.)

666lumberjack• 7 years ago

Boeing really shot themselves in the foot there, although as I understand it they asked for an 80% tariff and the US government instead imposed a 300% one. A reminder of the dangers of protectionism, perhaps, although admittedly the original 80% tariff might still have been enough to force Bombardier into the Airbus partnership.

nolok5• 7 years ago

Especially since Boeing had already spent good money to get the Embraer plane in their lineup, and their actions "gave" its biggest competitor to Airbus for free.

And in the other side of it, the deal will also majorly benefit Bombardier overall, obviously compared to no deal, but even long term compared with going on their own; Airbus is now pushing the plane hard like a normal part of their lineup, it doesn't compete with another Airbus plane since they didn't have one there yet (they were like Boeing except they snapped the Embraer one first). And the plane having access to the entire Airbus network is a big big plus (which is pretty much why it was instantly renamed A220, making it clear to customer it was a long term fully supported Airbus plane not a temporary off shot).

Even the Québec gov is happy since the deal protects all the jobs and manufacturing locations, only difference is final assembly done in Alabama, and only for US customers.

Also, Airbus was supposed to make their own and then compete directly with Bombardier too. Making two ennemies ally with each other is a really dumb move, and good luck taking it back once they both start reaping the benefits of that alliance.

basetop3• 7 years ago

Extreme protectionism can be dangerous for sure. But the Bombardier example and protectionism in aerospace isn't a negative example of protectionism. It actually shows that protectionism works. The US benefited by having bombardier planes being built in the US. More jobs, more work for american workers and more taxes for the government. It's a win-win situation. You could argue that Boeing lost out, but they really didn't either.

Bombardier, Airbus, Boeing and the entire aerospace industry in every country exists primarily due to protectionism. Without canadian government support and market protection, bombardier could not exist. Without EU protection, Airbus cannot exist. Boeing or other aerospace companies would have underbid bombardier and airbus out of existence because they produced their own planes.

It's why China and Japan also use significant protectionism to protect their aerospace industry. They, like the US and EU, all "encourage" their own national carriers to buy from national manufacturers.

As others have noted, aerospace industry is inherently dual function just like satellite/GPS industry. They, by their innate nature, serve both the civilian and military industries.

I know we are told "protectionism" is bad from a young age, but the modern industrial world ( starting with the US ) was created by protection. Almost every industry in every industrial nation owes it's rise to protectionism. If you have the time, you should read up on the history of US protectionism in the 1800s, which set the example that every major economy from china to germany to japan to south korea followed to become major economic players.

Without protectionism, we don't have Airbus, Bombardier, etc. Without protectionism, we also don't have Samsung, Toyota, Sony, Volkswagen, etc. Without protectionism, every industry in the US would have been bought up or controlled by the wealthier british industrialists.

The first act of Congress was an act of protectionism - a tariff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1789

gsnedders• 7 years ago

Airbus got half+ ownership for a symbolic euro

And Airbus didn't even take on the huge debts the programme has accrued. They get none of the pain of the development and half the profit from sales. (Also I believe Airbus's network for sales was also considered significant by Bombardier; they may lose a fair bit of the profit from sales, but I think Bombardier were hoping Airbus's networks would increase sales sufficiently that it'd be a net gain for them.)

nolok5• 7 years ago

Also I believe Airbus's network for sales was also considered significant by Bombardier

Absolutely, there is a reason why it got renamed to A220 instantly. In passenger planes Airbus/Boeing is like the "nobody got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft" of the IT world.

Also, their potential customers are much more likely to already have Airbus planes, so with that change you don't need another suppliers for parts and maintenance etc ... It's the same vendor.

nutjob2• 7 years ago

The value of the business roughly doubled after it "sold" half to Airbus. Financially they were no worse off and they guarantee the success of the business by hooking up with a proven partner. They get 7.5 years of the upside including all the investment by Airbus.

Sounds like a great deal to me.

decasteve2• 7 years ago

It’s a Bloomberg article which is fast becoming synonymous with inaccuracy or just being outright wrong. I usually skip them altogether but maybe it’s time we start flagging these articles. I’m of the opinion that most Bloomberg articles are a waste of time for HackerNews.

rootusrootus2• 7 years ago

Bloomberg specifically tries to push stories that move the markets. That alone makes me take their articles with a grain of salt.

wastedhours• 7 years ago

Interesting view - other than the issues the community had around that server hacking piece, what article has been outright wrong vs just having a heavy editorial slant (as most publications now do)?

Xixi• 7 years ago

Note that Airbus has the option to buy the whole program from Bombardier Inc. and the Québec government. I'm trying to find out the exact terms. There is some speculation that Airbus doesn't want to push the CSeries/A220 too much until then, as it will only make the remaining 49.99% of the program more expensive.

EDIT: after some research digging through the related thread on airliners.net [1], this is what I found:

"After 7.5 years (which is pretty fast), Airbus has a call option for all of BBD's shares in the joint venture at the then current market value (and BBD has a put option similarly, which it would exercise if things didn't work out). So basically, Airbus can buy the whole shebang in 7.5 years."

Since the announce was made in October 2016, in 6 years Airbus can trigger its option to acquire Bombardier's shares. Not completely sure about Québec's shares though.

[1] https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1376389&...

Gpetrium• 7 years ago

I have a different take on winners and losers (from left to right):

Airbus > Mitsubishi > Boeing > Bombardier

Airbus - Gained a brand new aircraft for close to nothing, allowing it to sell at a discount that Boeing may not be able to do. Can wait to make key strategic sales for after they purchase Bombardier's 30.99% stake.

Mitsubishi - Learned what to do and not to do from the Bombardier saga. Also learned that there is a potential market for a third competitor.

Boeing - Staved off a potential third competitor which could dilute the profitability of the segment. Didn't want to make the same mistake when it didn't consider the Airbus could become the giant it is today decades ago. (As of today, lost 15% stock from its previous peak, although it may be due to a variety of other problems, including the China/US trade spat)

Bombardier - Was forced to sell off its new jet for close to nothing.

zymhan3• 7 years ago

This is not entirely true. Bombardier was having financial issues with the C Series and is in fact considering selling off the CRJ business. They're already spinning off the Dash 8 Q400.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8#Sale_to_Long...

This section on Wikipedia gives a succinct overview of the multiple financial issues Bombardier has faced with the C Series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220#Program_support

gimmeThaBeet• 7 years ago

Yeah, I don't know enough about planes to say whether or not the C Series / A220 is good or competitive. That part seems almost secondary to the softer issues.

Bombardier put a lot of time and money into the development, and then way more money and way more time. And Quebec is clearly, lets say, highly interested in making sure that planes are built, and that some of them are made in Quebec.

growlist• 7 years ago

Someone please for the love of god make a minimalist news website without cookies and all the other annoying distractions! :|

darkpuma• 7 years ago

Block all javascript, including first party. The article text is all still there and the website is made 'minimalist' by force.

WrtCdEvrydy• 7 years ago

outline.com?

SmellyGeekBoy• 7 years ago

But would you be willing to pay for it?

Part of the reason news websites have to resort to all of the advertising and trackers is because everyone expects to get their news for free now.

SilasX• 7 years ago

Which would be a great defense, except that they typically keep all that stuff even when you do subscribe.

smazga• 7 years ago

http://lite.cnn.io and http://text.npr.org are nice, but neither has an article about this, unfortunately.

joncrane• 7 years ago

It's not too bad with uBlock Origin. Are you running a browser with a good adblocker?

magnamerc• 7 years ago

Brave Browser

andyst• 7 years ago

Such a difficult game to get into, convincing legacy airlines who have entrenched and certified workforces and expensive engineering supply chains, the business case of adding another manufacturers equipment is almost insurmountable. Even making a great aircraft isn't enough let alone accounting for what airbus and boeing can respond with if you pose a threat.

smoyer• 7 years ago

I noticed that they referred to trams state airlines as trams world later in the same paragraph ... I miss TWAs almost art deco travel posters.

FearNotDaniel• 7 years ago

I'm all in favour of more competition, and of course I get that designs are led by engineering/efficiency concerns, but it still makes me a little sad that the days of visually distinctive aircraft designs are long gone. Old-style machines like Concorde and 747 and all their predecessors can be recognized from a great distance; I'd be hard-pressed to tell this apart from an E190 even if I taxied right past it on the tarmac.

telesilla• 7 years ago

Maybe the other side of that right now is, higher safety given using known designs? I also was looking for something distinctive but there is also a comfort in familiarity, when it comes to air safety..

userbinator• 7 years ago

That's because Concorde and 747 were built with emphasis on a specific feature, in the former case speed and the latter capacity (the same reason an A380 also looks distinctive --- it's huge.)

stan_rogers• 7 years ago

The 747, in particular, was intended as a freighter - a big, empty tube into which large things could be loaded, with a crew compartment up and out of the way. The passenger configuration was meant to be a stopgap measure while the SST was in development. Then it all went horribly wrong for Boeing, and they were stuck with an enormous success that accidentally changed the face of air travel. Oh, well.

yardie2• 7 years ago

The current generation of passenger jets have been optimized to the point of looking similar across makers and models. High bypass turbofans, wing and body design are all similar. For me, the quickest way to distinguish a Boeing and Airbus is nose taper and cockpit windows. Everything beyond that point are not unique enough.

a_bonobo• 7 years ago

It's like convergent evolution in nature - there are only a few possible 'best' solutions, so at some point everyone uses that one.

One example would be eyes in mammals and eyes in cephalopods: they are extremely similar safe for some details (the location of the blind spot is different, but it's there) even though both groups are hundreds of million of years apart!

nine_k• 7 years ago

Landing gear?

rootusrootus2• 7 years ago

If you can hear them, sound differentiates them pretty effectively too. Most Airbuses haven't been fixed yet.

zeusk2• 7 years ago

There are other tell-tale signs, like wingtips, how the rear-end tapers out, number of wheels in the main landing gear, location of pitot tubes etc.

Wingtips alone will give away Airbus vs Boeing on all current in-production models.

jillesvangurp4• 7 years ago

This is about to get interesting again when hybrid/electric planes enable a complete rethink of how planes work and are designed. The first commercial electric planes are currently under development. Both Airbus and Boeing have some plans for about a decade from now on this front. Most of that (but not all) will be hybrid electric.

Current economics are based on the notion that fuel is expensive and therefore you try to fly huge planes with lots of people because it delivers better fuel economy. This completely dominates everything in the aviation industry currently from design, logistics, to operations. The economies are such that you only fly routes where you can fill all the seats and still pay for the fuel. With electric your energy cost is a much less significant. Your main cost shift to infrastructure, cost, maintenance, etc. of the plane. If electric cars are an indication, you can expect some reduced cost there as well.

So, suddenly, flying short hops with small air planes becomes cheap and feasible. So, why fly short hops with a few huge planes that cost tens of millions and burn tons of fuel when you can fly the same route with many smaller planes that you charge using solar/wind/etc. for a fraction of the cost? Changes the game completely. E.g. London-Amsterdam could be dozens/hundreds of 6-12 seater electrical planes instead of a handful of airbuses flying back and forth. Also, London City suddenly becomes more attractive because small electric planes are not so noisy.

Basically on board staff becomes the limiting factor, not fuel cost. Now add autonomous flying to the mix and you solve that as well.

rwmj• 7 years ago

E.g. London-Amsterdam could be dozens/hundreds of 6-12 seater electrical planes

As long as they don't all need 2 pilots. I'd really like to see self-driving planes, must be easier than self-driving cars surely? (And, yes, I would fly in one)

SirHound• 7 years ago

But isn't the problem that a lot of airports (like Heathrow and Schipol) are operating at capacity? So the only way to get more capacity is to increase the size of each individual aircraft.

BurningFrog• 7 years ago

Even assuming all that pans out, isn't there a huge bottleneck in airport capacity?

If air traffic scales down to flights 1/10 the size of today, 10 times as many takeoffs and landings are needed to move the same number of people.

I don't think we have any way to get 10x the airport capacity?

robocat• 7 years ago

hundreds of 6-12 seater electrical planes

Problems with lots of small planes:

* They fly like a roller-coaster (4 seaters are crazy scary for many people).

* More crashes - bad "optics"

* Number of pilots required

They do have the potential to have more direct routes, and very short hops, with less security overheads. Maybe run more regularly, but not much of an advantage because most people want to travel at particular times of the day (same problem with buses).

maxxxxx• 7 years ago

the same is happening with cars and phones. Physics, ergonomics and supply chains lead manufacturers converge towards similar designs. There is almost no way around it once things mature.

For example I was hoping that electric cars would lead to a reevaluation of the basic design of a car and we would see something new but instead electric cars look pretty much like cars with a gas engine.

magduf3• 7 years ago

For example I was hoping that electric cars would lead to a reevaluation of the basic design of a car and we would see something new but instead electric cars look pretty much like cars with a gas engine.

What were you hoping for? There's only so much you can do with the basic design of a car. It needs to have crumple zones in the front and rear for safety (really old cars with radically different designs didn't have this, but they weren't safe in a crash), and a car that can't seat 4 generally won't sell, so you're not going to get anything that looks substantially different from today's cars.

twic• 7 years ago

The time has come for flying wings!

https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/northrop-once-built-planes-t...

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/greener_air...

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/civil/flying_wings1.htm

Or if you believe these nerds, a sort of flint axe with little weedy wings:

http://oddjob.utias.utoronto.ca/~dwz/Miscellaneous/ReistZing...

llukas2• 7 years ago

Unless you'd rebuild all airports for higher wingspan aircraft (ie. same process that had to be done for A380 to land but on bigger scale) - it's not happening.

mncharity• 7 years ago

the days of visually distinctive aircraft designs are long gone

SpaceX hopes to eventually provide business-class and other Earth2Earth service with its BFR/Starship/SuperHeavy, a two-stage (1st returns to launch site) stainless-steel rocket. The design is still in flux, and may or may not end up with enough wings to be somewhat "aircraft"-ish... rather than just a belly-flopping skydiving spacecraft with a bit of body lift and wing-like control surfaces. But it's certainly visually distinctive.

nabla92• 7 years ago

Aerospace is strategic industry where civilian and military procurements support each other, so this is much more than just business or competition.

Japan has made baby steps to have more sovereignty in it's foreign policy and it just makes sense that they are slowly increasing the relative independency of their strategic industries as well.

bilbo0s2• 7 years ago

It's surprising. That's what the article is getting at, and that's the thing implicit in most of the comments. Not necessarily why they did it? But that they would do it at all.

Just seems a bit Quixotic. Especially for a country with much larger issues to worry about. If your country is dying, you'd think you would be rolling out high tech, or innovative solutions to that problem first.

djsumdog3• 7 years ago

What do you mean by dying. Are you referring to low birth rates or other factors?

terryschiavo22• 7 years ago

This is an example of the 'Slippery Slope' logical fallacy.

nabla92• 7 years ago

Description of gradual progression can't be slippery slope logical fallacy.

esaym• 7 years ago

A little bit different with Japan as they were banned from making aircraft after WWII for years....

bronco210162• 7 years ago

The move by Trans States Holdings and Skywest Inc to order this aircraft, specifically the MRJ90 variant, is interesting. Currently, in the US, the three major carriers United, Delta, and American are in contract negotiations with their pilots. A hot button topic during these negotiations is always scope. Scope sections basically define what flying must be done in house and what flying and how much flying can be outsourced. As it is currently, I’m not aware that any of the 3 major carriers, who contract this type of regional flying with TSA, SKW, etc. have permissive enough scope clauses to contract out flying to these companies on this aircraft. If I remember correctly even the updated ERJ175 took some negotiating to get the unions on board as it was outside of the weight limits set by some carriers’ scope clauses. The standard cutoff as of today for regional flying is 76 seats, this is why the CRJ-900 and ERJ175 have exactly 76 seats and the ERJ190 is flown by American Airlines proper rather than a contractor. Given many airline pilots feel their career has been hampered by two decades of regional jet fee for departure arrangements I see little hope for scope being relieved for regional airlines to fly bigger and bigger aircraft.

Of course, the move to secure order places may simply be a strategic move to trade those spots on the order book for more flying should one of the legacy airlines choose to order the MRJ for themselves. It’s interesting how the chess pieces move and fun to watch!

TLDR; Don’t expect to see this aircraft flying under the colors of any of the legacy airlines in the US until you see them ordered by the legacy airlines themselves.

alexhutcheson• 7 years ago

The MRJ90 is only slightly bigger than the E175-E2 (92 pax in a 1-class configuration vs. 88 pax in the E175), so it wouldn't be crazy for the regional airlines to get some equipped in a lower-density configuration with 76 seats.

bronco210162• 7 years ago

The E175-E2 is actually the aircraft I was speaking about being over the weight limits under current scope clauses [1]

Without the scope issue being solved these aircraft are dead in the water when it comes to the US. Obviously the US market isn’t the only market but it is certainly the largest and without it a manufacturer cannot expect to be a real threat to Boeing or Airbus.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2018-1...

redleggedfrog• 7 years ago

Well, if cars are any indication, maybe it'll be more reliable than the American built planes.

panpanna• 7 years ago

And significantly more fuel efficient?

ac29• 7 years ago

Aircraft manufacturers don't tend to make Jet Engines. The MRJ uses a Pratt & Whitney engine, for example [0]. Pratt & Whitney is a US company.

The engine isn't the only bit that affects fuel efficiency, but it is a big part.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Regional_Jet

oliveshell• 7 years ago

Mercifully, though, modern airliners aren’t made by 1970s-era General Motors.

jandrese• 7 years ago

No, that's for small aircraft and their postwar era engine designs. To give you an idea of how slow development is in small aircraft engines, AVGas (Gasoline for airplanes) is still leaded.

Danieru• 7 years ago

Interesting I think to note that a co-owner of the division of Mitsubishi making this plane is Mitsui Corporation. Mitsui Co. Is a general trading company which includes a large airplane leasing division. This project is a cool example of the connection and group centric behavior of Japanese corporations.

leemailll2• 7 years ago

Mitsubishi and mitsui are among the big four zaibatsu (zaibatsu) of Japan. Can't agree it's cool consiering their history in modern Japan.

leemailll2• 7 years ago

So mitsubishi finally will deliver the plane or not? I can't find this information in the news, and the delivery of this very plane has been delayed several times.

ummonk• 7 years ago

The article says "Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China Ltd., also known as Comac, has a new regional jet in service," and then shows a picture of the Comac C919. To be clear, the regional jet that Comac has in service is the ARJ21, and the C919 is Comac's upcoming competitor to the 737 Max and A320 Neo.

huslage• 7 years ago

The MRJ is too heavy to be flown by any US airline per contracts with the pilots. I don't see how we will ever see this plane in the US.

jws• 7 years ago

To elaborate… the pilots' union doesn't want the airlines shifting jobs to lower paying affiliate airlines, so their contracts restrict the sorts of planes which can be used with the affiliates.

Covered in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause

First Japan-Built Airliner in 50 Years Takes on Boeing and Airbus

Related Stories