本网站使用cookie。您使用并继续浏览本网站,即表示您接受这一点。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟踪是由广告支持吗?
通过允许展示来自FlightAware.com的广告,您可以帮助我们使FlightAware保持免费。我们努力使我们的广告保持相关性,同时不显突兀,以创造一流的体验。在FlightAware上将广告加入白名单快捷而简单,或者请您考虑选择我们的高级帐户.
退出
Back to Squawk list
  • 21

Ethiopian Airlines considers COMAC C919 instead of Boeing 737 MAX 8

提交时间:
 
The African carrier has formed a joint committee with the Chinese manufacturer to examine the suitability of the aircraft to the Ethiopian fleet. (airlinerwatch.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


akebonolove
bob elmar 3
Why not A 320?
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 3
a decision driven primarily by safety concerns, no doubt.
mkeflyer
mkeflyer 7
If that was the case they would be looking at the A320. Looking at the C919 is probably because Ethiopia is heavily in debt to China via their Belt and Road program where China builds major infrastructure and expects those countries to pay back that debt. Selling terrible airplanes is a good way to recoup those costs.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Never heard of C919 crashing have you?
paulgilpin1953
paul gilpin 4
i've never heard of one flying for more than 20 minutes, without scaring the sht out of the pilots due to high vibration, them landing, and getting fired for landing, due to the loss of face by the chief of pilots.
have you?
it has been on the drawing board for over ten years.
but why discuss the C919 when we can talk about hypersonic aircraft they have built and flown?
the MC21 has been on the drawing board for over ten years. but rooskie planes crash all the time. you just DON'T hear about them.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
Paul,

I've followed their fighter development a little bit, but I hadn't actually read anything about flight testing the airliner (which is apparently much further behind than I imagined). The mental picture it paints, I can't help but feel bad for those test pilots getting fired for kissing the ground.

I had to fess up because your comment is such an absolute masterpiece in frustration.... it made me feel guilty.

I was kidding, because the idea of china's first crack at an airliner being safer is totally absurd. Sorry about that.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 2
a more perfect safety record there is not...
skylab72
skylab72 3
Or shorter? How many in the air and how many years type certified? Statistics actually work when you know what you are looking at...
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
I was being sarcastic. The idea of China's (or anyone else's) first try at building an airliner being safer than any boeing or airbus currently in service is a joke.




skylab72
skylab72 1
OOP! sorry.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
As scary as it may be, some people around here aren't joking.

So no need to apologize.
Cansojr
Cansojr 1
Never heard of this type and its range.
CarlosCesarGarcia
Kevin, talvez es parte del oficio de diseñar, porque nadie piensa que lo hecho por los Ing. de la Boeing pudiera causar un daño, de todas maneras son riesgos o imprevistos de la industria aeronautica
kevinkeswick
Kevin Keswick -1
Who can blame them? I never thought I would say this but I think I would feel safer flying on a Comac C919 than I would flying on a 737 Max even after the software "fix"
skylab72
skylab72 2
So have you avoided Airbus 330s ever since Air France 447?
KineticRider
Randy Marco 0
The Max is a COMPLETELY different scenario, a TOTAL design flaw that existed since the 37-200 then was seriously exacerbated with the Max cg issue then became fatal with the design having NO redundancy AND then hid it from their customers & pilots!
hornet135
hornet135 1
Tell us how you really feel. A total design flaw that has existed for more than 50 years since the 737-200?
KineticRider
Randy Marco 0
That's right a 53 year old design flaw that few know about because Boeing REMOVED all references to it in the mid-80's!

Most 37 pilots aren't even aware of it.

Read here, https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/vestigal-design-issue-clouds-737-max-crash-investigations/ includes text from Boeing flight manual that was removed.

Profits ALWAYS win over cost reductions created through stretching an existing airframe, rather than starting from scratch.

Yes, the 37 has been a great plane but Boeing pushed it too far this time and they further cheaped out creating the MCAS to mask an inherent design flaw... THEN not making customers & pilots aware that there is a point of no return once the stab is past the point of manual operation!

Obviously, Boeing KNOWS the design flaw as evidenced by their 37-200 flight manual. They will and should lose ALL lawsuits pertaining to the Max, including loss of revenue.
skylab72
skylab72 0
Sorry, but your 50Yr old mis-trimmed issues are much different from the engines-too-big-induced-pitch-instability problem that spawned the MCAS issues chain. MANY certified commercial aircraft in the first two decades of the "jet age" had that problem or one very similar. I have heard the phrase "unload the trimtab before modifying the trim setting" from more than one certified IP.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON -1
Randy, First things first................................................................ click that down arrow --->

With that out of the way, go ask the guy who wrote that article you linked to why he never mentions how fast that Ethiopian 737 was going.

He won't answer for the same same reason you won't.
plausipo
Po Lau 0
I wouldn't project too far from it. It simply means all options on the table, and it should. Boeing also could take this time to consider what another guy has suggested to re-brand 737max8. With its different flight dynamics and control, it makes sense to have it re-certified as another type, and put in proper training and documentation. On the other hand, with O&M similar to 737, in the long run, a better technical and economical proposition for both the manufacturer and the operators.

登录

还没有帐户吗? 现在就注册(免费),设置诸多自定义功能、航班提醒等等!