Boeing's geography problems: Boeing is situated in Washington state, which has a lot of forest, water bodies and mountains. And planes can not fly through these things. Unless you see two skyscrapers and hijack couple of planes.
"A new aircraft was delivered to a Chinese airline every 21 hours". Wow, sounds like you should make a video on how manufacturers deliver their aircraft to airline customers! :)
Or how china destroys the climate with jet exhaust. We need to get China to ban planes, ban coal and rebuild all their houses to save the planet! Think of how many emissions we could reduce! They're the world's biggest polluter! We have to stop climate change!
The FAA and Boeing are very close due to both being American. The FAA lets Boeing get away with lots and cut corners to beat airbus/catch up when it comes to tests. This happened in both the Dreamliner and the 737-8 cut so many corners and was so rushed to compete with Airbus’s new engines they literally stuck the new fuel efficient engine ABOVE the wing so they wouldn’t have to change the design as the engine was larger and if it was below the wing it would hit the ground. This proved to be fatal and caused the planes to stall!!
@Hernando Malinche Boeing is not the only aircraft manufacturer. Multiple airlines used multiple airplane manufacturer's. Same with type of transportations. Your fears are unfounded as if you fear airplanes, then either heart attacks and cancers are far more likely to kill you than any airplane, even those with poor maintenance.
@Harold Potsdamer Ah! Dream. The government of the people, by the people and for the people complemented by the economy of the people, by the people and for the people.
Actually I'm not aware of any human area of endeavor the does a good job of riabily reviewing monitoring and disciplining itself and it's own capers i.e Mistakes errors and misconduct. That includes thr Ccp who police department s
The thing is that car manufacturers and every other kind of manufacturers do it themselves. This is because it costs a lot to do those tests and such extensive tests are (usually) already done by the manufacturers so they can verify the result and usually states are happy to take those results as confirmed. This is also how VW was able to cheat on its exhaust scandal
@@lostn65 I was be very surprised if Boeing doesnt. They spent 15 million dollars on lobbying alone last year, and thats just documented amount from a quick google search. imagine how much money do you have to give your college professor so you can grade your own work.
Ryanair did some "advise" on the C919. Which is not notable in the actual (probably minimal) input they actually gave, but huge news in them saying publicly to the world (and Boeing) "we're talking to other airplane makers". Which is of course the point...
@@16kashman When looking at passengers moved Ryanair is the 2nd biggest operator of Europe with 140 mill passengers in 2018, second only to the Lufthanza group at approximately 145 million passengers. Though I should note that the Lufthanza group consists of multiple individual operators, if you'd split them up then Ryanair would be first by quite a large margin.
I did an avionics certification at Boeing in 1980. At that time Boeing had TWO competing engineering groups to develop new products. One group was called (the best I can remember) "Product Engineering". The other was called "Staff Engineering". The job of the "Product Engineering" group was to layout the "nuts and bolts" of the product installation (hardware design...wiring diagrams, etc). The job of the "Staff Engineering" group was to test the installation to see if it met all safety considerations. Of course there were many disputes between the two groups...arguing "nuts and bolts" considerations against "safety" ones. I had heard, the "Staff Engineering" groups were downsized and/or possibly eliminated, to "speed up" certification of new systems. If that is true (but I hope it's not), Boeing's move to save a little on development and engineering costs, cost them BIG BUCKS paying reparations for their 737 Max fiasco.... a payout that might have otherwise been avoided if they spent more time (and $'s) evaluating the operation of their new pitch control system...that caused those two crashes.
It's a new world, #BadGuy1, and everyone will have to(?) follow China's lead in its taking over the world's transportation systems and follow the Chinese far different attitude to "casualties" from its expeditions in taking over the world...
In the mid 70's, FAA always popped up the 747 un-announced before boarding on international flights, hand picked one or two f/a at random to have a sudden quiz on emergency evacuation procedures . i wonder do they do it nowadays?
This is actually the biggest issue with the 737-8-9/Max: the the total loss of confidence in the FAA by other countries and regulators. Before all the MAX "issues" were known, the "seal of approval" of the FAA for any american manufacturer was more than enough for any other country or group of countries (the EU) to consider the aircraft safe and properly checked. You could trust the FAA. EASA (European Aviation Security Agency) will now make its own second check of the MAX.
The best aircraft was actually the 757, because there are just so little slots(because of the military) for so many passengers and the airport was not big enouth for the likes of 767 or A330.
Boeing:we will fix the max problem shortly, please be patient. China:ok I will be waiting for you. Coronavirus:you know what? no one is going to fly anymore.
Trump Considers Halting GE Venture’s Engine Deliveries to China CFM venture between GE and France is asking for license to export the LEAP 1C jet engines for China Trump administration is considering a proposal to stop deliveries of jet engines co-produced by General Electric Co. for the Comac airliner being built in China, a potential escalation an protective trade measure bu US could inflict harsh trade by the US Government. The administration may decline to stop the license license allowing CFM International, a joint venture of GE and France’s Safran SA, to export more of its LEAP 1C jet engines to China. People familiar with China's thievery of jet engine technology could be reversed engineerd by the dishonest Chinese Governmement.
Honestly I think the coronavirus thing is a blessing for Boeing. It takes a very long time to certify a plane. For the 737 max, the problem is even worse, because it has fundamental design flaws. Boeing can't go out and fix these design flaws, so it must use software to smooch them. After the two accidents and the loss of life, I personally wouldn't want to fly in a 737 max no matter what the FAA says.
@@coldcoilinc Then they should've act like they don't want any problem.. That's like saying "oh just because i don't study, it doesn't mean i want to fail" .. See how stupid that is?
@@ひひはひひ無し primary, secondary and tertiary language training on the mcas system (an ipad style bulletin was clearly ineffective) and trying to fit a bigger engine on an old style frame. The 75 could've fit those engines and saved that line but thats personal bias towards that gorgeous aircraft
@@nothanks-nr2lk Alright, cut corner implies Boeing knew the language training was ineffective but opt out of more in-depth training, can you explain how Boeing knew it was not adequate, and the trade study on the cost to sink more time into training mcas system vs training other aircraft operation, in relation to safety risk? 757 was a larger airframe, a size up from 737's role, can you provide the analysis on how modernizing 757 would still be viable as 737, and show how at the time of engineering development, the risk caused by the larger engine, despite mitigation measure, outweights the value lost by using the 757 platform? On a bonus, have you considered if you re-engineer 757 to fit the role 737 was supposed to fit, would it not have caused at least just as much aerodynamic stability problem as using a bigger engine on 737? If yes, can you explain this impact and how it would have been better mitigated by using 757 platform than 737 platform?
Does take a genius to figure out somethings wrong when two of the same plane crash within months of each other. And it doesnt take a genius to figure out the FAA is a biased authority (And is basically owned by Boeing)
1 2 3 Four Five I don’t think it’s that simple & the FAA is not owned or run by Boeing. Where Boeing went wrong is when they let the accountants run the show. Lion Air has much blame for not taking that particular accident out of service. The previous flight nearly crashed. The Ethiopian crew had all of the emergency communication from the Lion Air crash, but crashed anyway.
The first plane Boeing made was much less complex than the ARJ21. In fact they took a good 30 years to make their first jet liner and that was with a lot of government aid since the project was originally a military one.
Russians dropped out from the program because the Chinese side insisted on them getting all the revenue of the Chinese market whereas the Russians getting the revenue of rest of the world.
@@laocongge That's your imaginary. The CR929 finished it design detail and on process of making prototype. They share parts manufacturers like Airbus among EU countries.
A video about Beijing’s relationship to the rest of China would be fascinating (particularly the minority and autonomous zones considering what’s happening in Hong Kong)
The writing on the wall is clear. It's just a matter of time before they start manufacturing aircrafts and start exporting. USA is only speeding up the process.
@@w花b Chinese airlines will fly comac. They literally just carbon copied A220. And their C292 is a CC of the A350 and 787. When will they make something ORIGINAL
@@shahimagesyt Both "copies" are more fuel efficient than their Airbus counterparts that are supposedly copied. Airlines these days have razor thin margins - they live and die by fuel efficiency. You can accuse the Chinese of whatever you want, these planes are going to sell.
@@georgedang449 I'm not saying they arent going to sell, I'm saying is if they're gonna build and aircraft, at least try to make sense of originality in design. The fuel efficiency part can leave out since everyone is doing it.
@@shahimagesyt Laws of physics are what they are. Wheels have to be round, square wheels don't work. Neither the Chinese nor anyone else will use a less aerodynamic shape and ruin their fuel efficiency just for your amusement. The only innovation the Chinese had for C929 was using larger percentage of light composite material, in places of the plane that Boeing/Airbus previously thought not possible or not cost effective using old western manufacturing process. That's where the edge in fuel efficiency came from, not the shape. It's not the '50s. The most fuel efficient shape has already been calculated down to every last drop of fuel by supercomputers. Commercial airliners will stay boring to you for the foreseeable future.
The main reason China is developing their own planes is to keep up with Chinese demand for airliners. There is too much demand. China cannot wait years for an airliner. Also old planes have to be replaced with new planes because of air safety regulations. So there is a huge growing backlog for airplanes
B737max might be cheaper, also means less safety and less feautures The A320 might be more expensive but is safer and has atleast all important feautures without AI controlling it
Uh... no, the a320 relies on automation even more than the 737 MAX. Do you wanna know the fatal flaw of the MAX that the Frenchie doesn't have? The MCAS relies on a single sensor, every other anti stall system relies on two or more.
Airbus has usually relied more on automation. But that just means they have more experience with making it safe and the pilots flying Airbus are more used to it = again more safety.
Tbh, the same is true for Airbus. Comac is a new player that has the potential to disrupt the entire airplane market, this is not something that should be taken lightly by the current players.
Given relationship between EU and China , Airbus no wonder would have it's share in China market for long znd so on. But Boeing might dim there. The US government's caused it.
@@TISU07 I know about that, but i have sinplified everithing so i could make a shorter, more direct and easier to call atention coment. Ps: Not a small division but theyr bigest divisions.
@@nicolasreinaldet732 Airbus only owns 51% of the CS series aircraft, Quebec province of Canada owns 30% of the aircraft. They did not purchase Bombardier, Bombardier gave 51% of the CS series to Airbus to use their power to get those Delta sales to keep the production lines open. Bombardier has a option to buy back majority of the plane over a period of time.
Man, how much half a year can change. In September, Boeings goal seems to have been to stay the #1, now their only goal is to somehow survive for a few more weeks.
I would really love to see SAAB make more commercial planes, with their long experience of all different types of planes i really think they could become a major competitor
My thought with COMAC is it will go one of two ways. 1) their new plane is a complete successful. (Unlikely) Although if it is successful enough, than it will force more competition on the global stage for short to medium range aircraft. The likely hood of it being certified worldwide is limited to how good it is. But its main market will be China, Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of central Asia. Countries opposed to China in those regions wont buy it of course. It will still take time to make it competitive in the Americas, America, and Europe. It will also take deals with airlines that aren't always the best. For Airbus to move into the US market its had to give a deal to Eastern Airlines that Airbus' nlcheif negotiator said was as if the airline had asked that the Effiel Tower be moved to New York. For free. And Boeing and Airbus are truly experts in this game. Increased quality, and prices, will help retain established airlines with deep pockets. While any problem with Chinas plane will be highlighted quickly and used for reasons not to buy it. COMAC needs a large slush fund, and dedication if they hope to see planes flying in airlines that aren't aligned to China. If this does fail however, China will lose credibility in manufacturing aircraft. And should it fail due to crashes, than China's certification committee will lose credibility worldwide. And the EU, Brits, or the FAA will become the primary. It will also cause China to be seen as a country who cant develop new stuff on their own. Low cost high tech doesn't mean high quality as well. China needs success. They've spent to long building a international position that allows them to judge, and not be judged.
Yeah, the Chinese are not going to take any chances with the C919 as so much hinges on its success, they were damn careful with their first jet ARJ21 hence the numerous delays and even then it hasnt been in service long enough for us to fully gauge its service. But the moment COMAC planes are certified safe and start being commercially successful with no crashes, the Chinese are going to scale FAST.
low cost high tech can means high quality, just depends on how much trade secrets and design blueprints China has espionage out from Boeing and Airbus over the years..... just like those high speed rails, after years of operation, China's high speed rail has the second lowest accident and fatality rate in the world.
@@champan250 My understanding is that high speed rail ventures China had with their foreign partners like Bombardier, Siemens, Kawasawki etc all had built in tech transfer agreements, so that tech was handed over as part of the deal. Current gen high speed rail is developed by China itself from that foreign tech. Still very impressive safety numbers though, since China now has almost TWICE the amount of high speed rail than the rest of the world combined, so those safety numbers are achieved based on HUGE passenger volume. If they can do the same with airliners they would save so much money in the future. Even if no other countries import the COMAC planes just the Chinese market would be enough to keep COMAC busy for decades. After that foreign airliners would be fools not to buy from COMAC since the cost difference would surely be significant.
@@chamade166 "very un-American".... well what you want, oil- use oriented economy that shits on everything else and a country that charges you to even breathe air...
And now China is developing C929 which the same size of Boeing A787, this is what Boeing really worry about. Boeing can use FAA to reject C929 in the coming days. But China can sell these cheaper aircrafts to Chinese cities and maybe Africa or middle east contries. Sooner or later, C929 will be accepted by the whole world. (BTW, the engine of C929 is being develped by China and Russia)
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 They're too heavily diversified to be on the edge, even if the Chinese quit buying commercial ariliners Boeing still has massive military divisions and they also make less noticiable things like satellites as well as various types of computer systems and parts for airplanes. They also either outright own, or own stock in various aerospace subcontractors so even when you buy from some "competitors" you may wind up with Boeing parts. Boeing is also starting to expand into the growing market of commercial space related equipment and will likely be a pioneer in future industries like asteroid mining. I hate to use the phrase since it's so overused/misused but Boeing is frankly "too big to fail" and even if they start to lag in commercial airlines, even if China slows down purchases or even stops purchases, there are so many different militaries and governments they sell to that Boeing is unlikely to fall off any ledge even if they do stop being the global leader in the aerospace industry
Manufacturing aircraft is very hard. In America we have been manufacturing planes since we invented them, and been developing aircraft regulations for almost as long. You don't just invent a 737, or an A320, it takes decades of research, design doctrine, a strong engineering base, and money. America has the highest educated workforce by far, and in China even if you wanted to go into aerospace engineering the staff are way less educated on the practical design of aircraft than in America cause China doesn't do it. At my college I know professors who were lead designers for Gulfstream, Boeing, and Lockheed. You can't teach engineers how to build an airplane if you haven't built an airplane, it's one of the most information dense and complicated fields of engineering.
Amatthew123 I completely agree, and this comment lends to my comment. I would fly on a commercial sized Cessna, Or Gulfstream way before I would fly on a company’s first or second try at building an aircraft
"America has the highest educated workforce by far"? Worldwide? I doubt it would make the top 20. I doubt it's even the best educated in North America. Still, facts never stopped Muricans making endless 'best in the world' claims.
@@Alan_Mac Across the entire educational spectrum, perhaps, but the US has the highest concentration of very highly educated workers anywhere, although they weren't all necessarily educated in the US
@@janejan9728 I'm sure there are various ways of measuring this - number of graduates per capita, number of graduates with a 4 year degree equivalent per capita, number of PhDs per capita etc etc. None of these would put The US in the, "highest educated workforce by far" position, which was really my point.
I supported the assembly of McDonald Douglas, MD-80's, in Shanghai in the mid 1980's. So China is NOT new to western aircraft assembly and avionics. A Chinese aircraft factory, in Shenyang, also assembled vertical tail sections for Boeing aircraft in the early 1980's. Boeing helped build their own competition by allowing the Chinese to strong arm them into assisting the Chinese aircraft industry and giving up manufacturing secrets to them...in order to get aircraft orders.
I highly doubt the clip at 9:04 is from Wendover themselves. The people Wendover stole the videos from probably blurred it. Wendover clearly showed Air China's logos in the video.
@@Infamous_man Given the size of Wendover's channel, it's likely just stock footage, and whoever made the stock footage censored it to avoid possible legal issues.
China building their own aircraft is a game-changer. While it may take a few years for these craft to prove themselves, this has tremendous export potential for China. It severely dent Airbus & Boeings market share internationally. The C919 will use many european & US parts - putting it almost on par with existing aircraft from other manufacturers.
Just a note about Embraer, Wendover: the company was created by the Brazilian government in the 1969 and developed its airplanes in-house. The joint venture with Boeing came about after Bombardier did its own joint venture with AirBus - quite recently.
Another great video by WP. In fact, Hainan Airlines' major shareholder (24%~25%) belongs to the Governmnet of the province of Hainan. It's not quite accurate to say HNA is not a state-owned enterprise.
Trump: C919 is a national security risk to US, therefore ban GE selling engine to COMAC should take care the problem. Free trade, democracy and open competition is a privilege at US discretion.
The 919 doesn’t use “GE” engines. They are CFM engines. CFM is a 50-50 joint venture between GE & Safran. “50-50” hence Safran plays as much a role in the engine as GE does
When USA does joint ventures, the foreign country must cede over 90% of the profits made. Case example: AAPL got this big by exploiting China which only gets $6 per $1400 iphone sold, when it only costs $350 including parts & manufacturing. AAPL is also exploiting the ego of US citizens by exorbitant profit margins. Plus the USPTO and US IP is complete farcical BS, when one can patent 1) rounded corners, 2) slide-to-lock and 3) rubberbanding, now revoked patents everywhere all over the world, including the USA. However this didn't stop the $1Bn payout from Samsung to AAPL in a California Kangaroo court on the payola. Even though the patents were already invalidated. IP really stands for idiot propaganda. It's not really 50/50 buddy. And nobody forced the US to setup elsewhere either. They did it out of their own volition, willingly. Leftovers of exploitation, colonialism, imperialism, slavery and exceptionalism. Old vicious habits die hard in the greedy capitalist states.
Lucien Pan The joint venture is between a US company and a French company - not sure why Apple is relevant here. There is no law that says foreign countries must cede 90% of the profits for joint ventures. This is bonkers.
"The trade war will pass" not sure about that one, I think its only getting started, this will only end when one country economically is destroyed, in the age of nuclear weapons this is how superpowers fight Wars, and make no mistake both sides cant afford to stand down.
The current American government is following mercantilist economics which Adam Smith discredited 240 years ago. The next US government (of either party) will be more economically literate and return to something closer to free trade. So this trade war is a temporary aberration.
@@Dave_Sisson I will have to look into mercantilist economic, I have to say it's a new one to me, but what I do know both the USA and China has seen each other have the biggest enemy for quite a while now, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
@@alexm8047 What I should have said is that the current U.S. government doesn't understand high school level economics. It's all about trade. Countries that sell things they make efficiently and use the money to buy stuff they are not very good at making do better than countries that try to make everything themselves.
@@alexm8047 Mercantilism is based on the idea that all nations should strive to be totally self-sufficient in resources as far as possible, sell only finished goods and buy only the raw materials that they cannot find a replacement for or do without (roughly; there's quite a bit more to it, but that covers most of it), in order to run the largest possible trade surplus. It does have the tiny flaw that it therefore leads to quite a lot of wars, and perhaps a smidgeon of colonialism
BA rejected the Demming principle, " eliminate bonuses because execs work for bonus money instead of what's best for the company". Seems like he was spot on.
The plane can fly fine without MCAS. What you have said is incorrect. The larger engines do not change the way the plane flies, they change the amount of force required to push down on the yoke during high AOAs and Bank Angles.
Going on Boeing's recent performance China would be better off sticking with Airbus or making their own. China is not especially known for quality products but I'm sure they can surpass that of Boeings :)
Boeing might have earn all these money in this few years but everyone knows that China will strip the aircraft and copy every damn thing on the plane. Benefit this generation
@@asktoseducemiss434 china metal is garbage. I don't think they will copy anytime soon.if so let them go what they like. But I see where you're coming from tho
You forgot one point, Boeing is one of the defense contractor that got involved in Taiwan arm-sales. It is up to China when and how to put sanction to Boeing on such arm-sales.
Airbus-Boeing-Comac-Dornier-Embraer- oh.... It's a shame Fokker is out of business or we could have this "ABCDE" of aviation thing going a little bit longer.
I agree with this video and IMO one of the most informative videos WP have recently produced. With the "trade war" I thought Boeing was very vulnerable and the grounding and return to service of the 737 Max series is a very powerful lever against the US. I understand the increase in point to point routes in the tier 3 cities but I have always wondered why Chinese airlines did not order more A380s to reduce the slot constraints at the major airports. With the way EK uses that A380 gave Chinese airlines a template of how to deploy them.
I think wendover more meant it as a „respected authority“ in global terms rather than a global regulator itself. The FAA only regulates US-Airspace anyway 🤷🏻♂️
Jeffrey Johnson you are correct. For some member states it is a copy/paste situation, since the Chicago convention some differences have appeared but the fundamental core remains the same, which is why they made standards applicable worldwide, not necessarily to look like they copied since back then every states was doing whatever it wanted with regulations
@Jeffrey Johnson Except that it's the other way around,the annexes to the Chicago conventions were made to harmonize aviation and increase safety,the regulations are made by icao,then the countries that agreed to the convention can choose to implement them,make their own regulations or reject some and implement others.
The Xian MA60 is a turboprop-powered airliner produced by China's Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation under the Aviation Industry Corporation of China.
@@spetsnazttv6724 They never applied for permit in US or Europe. MA60 has STOL capability, is meant to be used in tiny 3rd world country airports and improvised landing strips with unpaved runways, the kind that still used DC-3 and DC-5s. US and Europe didn't have these kind of conditions, and they're not fuel efficient enough to compete against normal commercial planes. In its niche, the plane had no competition aside from ancient DC-3/DC-5 and Russian AN-24, since modern turboprops, much less turbofans, can't land in places these are supposed to operate out of. It had a fatal accident, when it tried to land in an island airport (repurposed from an old military air strip) in fog, ruled to be due to human error after blackbox recovery. The pilot tried to land it like the old DC-3 that used to operate out of there, and found out it's not as rugged.
I'm curious what Boeing is doing to really fix the problem with the 737 Max. Seems they really should either go back to the original engines designed for the 737, or redesign the 737 to not need the MCAS (the device that caused the crashes). Be even more maddening then the self certification Boeing was allowed to certify their own planes, not sure what has been to address that problem.
Gareth Ifan yes, they did. without Operation Paperclip american post war aerospace industry would not have advanced at the rate it did. nasa would not have happened and the space program including the moon landing would not have happened without the german scientists. america kidnapped top german scientists at the end of the war and forced them to relocate and work for america in exchage for their and their families’ lives. these are well known facts, but don’t let that stop you from being a hypocrite
@@koyotekola6916 am criticizing fanatics from all religions, not just radical muslim , either sunni or shiaa (aka arab and iranian as they battle for power and dominance )
@@antilove84 Then why are you criticizing the far right? I know there are extremists on both sides, but criticize only one? Hitler and Stalin were fascist, yet they were socialists, wanting total control. That's what the Democratic Party in America is all about. As soon as they consolidate power, it will be apparent what their grand plan is.
I'll never take MAX, the design is fundamentally flawed. With a tendency of tipping over while accelerating indicates the lack of stability. No commercial airliner should be designed that way. I wonder how it got through the FAA.
That is actually incorrect. The MAX is not unstable in this regard, and can fly perfectly without MCAS. The only reason MCAS was installed was to maintain the plane's type rating, as the yoke force gradient to push the nose down during high AOA and Bank Angle situations was less.
kightremin - You have no idea what you are talking about. The design of the 737MAX is NOT fundamentally flawed nor does it have a tendency to "tip over while accelerating."
@@waterdrinkingexpert6797 - The yoke force gradient was actually more, not less. That's why MCAS was needed, to lessen the yoke force by automatically inputting ND trim.
In the long run, which is the game the CCP is playing, it doesnt matter. China already produces its own scooters and cars. Commercial aircraft are soon on the horizon. So it doesnt matter what Boeing or Airbus do, the CCP will replace them with domestically made aircraft as soon as it can. And just like with all its other markets, outsiders will be pushed out (largely) and domestically produced goods will be given an unfair advantage. Edit: Oh, 7:44 this video mentions that.
We’ve had Boeing’s China Problem. We’ve had China’s Geography Problem. Now to complete the trinity we must have...
Geography’s Boeing Problem
Boeing's geography problems: Boeing is situated in Washington state, which has a lot of forest, water bodies and mountains. And planes can not fly through these things. Unless you see two skyscrapers and hijack couple of planes.
Sounds like a video to cover the attempts of Boeing aircraft trying to hug the earth, and the two notorious cases where they've succeeded.
@@16kashman bruh the planes can just fly _over_ them
See: global warming
MCAS vs terrain
A video about planes AND China? What is this, some sort of crossover episode?
It's a self crossover
Didn‘t expect mr.peanutbutter to be here
Crossover Productions.
Bill I broken my own ankles doing that
Most ambitious crossover ever
"A new aircraft was delivered to a Chinese airline every 21 hours". Wow, sounds like you should make a video on how manufacturers deliver their aircraft to airline customers! :)
Or how china destroys the climate with jet exhaust. We need to get China to ban planes, ban coal and rebuild all their houses to save the planet! Think of how many emissions we could reduce! They're the world's biggest polluter! We have to stop climate change!
Canadian Plane Spotter They fly them.
@@knd775 Fascinating -_-
Black Dove's RUclips Channel lol
I think the Chinese would make and deliver planes every 5 hours
2 crashes, 346 deaths. And FAA give authority to Boeing to review themselves?? Very fishy
china quality - boeing is learning about the local market
@@test-mm7bv Just blame China for every American fault
Boeing is able to sell, because people like you choose to fly in their planes, via airlines. It is called a market.
The FAA and Boeing are very close due to both being American. The FAA lets Boeing get away with lots and cut corners to beat airbus/catch up when it comes to tests. This happened in both the Dreamliner and the 737-8 cut so many corners and was so rushed to compete with Airbus’s new engines they literally stuck the new fuel efficient engine ABOVE the wing so they wouldn’t have to change the design as the engine was larger and if it was below the wing it would hit the ground. This proved to be fatal and caused the planes to stall!!
@Hernando Malinche Boeing is not the only aircraft manufacturer. Multiple airlines used multiple airplane manufacturer's. Same with type of transportations. Your fears are unfounded as if you fear airplanes, then either heart attacks and cancers are far more likely to kill you than any airplane, even those with poor maintenance.
Please make a vid about how airline alliances work (Star Alliance, SkyTeam and Oneworld). 😁
I always wondered how they worked!
Yess
Make it happen!
good idea !
I always wondered why some airline pairs for longer flights required a self-connection, and others don’t. Is that alliances?
In China most big companies are government owned, in the USA most government is big company owned.
No wonder these two nations are on a collision course.
@Harold Potsdamer hahahaha, wtf, how you simplify that so much! -.-
@Harold Potsdamer Ah! Dream. The government of the people, by the people and for the people complemented by the economy of the people, by the people and for the people.
In capitalist America, company owns you.
naive
Planes and China together
You’ve combined your hobbies
Daniyal Ali Soo true 😂😂
Daniyal Ali next video:
USA's TRAIN PROBLEM
@@phil9916 In this channel seldomly you will see any problem in America
I think he has a crush for Chinese lolies.
@@phil9916 guess what...
No airplane company should EVER. Be able to self certify anything on their plane. Like a fox in a chicken coop
Actually I'm not aware of any human area of endeavor the does a good job of riabily reviewing monitoring and disciplining itself and it's own capers i.e
Mistakes errors and misconduct. That includes thr Ccp who police department s
No one is above big corporations! No one has the right to check them!
Yes. What about the Police
The thing is that car manufacturers and every other kind of manufacturers do it themselves. This is because it costs a lot to do those tests and such extensive tests are (usually) already done by the manufacturers so they can verify the result and usually states are happy to take those results as confirmed. This is also how VW was able to cheat on its exhaust scandal
Sangay I agree but car manufacturers can,t kill hundreds in one shot or fall 40,000 feet
737MAX destroyed FAA’s credibility and that will be costly!
FAA lost its credibility over the past 20 yrs.
It wouldn't surprise me if FAA was receiving checks from Boeing tbh.
FAA gave up its credibility when they let Boeing to grade their own homework.
@@lostn65 I was be very surprised if Boeing doesnt. They spent 15 million dollars on lobbying alone last year, and thats just documented amount from a quick google search. imagine how much money do you have to give your college professor so you can grade your own work.
They deserve everything of the crashing.
A new plane: *exists*
Ryanair: we can do $20 each if you can do 800 seats
DerekSP they will probably order like 500 for like 1 million dollars each
Ryanair did some "advise" on the C919. Which is not notable in the actual (probably minimal) input they actually gave, but huge news in them saying publicly to the world (and Boeing) "we're talking to other airplane makers". Which is of course the point...
How big or influential is ryanair? Cuz i have no idea.
@@16kashman When looking at passengers moved Ryanair is the 2nd biggest operator of Europe with 140 mill passengers in 2018, second only to the Lufthanza group at approximately 145 million passengers. Though I should note that the Lufthanza group consists of multiple individual operators, if you'd split them up then Ryanair would be first by quite a large margin.
kaushik ghosh Ryanair is well known for their landing skills.
Can you do more Geography problem videos? Those were my absolute favorite!
yes
"Best I can do is planes"
He should do europe or Australia
Yes yes
Indonesia Geographic Problem
I did an avionics certification at Boeing in 1980. At that time Boeing had TWO competing engineering groups to develop new products. One group was called (the best I can remember) "Product Engineering". The other was called "Staff Engineering". The job of the "Product Engineering" group was to layout the "nuts and bolts" of the product installation (hardware design...wiring diagrams, etc). The job of the "Staff Engineering" group was to test the installation to see if it met all safety considerations. Of course there were many disputes between the two groups...arguing "nuts and bolts" considerations against "safety" ones. I had heard, the "Staff Engineering" groups were downsized and/or possibly eliminated, to "speed up" certification of new systems. If that is true (but I hope it's not), Boeing's move to save a little on development and engineering costs, cost them BIG BUCKS paying reparations for their 737 Max fiasco.... a payout that might have otherwise been avoided if they spent more time (and $'s) evaluating the operation of their new pitch control system...that caused those two crashes.
It's a new world, #BadGuy1, and everyone will have to(?) follow China's lead in its taking over the world's transportation systems and follow the Chinese far different attitude to "casualties" from its expeditions in taking over the world...
"There seems to be some news of planes development related to China"
Wendover Productions : Oh yeah, it's all coming together
@grimm reaper
good luck
The FAA shouldn’t have ties to anyone except the people and their safety.
Jackson Brown you clearly haven’t met Senate Majority Leader Moscow Mitch
Man, Just like COMAC is a Chinese govt-owned airplane manufacturer company, US govt. is a Boeing (and other corp.) owned govt.
In the mid 70's, FAA always popped up the 747 un-announced before boarding on international flights, hand picked one or two f/a at random to have a sudden quiz on emergency evacuation procedures . i wonder do they do it nowadays?
This is actually the biggest issue with the 737-8-9/Max: the the total loss of confidence in the FAA by other countries and regulators.
Before all the MAX "issues" were known, the "seal of approval" of the FAA for any american manufacturer was more than enough for any other country or group of countries (the EU) to consider the aircraft safe and properly checked. You could trust the FAA.
EASA (European Aviation Security Agency) will now make its own second check of the MAX.
Yes ideally i should be that way. The problem is technology. Boeing has all the technology and FAA is dependent on Boeing.
Wendover: * makes vid on China *
Me: oh is this about China’s economic laws?
Wendover: *P L A N E S*
Planes are awesome.
Zachary Mohammadi you’re hilarious dude I would’ve never known he made video about planed if you didn’t comment on every single video about it!
I'm afraid you'll need to go to polymatter for the economic vids, pal. This is plane country.
The most ambitious crossover in recent history
trains are better
"Perhaps Boeing's largest problem is still to come."
Buddy, you had no idea.
bladerunner12 haha😅
Anubhav Jais corona
Coronavirus: I’m going to end Boeing’s whole career!
2022: 787 deliveries halted for 14 months
From 2024: Yup. Still coming.
How do you get your very own 737 Max? Buy a piece of land and wait...
nice
Pitch this on Shark tank
@@asp4497 Kevin O'Leary will ask too much
Yeah, but if you end up with one it's likely to "need work"-meaning putting a million pieces back together.
@@Inkling777 Details, details
"This is an aircraft particularly suited to China's geography."
I think he out-Wendovered himself
Lol yeah as if the A320s, A220s and earlier B737s are not also perfect for the exact same geography 😆
China
next
wwⅢ
The best aircraft was actually the 757, because there are just so little slots(because of the military) for so many passengers and the airport was not big enouth for the likes of 767 or A330.
Perfect, just what I needed to avoid doing my homework!
Go do your homework! Haven't you watched til the end? You gotta keep improving yourself!
You probably learned more from this than your regular curriculum any way.
I listened to this while doing my homework
@TeamHansen19 we don't know it yet. Maybe he's going to be a RUclipsr once he found out he failed on his study. Gotta learn them videos while he can
And the GRE Test!
Boeing:we will fix the max problem shortly, please be patient.
China:ok I will be waiting for you.
Coronavirus:you know what? no one is going to fly anymore.
Trump Considers Halting GE Venture’s Engine Deliveries to China
CFM venture between GE and France is asking for license to export the LEAP 1C jet engines for China
Trump administration is considering a proposal to stop deliveries of jet engines co-produced by General Electric Co. for the Comac airliner being built in China, a potential escalation an protective trade measure bu US could inflict harsh trade by the US Government.
The administration may decline to stop the license license allowing CFM International, a joint venture of GE and France’s Safran SA, to export more of its LEAP 1C jet engines to China. People familiar with China's thievery of jet engine technology could be reversed engineerd by the dishonest Chinese Governmement.
underrated
Honestly I think the coronavirus thing is a blessing for Boeing. It takes a very long time to certify a plane. For the 737 max, the problem is even worse, because it has fundamental design flaws. Boeing can't go out and fix these design flaws, so it must use software to smooch them. After the two accidents and the loss of life, I personally wouldn't want to fly in a 737 max no matter what the FAA says.
RealLifeLore : Real things in life.
Wendover production : Planes forever (literally in every video).
Half as interesting : Full as interesting.
Bendover**
Hotel? Trivago
What does WH mean?
Mustard: Trains and Planes
This comment makes no sense
If only Boeing had cared about getting a quality plane out, instead of just meeting a corporate deadline for as cheap as possible.
Interestingly, some CEOs are opposed to quarterly earnings - saying that such metric often hurt the company in the long run.
i really watch a documentary about that issue! they really care only about the money! and i know their greed will be their doom!
If you think Boeing wanted a problem then you're crazy. The last thing they wanted was what's happening. Nice try though
Never, ever let the accounting department run your company, they work for you, not the other way around.
@@coldcoilinc Then they should've act like they don't want any problem.. That's like saying "oh just because i don't study, it doesn't mean i want to fail" .. See how stupid that is?
Boeing's problem are self-made. If they didn't cut corners on 737MAX it wouldn't be in such trouble.
pretty much.
Care to explain how corners were cut, Boeing expert?
@@ひひはひひ無し primary, secondary and tertiary language training on the mcas system (an ipad style bulletin was clearly ineffective) and trying to fit a bigger engine on an old style frame. The 75 could've fit those engines and saved that line but thats personal bias towards that gorgeous aircraft
@@nothanks-nr2lk Alright, cut corner implies Boeing knew the language training was ineffective but opt out of more in-depth training, can you explain how Boeing knew it was not adequate, and the trade study on the cost to sink more time into training mcas system vs training other aircraft operation, in relation to safety risk?
757 was a larger airframe, a size up from 737's role, can you provide the analysis on how modernizing 757 would still be viable as 737, and show how at the time of engineering development, the risk caused by the larger engine, despite mitigation measure, outweights the value lost by using the 757 platform? On a bonus, have you considered if you re-engineer 757 to fit the role 737 was supposed to fit, would it not have caused at least just as much aerodynamic stability problem as using a bigger engine on 737? If yes, can you explain this impact and how it would have been better mitigated by using 757 platform than 737 platform?
@@ひひはひひ無し do you work for boeing?
Does take a genius to figure out somethings wrong when two of the same plane crash within months of each other.
And it doesnt take a genius to figure out the FAA is a biased authority (And is basically owned by Boeing)
1 2 3 Four Five regulatory capture is the phrase you’re looking for
1 2 3 Four Five I don’t think it’s that simple & the FAA is not owned or run by Boeing. Where Boeing went wrong is when they let the accountants run the show. Lion Air has much blame for not taking that particular accident out of service. The previous flight nearly crashed. The Ethiopian crew had all of the emergency communication from the Lion Air crash, but crashed anyway.
The FAA is to Boeing as Boeing is to the American government.
@@shogunofjapan6833 “Regulatory capture” is just a nice way of saying corrupt!
It only takes a genius to decide an air plane manufacture should be trusted to certify their own planes.
Wendover Productions: Airplanes
PolyMatter: China
Both: This video
Wendover = ✈️
Ahahaha true af
speaking of, I never really got an answer before
why is polymatter so furiously supportive of anything china related and focuses on them so much?
Real Life lore, Toyota Corolla
@@PaulusCunctator For views i guess
This guy really can't go a month without making an episode about planes
I wouldn't have it any other way
No
Plane is interesting
You can't 5 mins without having a moan about something.
zealman79 ok boomer
Boeing: No, we won't pay you billions of dollars for compensation.
China: We could always go to Airbu-
Boeing: No! You shall not use the A word.
Thank god for Duopoly!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
that ARJ21 is like a plane version of Berlin Brandenburg airport
I'd like thiscomment, but it's at 69 upvotes and i don't want to change it
The first plane Boeing made was much less complex than the ARJ21. In fact they took a good 30 years to make their first jet liner and that was with a lot of government aid since the project was originally a military one.
The CR929 is being developed by CRAIC which is a joint venture between Chinese COMAC and Russian UAC.
Russians joined in half way, as the trade war happened. Trump's making Russia great again.
@@georgedang449 Yes, they also select non US engines development as choices between RR and Russian PD engines.
George Dang totally absolutely and targetly right
Russians dropped out from the program because the Chinese side insisted on them getting all the revenue of the Chinese market whereas the Russians getting the revenue of rest of the world.
@@laocongge That's your imaginary. The CR929 finished it design detail and on process of making prototype. They share parts manufacturers like Airbus among EU countries.
When I went to the Museum of Flight in Seattle, I passed by so many China Eastern planes parked at Boeing.
Been there twice. Epic place. Dis you sit in the SR71 pilot seat?
Whoah?
Andrew McClure what? SR-71 was there?
They were probably 737 MAXs already ordered by China Eastern but unable to be delivered because of the grounding.
classiccarz um ok
Keep following the Alex jones cult I guess
I misread the title at first as BEIJING'S China Problem and I was intrigued.
Now I see it actually says BOEING...
*_AND NOW i'M EXCITED_*
Ironic that you're excited considering Boeing is only one letter from Boring
@@prim16 funny.
A video about Beijing’s relationship to the rest of China would be fascinating (particularly the minority and autonomous zones considering what’s happening in Hong Kong)
The writing on the wall is clear. It's just a matter of time before they start manufacturing aircrafts and start exporting. USA is only speeding up the process.
China: **Makes even more problems for Boeing**
Boeing: *NOW THIS IS AN AVENGERS LEVEL THREAT*
China: “I am inevitable.”
@@w花b Chinese airlines will fly comac. They literally just carbon copied A220. And their C292 is a CC of the A350 and 787. When will they make something ORIGINAL
@@shahimagesyt Both "copies" are more fuel efficient than their Airbus counterparts that are supposedly copied. Airlines these days have razor thin margins - they live and die by fuel efficiency. You can accuse the Chinese of whatever you want, these planes are going to sell.
@@georgedang449 I'm not saying they arent going to sell, I'm saying is if they're gonna build and aircraft, at least try to make sense of originality in design. The fuel efficiency part can leave out since everyone is doing it.
@@shahimagesyt Laws of physics are what they are. Wheels have to be round, square wheels don't work. Neither the Chinese nor anyone else will use a less aerodynamic shape and ruin their fuel efficiency just for your amusement. The only innovation the Chinese had for C929 was using larger percentage of light composite material, in places of the plane that Boeing/Airbus previously thought not possible or not cost effective using old western manufacturing process. That's where the edge in fuel efficiency came from, not the shape. It's not the '50s. The most fuel efficient shape has already been calculated down to every last drop of fuel by supercomputers. Commercial airliners will stay boring to you for the foreseeable future.
I love these long detailed videos about transport. Love this channel!!!!!!
Take a shot every time he says
*“Chinese”*
*“Boeing”*
*“MAX”*
You killed my son!
not SirBeasty he says “Chinese” “Boeing” and “max” in a video about China, Boeing and the 737 max? No way.
@@kierancalder8573 not the boy!
Brb grabbing my bier
Dude I have alcohol poisoning now, FUCK
The main reason China is developing their own planes is to keep up with Chinese demand for
airliners. There is too much demand. China cannot wait years for an airliner. Also old planes have to be replaced with new planes because of air safety regulations. So there is a huge growing backlog for airplanes
Wendover Planes and Polymatter China. It's my lucky day
KK ✈️
Hearing a public company say the word 'self regulate' is almost ALWAYS a giant red flag.
To all the people who love there family never be a passanger on a Boeing 737 max. It has a major design problem and very high stalling chances.
@Hal 9000 keep your trap shut and stick to your toilet paper world.
@Hal 9000 My you folks sound like very intelligent people born with a sewer mouths?
@Lucas Wu - Yeah, the U.S. is so "third world" that everybody wants to move here and nobody wants to move to your shit country.
B737max might be cheaper, also means less safety and less feautures
The A320 might be more expensive but is safer and has atleast all important feautures without AI controlling it
Uh... no, the a320 relies on automation even more than the 737 MAX. Do you wanna know the fatal flaw of the MAX that the Frenchie doesn't have?
The MCAS relies on a single sensor, every other anti stall system relies on two or more.
Airplane Engine The A320 is actually more fly-by-wire than the 737.
Airbus has usually relied more on automation. But that just means they have more experience with making it safe and the pilots flying Airbus are more used to it = again more safety.
Maybe, maybe not
Tbh, the same is true for Airbus. Comac is a new player that has the potential to disrupt the entire airplane market, this is not something that should be taken lightly by the current players.
Given relationship between EU and China , Airbus no wonder would have it's share in China market for long znd so on. But Boeing might dim there. The US government's caused it.
keep on disrupting. russia does lots of disrupting, but certainly not in the airplane market
I wouldn't fly on any of that chinese shite. They have garbage standards.
@@PwerRanger01 Until you find super standard on 737MAX.
@@PwerRanger01 Bet you typed this with either a laptop or a phone made in China
Would you do a video about Boeing and Airbus buiyng Embraer and bombardier ?
they're not bought Embraer nor Bombardier, they're just bought a SMALL division of Embraer and Bombardier. IIRC
@@TISU07 I know about that, but i have sinplified everithing so i could make a shorter, more direct and easier to call atention coment.
Ps: Not a small division but theyr bigest divisions.
@@nicolasreinaldet732 Airbus only owns 51% of the CS series aircraft, Quebec province of Canada owns 30% of the aircraft. They did not purchase Bombardier, Bombardier gave 51% of the CS series to Airbus to use their power to get those Delta sales to keep the production lines open. Bombardier has a option to buy back majority of the plane over a period of time.
@@Baseshocks I know about that, but i have sinplified everithing so i could make a shorter, more direct and easier to call atention coment.
@@Baseshocks Ps: By how defensive your coment is i guess that the C-series sale wased as polemic in Canada as EMBRAER comercial wased in Brazil.
Aviation management major here and I loved this video/ channel.
I didn't know that was a major? Well regardless I appreciate what you do it's pretty facinating
Man, how much half a year can change.
In September, Boeings goal seems to have been to stay the #1, now their only goal is to somehow survive for a few more weeks.
"random dude coming from nowhere" *I BUILD FOR CHINA*
this make me want to play original C&C
@@KevinRawbay the general one
It's very hot in here.
It will look *real* nice when it's done
With matching old Chinese guy sound.
I would really love to see SAAB make more commercial planes, with their long experience of all different types of planes i really think they could become a major competitor
It’ll never happen but I’d love it if they re-entered the automobile market
SAAB is basically Swedens IKEA for the military market now
I work at Saab, ask me anything
@@NE0MAS Dont really have to, both my parents to and also my brother does
SAAB is a competitor in the jet fighter market
My thought with COMAC is it will go one of two ways.
1) their new plane is a complete successful. (Unlikely) Although if it is successful enough, than it will force more competition on the global stage for short to medium range aircraft. The likely hood of it being certified worldwide is limited to how good it is. But its main market will be China, Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of central Asia. Countries opposed to China in those regions wont buy it of course. It will still take time to make it competitive in the Americas, America, and Europe. It will also take deals with airlines that aren't always the best. For Airbus to move into the US market its had to give a deal to Eastern Airlines that Airbus' nlcheif negotiator said was as if the airline had asked that the Effiel Tower be moved to New York. For free. And Boeing and Airbus are truly experts in this game. Increased quality, and prices, will help retain established airlines with deep pockets. While any problem with Chinas plane will be highlighted quickly and used for reasons not to buy it. COMAC needs a large slush fund, and dedication if they hope to see planes flying in airlines that aren't aligned to China.
If this does fail however, China will lose credibility in manufacturing aircraft. And should it fail due to crashes, than China's certification committee will lose credibility worldwide. And the EU, Brits, or the FAA will become the primary. It will also cause China to be seen as a country who cant develop new stuff on their own. Low cost high tech doesn't mean high quality as well. China needs success. They've spent to long building a international position that allows them to judge, and not be judged.
Yeah, the Chinese are not going to take any chances with the C919 as so much hinges on its success, they were damn careful with their first jet ARJ21 hence the numerous delays and even then it hasnt been in service long enough for us to fully gauge its service. But the moment COMAC planes are certified safe and start being commercially successful with no crashes, the Chinese are going to scale FAST.
low cost high tech can means high quality, just depends on how much trade secrets and design blueprints China has espionage out from Boeing and Airbus over the years..... just like those high speed rails, after years of operation, China's high speed rail has the second lowest accident and fatality rate in the world.
@@champan250 My understanding is that high speed rail ventures China had with their foreign partners like Bombardier, Siemens, Kawasawki etc all had built in tech transfer agreements, so that tech was handed over as part of the deal. Current gen high speed rail is developed by China itself from that foreign tech. Still very impressive safety numbers though, since China now has almost TWICE the amount of high speed rail than the rest of the world combined, so those safety numbers are achieved based on HUGE passenger volume.
If they can do the same with airliners they would save so much money in the future. Even if no other countries import the COMAC planes just the Chinese market would be enough to keep COMAC busy for decades. After that foreign airliners would be fools not to buy from COMAC since the cost difference would surely be significant.
High speed rail is socialist garbage like universal healthcare. Very un-American.
@@chamade166 "very un-American".... well what you want, oil- use oriented economy that shits on everything else and a country that charges you to even breathe air...
And now China is developing C929 which the same size of Boeing A787, this is what Boeing really worry about. Boeing can use FAA to reject C929 in the coming days. But China can sell these cheaper aircrafts to Chinese cities and maybe Africa or middle east contries. Sooner or later, C929 will be accepted by the whole world. (BTW, the engine of C929 is being develped by China and Russia)
Planes *and* China?
Kronk: "Oh yeah, it's all coming together."
"Hey, that cloud looks like a Toyota Corola!"
Wrong channel.
Still funny tho
the fuck
Woah, what is this.
I got a wendover production video recommend to me after being posted 10 min ago?
Reading this hurt my brain
COVID: I'm about to end this man's whole career.
as a boeing investor, I'm really growing cold on them
PlaystationMasterPS3 okay PlayStationMasterPS3
Dont understand why you would invest in a company that doesnt invest in itself
You are missing out on a lot of growth markets and companies by investing in boeing.
All these old giants are one step away from the ledge.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 New markets are risky.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 They're too heavily diversified to be on the edge, even if the Chinese quit buying commercial ariliners Boeing still has massive military divisions and they also make less noticiable things like satellites as well as various types of computer systems and parts for airplanes. They also either outright own, or own stock in various aerospace subcontractors so even when you buy from some "competitors" you may wind up with Boeing parts. Boeing is also starting to expand into the growing market of commercial space related equipment and will likely be a pioneer in future industries like asteroid mining. I hate to use the phrase since it's so overused/misused but Boeing is frankly "too big to fail" and even if they start to lag in commercial airlines, even if China slows down purchases or even stops purchases, there are so many different militaries and governments they sell to that Boeing is unlikely to fall off any ledge even if they do stop being the global leader in the aerospace industry
Wendover, PolyMatter and China walk into a bar...
Someone loves the aviation industry very very very very very much =] great job!!! Keep up the good work!!!
Fantastic video. Looking forward to the ABC future and how the Comac planes perform. Keep up the good work.
Hell, I didn't know youtube even said posted __ seconds ago, I've never seen that before.
1 minute after release, 1k views, Wendover is basically notification king
Xi JingKing
Manufacturing aircraft is very hard. In America we have been manufacturing planes since we invented them, and been developing aircraft regulations for almost as long. You don't just invent a 737, or an A320, it takes decades of research, design doctrine, a strong engineering base, and money. America has the highest educated workforce by far, and in China even if you wanted to go into aerospace engineering the staff are way less educated on the practical design of aircraft than in America cause China doesn't do it. At my college I know professors who were lead designers for Gulfstream, Boeing, and Lockheed. You can't teach engineers how to build an airplane if you haven't built an airplane, it's one of the most information dense and complicated fields of engineering.
Amatthew123 I completely agree, and this comment lends to my comment. I would fly on a commercial sized Cessna, Or Gulfstream way before I would fly on a company’s first or second try at building an aircraft
"America has the highest educated workforce by far"? Worldwide? I doubt it would make the top 20. I doubt it's even the best educated in North America. Still, facts never stopped Muricans making endless 'best in the world' claims.
@@Alan_Mac America is number 6. Japan is number 1. China does not make the top 20 , although it is improving.
@@Alan_Mac Across the entire educational spectrum, perhaps, but the US has the highest concentration of very highly educated workers anywhere, although they weren't all necessarily educated in the US
@@janejan9728 I'm sure there are various ways of measuring this - number of graduates per capita, number of graduates with a 4 year degree equivalent per capita, number of PhDs per capita etc etc. None of these would put The US in the, "highest educated workforce by far" position, which was really my point.
I supported the assembly of McDonald Douglas, MD-80's, in Shanghai in the mid 1980's. So China is NOT new to western aircraft assembly and avionics. A Chinese aircraft factory, in Shenyang, also assembled vertical tail sections for Boeing aircraft in the early 1980's. Boeing helped build their own competition by allowing the Chinese to strong arm them into assisting the Chinese aircraft industry and giving up manufacturing secrets to them...in order to get aircraft orders.
I like your videos cause there not biased. Thank you
Biased much?
how about their they're there?
Still a better channel than Bendover Productions.
ye, they have too much "step-sis" content
9:04 Why blur the names of the airlines? Those are obviously Air China planes.
I highly doubt the clip at 9:04 is from Wendover themselves. The people Wendover stole the videos from probably blurred it. Wendover clearly showed Air China's logos in the video.
@@Infamous_man Given the size of Wendover's channel, it's likely just stock footage, and whoever made the stock footage censored it to avoid possible legal issues.
Its just a little foggy
China building their own aircraft is a game-changer. While it may take a few years for these craft to prove themselves, this has tremendous export potential for China. It severely dent Airbus & Boeings market share internationally. The C919 will use many european & US parts - putting it almost on par with existing aircraft from other manufacturers.
Wendover Productions somehow managed to combine both of his common video topics: planes and China
Good show and so very well thought out statements.
saying the trade war will be over soon is a big assumption
Its likeCold war which was focused on technology but trade war is focused on greed of govn.
Just a note about Embraer, Wendover: the company was created by the Brazilian government in the 1969 and developed its airplanes in-house. The joint venture with Boeing came about after Bombardier did its own joint venture with AirBus - quite recently.
Another great video by WP. In fact, Hainan Airlines' major shareholder (24%~25%) belongs to the Governmnet of the province of Hainan. It's not quite accurate to say HNA is not a state-owned enterprise.
If 51% is not owned by government, then it should be counted as a private enterprise. Government ownership is also common in other Asian countries.
China is too smart. They are trying to develop their own aircraft.
Sooner or later, it's going to be ether build in China, or build by China.
No one:
Probably no one:
Wendover Productions: *Makes another Video on planes*
Trump: C919 is a national security risk to US, therefore ban GE selling engine to COMAC should take care the problem. Free trade, democracy and open competition is a privilege at US discretion.
Me: Ok, but what if Comac orders LITERALLY ANY OTHER ENGINE
Maybe COMAC can even develop its own engines...
COMAC goes and buys engines from Rolls Royce. GE loses out.
The companies are owned by the CCP
What?
Wendover productions: "Everybody has a PROBLEM"
LOL....
The 919 doesn’t use “GE” engines. They are CFM engines. CFM is a 50-50 joint venture between GE & Safran. “50-50” hence Safran plays as much a role in the engine as GE does
When China does joint ventures, the foreign company must transfer IP to their Chinese counterparts. It's not really 50/50 buddy.
When USA does joint ventures, the foreign country must cede over 90% of the profits made. Case example: AAPL got this big by exploiting China which only gets $6 per $1400 iphone sold, when it only costs $350 including parts & manufacturing. AAPL is also exploiting the ego of US citizens by exorbitant profit margins. Plus the USPTO and US IP is complete farcical BS, when one can patent 1) rounded corners, 2) slide-to-lock and 3) rubberbanding, now revoked patents everywhere all over the world, including the USA. However this didn't stop the $1Bn payout from Samsung to AAPL in a California Kangaroo court on the payola. Even though the patents were already invalidated. IP really stands for idiot propaganda. It's not really 50/50 buddy. And nobody forced the US to setup elsewhere either. They did it out of their own volition, willingly. Leftovers of exploitation, colonialism, imperialism, slavery and exceptionalism. Old vicious habits die hard in the greedy capitalist states.
@@lucienpan1679 This still doesn't explain why you can't park straight on the main street of Ewoo
BoosterBoxTrader Safran is a French company, not Chinese
Lucien Pan The joint venture is between a US company and a French company - not sure why Apple is relevant here. There is no law that says foreign countries must cede 90% of the profits for joint ventures. This is bonkers.
Who could have predicted a day when the CAAC, would have more credibility than the FAA.
STUPID COMMENT .VICTOR YOEEEER
Jim Brown 41 people disagree
hold my coronavirus
@Hernando Malinche only 500? that is rookie numbers for china
@Oh_ My_gawd lol what? you gotta be making a joke right?
10:24 Actually, HNA is run by the family of Huang Qishan, a member of the Politburo, China's top governing authority.
Airbus is the largest aircraft producing company in the world in 2019 a also comming year. Boeing is the second one.
if so, who actually cares?
Boeing is larger it has a lot of aircraft orders
Airbus are owned by the French company while Boeing are owned by the American company.
Gucci Potter yes, Airbus does. No one else.
@Gucci Potter do they want a cookie for that?
"The trade war will pass" not sure about that one, I think its only getting started, this will only end when one country economically is destroyed, in the age of nuclear weapons this is how superpowers fight Wars, and make no mistake both sides cant afford to stand down.
The current American government is following mercantilist economics which Adam Smith discredited 240 years ago. The next US government (of either party) will be more economically literate and return to something closer to free trade. So this trade war is a temporary aberration.
@@Dave_Sisson I will have to look into mercantilist economic, I have to say it's a new one to me, but what I do know both the USA and China has seen each other have the biggest enemy for quite a while now, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
@@alexm8047 What I should have said is that the current U.S. government doesn't understand high school level economics. It's all about trade. Countries that sell things they make efficiently and use the money to buy stuff they are not very good at making do better than countries that try to make everything themselves.
@@alexm8047 Mercantilism is based on the idea that all nations should strive to be totally self-sufficient in resources as far as possible, sell only finished goods and buy only the raw materials that they cannot find a replacement for or do without (roughly; there's quite a bit more to it, but that covers most of it), in order to run the largest possible trade surplus. It does have the tiny flaw that it therefore leads to quite a lot of wars, and perhaps a smidgeon of colonialism
@@Dave_Sisson that is the exact opposite of what China is doing....
Tweaking the software to solve the 737 Max8 problem is naive! Boeing should solve the root problems in aerodynamics!
You mean build a whole new plane?
Too late for that, they fucked up hard
BA rejected the Demming principle, " eliminate bonuses because execs work for bonus money instead of what's best for the company". Seems like he was spot on.
But moneyz 💰
The plane can fly fine without MCAS. What you have said is incorrect. The larger engines do not change the way the plane flies, they change the amount of force required to push down on the yoke during high AOAs and Bank Angles.
Going on Boeing's recent performance China would be better off sticking with Airbus or making their own. China is not especially known for quality products but I'm sure they can surpass that of Boeings :)
Finally a video of planes by none other than Wendover Productions. Much awaited ❤️
*i've been to boeings museum in Seattle! it is called the museum of flight, truly an amazing place*
Boeing might have earn all these money in this few years but everyone knows that China will strip the aircraft and copy every damn thing on the plane. Benefit this generation
@@asktoseducemiss434 china metal is garbage. I don't think they will copy anytime soon.if so let them go what they like. But I see where you're coming from tho
@@asktoseducemiss434 like Iphone11 series copied Huawei Mate 20 pro?
@@ItsMikeLearns The crane used to build your aircraft carriers were made in China.
@@asktoseducemiss434 Lol, piece of shit like you does not know airplane.
competition is always good for customers
10:23 Update: Hainan Airlines is state owned now due to their financial crisis in the pandemic
Hello from Ukraine! So glad you mentioned our aviation industry 😁
You forgot one point, Boeing is one of the defense contractor that got involved in Taiwan arm-sales. It is up to China when and how to put sanction to Boeing on such arm-sales.
Bingo, everything is more or less tied to the power game. Thank you
The ABC of aviation. Airbus-Boeing-Comac
You forgot Ilyushin. It's coming up behind you . . .
Eudald Guell Comac is better than Boeing, Chinese companies are always better than American companies
@@oscardighton8580 that's just not true
Airbus-Boeing-Comac-Dornier-Embraer- oh.... It's a shame Fokker is out of business or we could have this "ABCDE" of aviation thing going a little bit longer.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod ok
I agree with this video and IMO one of the most informative videos WP have recently produced. With the "trade war" I thought Boeing was very vulnerable and the grounding and return to service of the 737 Max series is a very powerful lever against the US.
I understand the increase in point to point routes in the tier 3 cities but I have always wondered why Chinese airlines did not order more A380s to reduce the slot constraints at the major airports. With the way EK uses that A380 gave Chinese airlines a template of how to deploy them.
FAA was never the world’s aviation regulator. That’s why ICAO exists
oof
I think wendover more meant it as a „respected authority“ in global terms rather than a global regulator itself. The FAA only regulates US-Airspace anyway 🤷🏻♂️
Jeffrey Johnson you are correct. For some member states it is a copy/paste situation, since the Chicago convention some differences have appeared but the fundamental core remains the same, which is why they made standards applicable worldwide, not necessarily to look like they copied since back then every states was doing whatever it wanted with regulations
@Jeffrey Johnson Except that it's the other way around,the annexes to the Chicago conventions were made to harmonize aviation and increase safety,the regulations are made by icao,then the countries that agreed to the convention can choose to implement them,make their own regulations or reject some and implement others.
Now Boeing manuals become FAA regulation. Good bye.
The airbus beluga: imma bout to end these men whole careers
I've flown on a Chinese made MA60 with Lao Skyway in Laos. Who are these owned by?
Ben Leno
MA60. MA0. Mao. Mao = aircraft?
The Xian MA60 is a turboprop-powered airliner produced by China's Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation under the Aviation Industry Corporation of China.
It is a xian manufactured aircraft. However the MA60 is not considered airworthy by the FAA (USA) or EASA (Europe).
Spets Pubgm Does it have high speed self crashing technology?
@@spetsnazttv6724 They never applied for permit in US or Europe. MA60 has STOL capability, is meant to be used in tiny 3rd world country airports and improvised landing strips with unpaved runways, the kind that still used DC-3 and DC-5s. US and Europe didn't have these kind of conditions, and they're not fuel efficient enough to compete against normal commercial planes. In its niche, the plane had no competition aside from ancient DC-3/DC-5 and Russian AN-24, since modern turboprops, much less turbofans, can't land in places these are supposed to operate out of. It had a fatal accident, when it tried to land in an island airport (repurposed from an old military air strip) in fog, ruled to be due to human error after blackbox recovery. The pilot tried to land it like the old DC-3 that used to operate out of there, and found out it's not as rugged.
I'm curious what Boeing is doing to really fix the problem with the 737 Max. Seems they really should either go back to the original engines designed for the 737, or redesign the 737 to not need the MCAS (the device that caused the crashes). Be even more maddening then the self certification Boeing was allowed to certify their own planes, not sure what has been to address that problem.
In ten years the Chinese are not going to buy a single jet from Boeing.
Nope, they will have have stolen enough of Boeing's technology by then.
@@garethifan1034 just lol
Durian Durian No, America used the best German Scientists after the war to help in the Cold War.
Lol, exactly like all of the Chinese ripoffs of LEGO and such.
Gareth Ifan yes, they did. without Operation Paperclip american post war aerospace industry would not have advanced at the rate it did. nasa would not have happened and the space program including the moon landing would not have happened without the german scientists. america kidnapped top german scientists at the end of the war and forced them to relocate and work for america in exchage for their and their families’ lives. these are well known facts, but don’t let that stop you from being a hypocrite
Please make a video on logistics of movie making..for example all aspects of avengers,from star cast to planning to VFX pipeline
that's actually a great idea
It’s so sad that Embraer was bought by Boeing, Brazil is selling all of its companies
Enter Fil Has Taurus been sold? I hope not.
Very Sad news, but it's expected consequence for the far right dominance.
extremist are evil, right, left religious and wherever ideology they follows
@@antilove84 Are you talking about Arabs or Iranians?
@@koyotekola6916
am criticizing fanatics from all religions, not just radical muslim , either sunni or shiaa (aka arab and iranian as they battle for power and dominance )
@@antilove84 Then why are you criticizing the far right? I know there are extremists on both sides, but criticize only one? Hitler and Stalin were fascist, yet they were socialists, wanting total control. That's what the Democratic Party in America is all about. As soon as they consolidate power, it will be apparent what their grand plan is.
Top notch quality! Keep up the good work
You sound exactly like that guy from Half as Interesting
I bet he also looks like one.
Half as interesting is Wendover's another channel
@@emperor_of_the_romans that was a joke boi
@@woody6436 ish I'm sorry
I'll never take MAX, the design is fundamentally flawed. With a tendency of tipping over while accelerating indicates the lack of stability. No commercial airliner should be designed that way. I wonder how it got through the FAA.
@@dawleylu So Boeing kind of owns FAA. I guess so.
That is actually incorrect. The MAX is not unstable in this regard, and can fly perfectly without MCAS. The only reason MCAS was installed was to maintain the plane's type rating, as the yoke force gradient to push the nose down during high AOA and Bank Angle situations was less.
kightremin - You have no idea what you are talking about. The design of the 737MAX is NOT fundamentally flawed nor does it have a tendency to "tip over while accelerating."
@@waterdrinkingexpert6797 - The yoke force gradient was actually more, not less. That's why MCAS was needed, to lessen the yoke force by automatically inputting ND trim.
@@puma.will.pounce7590 Oops, my bad
You make it sound like they are not supposed to ask for compensation from 737 max?
This video has been made from the perspective of Boeing. It's quite obvious that they wouldn't want to pay compensation for their broken plane.
Not surprise coz Boeing has mis managed the whole situation
In the long run, which is the game the CCP is playing, it doesnt matter. China already produces its own scooters and cars. Commercial aircraft are soon on the horizon. So it doesnt matter what Boeing or Airbus do, the CCP will replace them with domestically made aircraft as soon as it can. And just like with all its other markets, outsiders will be pushed out (largely) and domestically produced goods will be given an unfair advantage.
Edit: Oh, 7:44 this video mentions that.