
First Japan-Built Airliner in 50 Years Takes on Boeing and Airbus - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-17/first-japan-built-airliner-in-50-years-takes-on-boeing-airbus
======
nolok
> 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)

~~~
666lumberjack
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.

~~~
basetop
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1789)

~~~
nolok
> 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.

No they didn't. No new plant, no new hires, no more planes built at that plant
than before. They will displace planned production at that plant to make room
for the specific planes requesting by US customers, and the plane originally
meant to be built there will be made in another non US plant.

The ONLY thing that changes for the US is negative in that Boeing's
competitors are now stronger and allied together against Boeing.

~~~
basetop
Lets say you are right. If protectionism was so bad for the US and so good for
our competitors, then our competitors would be begging us to increase our
protectionism. But they are doing the exact opposite.

If protectionism was so good for the competitor, Boeing and the US government
wouldn't be attacking the EU and their subsidies and protectionism of Airbus.

If protectionism is so bad for Boeing, why have the Boeing execs lobbied the
US government for more protectionism? If protectionism is so bad, why has
bombardier lobbied canada and quebec for protectionism for decades? If
protectionism is so bad, why has airbus lobbied for protectionism from the EU
even before they became operational? Airbus was born with protectionism and
subsidies that is the envy of the world.

I'm not entirely for or against protectionism, but the blanket ideology that
protectionism is bad is historically incorrect. Ask Boeing, ask Airbus, ask
Bombardier.

If Airbus starts demanding more tariffs, subsidies and protectionism for
Boeing in the US, then I'll start to believe what you say. If Boeing demands
that EU give Airbus even more subsidies and greater market protection it the
EU, then I'll start to believe what you say.

~~~
rurp
>If protectionism was so bad for the US and so good for our competitors, then
our competitors would be begging us to increase our protectionism. But they
are doing the exact opposite.

Most people view trade in general as a mutually beneficial endeavor.

~~~
basetop
I too agree that trade can be a mutually beneficial endeavor. But it's not an
either-or nor an absolute. Trade can be good, trade can be bad. Protectionism
can be good, protectionism can be bad. History has shown that a certain amount
of trade and a certain amount of protectionism is the formula for success and
trade.

As I pointed out before, some of the top trading nations are the US, China,
Japan, Germany and South Korea. All of them have significant amount of
protectionist policies. All of them also have significant amount of trade.

It's a false dichotomoy to claim you can have trade or you can have
protectionism. You can have both.

------
nabla9
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.

~~~
bilbo0s
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.

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

~~~
bilbo0s
Yeah. The fact that they are going to be at about 85 million in 2050, down
from 125 today, is pretty alarming.

Well, I guess "alarm" isn't the right word, since everyone knows that it's
happening already. But you would think there would be more concern about it?

~~~
djsumdog
I honestly think more countries should be encouraged to go this route. Do we
really need more people on this planet? Shoudn't being more sustainable
involve having fewer children, less consumption and having more productive
work and more people in the automation industry?

~~~
Yetanfou
The only way such a move would have the desired effect is if those countries
also took up Japan's extremely restrictive migration policies. That is
unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised')
countries.

~~~
adventured
> That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or
> 'westernised') countries.

That is already happening in most western nations.

Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example. It was a
policy mistake that will not benefit their nation at all and they aggressively
reversed course. Denmark has mostly followed Sweden in restricting its briefly
loose immigration policies, because the results have been very poor.

Australia has implemented an extremely strict immigration system that locks
almost everyone out unless you meet their merit requirements.

Canada has had a strict merit system in place for a long time. They have no
plans to change that, because they know the damage it would do to their very
nice welfare state.

Norway and Finland never relaxed their immigration policies in the first
place.

Merkel's immigration flood exploded in her face with massive backlash
politically. Germany was forced to turn back against that approach as it was
politically untenable.

France has seen _zero_ economic benefit from its loose immigration policies
over the last two decades. When I say zero, I mean their immigrants have high
unemployment and low education levels, the economy has not expanded at all,
productivity is not expanding, GDP per capita has not expanded, and median
wages have not expanded. They thought it would bolster their economy, it did
the exact opposite, it's now a massive drag on each person in France that has
to support the high immigrant unemployment rate.

Next will be the US, which will entirely turn against allowing mass low skill
immigration. The US has dramatically expanded its welfare state over the last
30 and 50 years. The US now spends as much on its welfare state per capita as
Canada. You can't combine increasingly shifting to a very expensive welfare
state system with unfettered low skill immigration that can't pay its own way
(and in fact does the opposite, it drowns the system). Bernie Sanders, to use
one prominent example, understands how this combination has to work
economically. It's why Finland only has 5 million people and isn't in a big
hurry to get to 10 million (they could open the gates tomorrow and allow in
millions of people; it's clear why they don't do it). You can have sustainable
immigration in an expensive welfare state only if it pays for itself. All the
best nations - highest standards of living - on earth follow this model for
obvious reasons.

~~~
Yetanfou
> Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example

Sweden had the third-highest migration count ever in 2018, with ~137.000
people migrating to the country. The second-highest was 2017 (~144.000), the
highest 2016 (~163.000). Source: SCB ( _Statistiska Centralbyrån_ -> 'Central
Bureau for Statistics') report [1]. No borders were closed, not for real. In
2018 Migrationsverket ('Migration authority', responsible for handling
migration) expected over half a million people (~5% of the current population)
to come to Sweden in the coming 5 years.

Half of the women giving birth in Sweden are now wholly or partly of foreign
descent, 35% partly or wholly of non-western descent, this also according to a
recent SCB report.

[1] [https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-
siffror/mannisk...](https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-
siffror/manniskorna-i-sverige/invandring-till-sverige/)

~~~
Shaanie
Depends a bit on what you're looking at. Here's a graph of the approved
residencies for asylum seekers :
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQwHObtLmiVV...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQwHObtLmiVV7VeMU2JRb-u51SeHlFmIMvS8eF-
di7W397pXJMYW-R2nfkPkfBq_mG2keCkkejRhMJ6/pubchart?oid=1303258054&format=interactive)

It shows a clear decline in recent years, though overall immigration may not
be affected.

~~~
Yetanfou
Do note that I was talking about 'migration', not about 'asylum seekers'.
Also, when discussing migration (of any sort) to Sweden it is best to keep to
verified sources - SCB being a prime example of such - as the discussion
around this subject is so polarised that anything less than pristine data is
suspect. Random spreadsheets don't count as verified data.

------
FearNotDaniel
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.

~~~
jillesvangurp
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
> 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)

~~~
Iv
Flying a plane is easy. Autopilots have been a thing for a long time. Landing
a plane is a bit tricky but doable. The value of human pilots though is in the
case of malfunctions. That's the main problem. A failing safe-driving car has
always the option of stopping on the side, calling home and lighting the
warning lights.

A plane has to find a way of landing safely first. I am not versed enough in
aeronautics to even begin to understand how hard it is to reach human-level in
mayday situations.

~~~
mveety
Under normal circumstances a plane can totally land itself at an airport
equipped with ILS IIIC. If you’re landing in a corn field because your engine
stopped spinning (generally a bad day) the situation is a bit different. This
is why I think fully autonomous planes carrying humans won’t happen for a
really long time. The stakes when shit goes sideways is really high and it
takes skill and a bit of luck to recover from that. Computers don’t yet have
that.

------
ummonk
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.

------
throw0101a
I wonder if Boeing is going to sue Mitsubishi like they sued Bombardier.

~~~
hinkley
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.

~~~
throw0101a
> 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.

~~~
Gibbon1
> MD's more business-y thinking (outsource risk)

MD was/is a defense contractor first and foremost and the most important thing
about defense aerospace is spreading the grift over as many congressional
districts as possible. This makes total sense when your clients are 100%
political. It makes zero sense otherwise.

Notice SpaceX can build big rockets on the cheap and keep a schedule? Yeah
because they do everything in one place unlike NaSA and it's contractors that
have to spread everything all over.

~~~
Faark
> Notice SpaceX can [..] keep a schedule?

They cannot. Your statement is actually kinda funny, since "elon time" is its
own meme and ULA uses "Schedule Certainty" as one of the main talking points
to distinguish themselves from SpaceX (see [0] as an example of the ULA CEO
doing exactly that on the SpaceX subreddit)

[0]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/aqbnza/spacex_prote...](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/aqbnza/spacex_protests_nasa_launch_contract_award/egfclfm/?context=3)

~~~
Gibbon1
> They cannot.

You mean compared to NaSA and it's aerospace contractors? Cause that's what
matters.

------
Danieru
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.

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

------
bronco21016
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
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.

~~~
bronco21016
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...](https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-
transport/2018-10-30/embraer-removes-100-unit-skywest-order-e2-backlog)

------
andyst
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.

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

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

~~~
jandrese
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.

~~~
mveety
That’s more because of how old the fleet is. Modern engines with fuel
injection, electronic ignition, turbos, and (optional) constant speed props
don’t really care as long as their ECU has a map for it.

~~~
llukas
New planes also get 50-year old design engines due nobody wanting to pony up $
for certification of new ones...

------
leemailll
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.

------
smoyer
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.

------
huslage
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
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause)

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

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

