flightglobal.com 3-9 March 2020 | Flight International | 15
Animation shows
Bek Air Almaty
crash sequence
Air Transport PAIR TRANSPORT
A
s with many policies floated
by the Trump administration- which seem to be made up on
the fly and subject to the presi-
dent’s whims – it is hard to say
where he stands on Comac’s
C919 and the Chinese aerospace
industry.
Although there have been
hints that the USA may be con-
sidering blocking the sale of CFM
International Leap-1C engines
and other technology for the de-
velopmental C919, Trump has
been – via his Twitter feed –
proclaiming that it remains open
for business.
A Wall Street Journal report
on 16 February surprised the
aerospace community, with
sources telling the newspaper
that the administration was con-
templating not approving GE
Aviation’s export licence for the
engines. Honeywell, supplier of
the C919’s avionics and other
systems, was also cited as possi-
bly being banned from making
further exports.
The story has a ring of truth.
What better way to damage an
economic rival than to cripple a
flagship aerospace programme –
particularly one that could threat-
en the narrowbody duopoly
enjoyed by Boeing and Airbus?
DAMAGING IMPLICATIONS
With six Leap-1C-powered C919s
conducting flight tests and the
indigenous AVIC Commercial
Aircraft Engine CJ-1000AX prob-
ably still years away, the denial of
CFM engines would all but de-
stroy the fledgling C919. GE has
not, apparently, had any issue
obtaining licences in past years.
But on 18 February, Trump ap-
peared to kibosh the idea of deny-
ing export licences in a series of
tweets. He contended that the
USA should be easy to do busi-
ness with, and that “I want China
to buy our jet engines, the best in
the world.”
The supposed rationale behind
the licence denial is protection of
TRADE GREG WALDRON SINGAPORE
Why Chinese ban could be Leap too far
Reports that USA may block export of CFM engines for C919 programme appear to be contradicted by Trump’s tweets
CFM’s intellectual property in
the Leap. No other issue vexes
the Chinese aerospace sector
more than the development of jet
engines; Washington’s fear, ap-
parently, is reverse engineering.
GE, the joint-venture partner
of Safran in CFM, says: “GE has
provided products and services
in the global marketplace for dec-
ades. We aggressively protect and
defend our intellectual property
and work closely with the US
government to fulfil our responsi-
bilities and shared security and
economic interests.”
Advanced engines, including
the Leap, have been in service
with Chinese carriers for years
and the country’s airline sector –
operating nearly 3,500 aircraft –
would not exist without them.
But taking those powerplants
and turning them into a viable
domestic-built product is harder
than it sounds.
“Reverse engineering of a
complex commercial aero-engine
is extremely challenging,” says
Rob Morris, head of consultancy
at Ascend by Cirium.
“If China wished to under-
stand the architecture of the Leap
engine, there are already almost
100 [Boeing] 737 Max aircraft
with Leap engines installed with
airlines in China, and other Leap-
powered [Airbus A320] aircraft.
“These will all require mainte-
nance at some point, which will
often be in shops within China.However, part of the key to these
engines is the manufacturing
technologies inherent in the en-
gine components, which GE and
its supply chain have perfected
over many years. This cannot be
reverse engineered.”
He points out that Ascend fore-
casts deliveries of about 1,
C919s by 2038, making this a
sizeable market for CFM and
other suppliers.COPYCAT CHALLENGE
A source at one of the top three
engine makers notes that even if
Beijing’s engineers were to get
their hands on the detailed blue-
prints of an engine, they would
find it packed with references to
esoteric proprietary processes,
making it challenging for a copy-
cat to develop a complete picture.
That said, Beijing is not
beyond acquiring advanced
knowledge through alternative
means. Periodically, charges
have emerged about Chinese spy-
ing in the aerospace sector. One
area of clear interest is jet engine
technology. This is separate from
reverse engineering, however.
The Wall Street Journal story
and Trump’s tweets have
emerged amid several other story
threads related to China’s avia-
tion sector.
In mid-January, Washington
and Beijing signed a trade agree-
ment that could greatly benefit
Boeing and the broader USaerospace sector – including its
engine makers – with Beijing
committed to buying $77.7 bil-
lion worth of US-manufactured
goods over a two-year period.
The deal, announced before the
coronavirus crisis gripped China,
created hopes that the country’s
de facto boycott of US aircraft
since 2017 would be lifted.
And while killing the C
would ostensibly be a long-term
positive for Airbus and Boeing,
the Seattle manufacturer’s
priority globally and in China is
the return to service of the
grounded 737 Max. The recertifi-
cation of the aircraft in China
could suffer if any Leap-1C sales
ban were to emerge.
Moreover, suppliers such as
CFM and Honeywell would also
fail to recoup their investment in
the C919 programme, potentially
affecting US jobs.
“If they go forward with this,
it will demonstrate a complete
misunderstanding of how air-
craft, and indeed technology,
works,” says Teal Group analyst
Richard Aboulafia.
“Either China has access to
these engines for their own air-
craft and for imported aircraft or
not. The idea of stopping them
from buying both seems imprac-
tical, so the upshot would be to
cut them off from all aircraft im-
ports, and therefore to eliminate
the biggest single export market
for Airbus and Boeing.” ■Comac would struggle to continue development of passenger aircraft without imported systemsAirTeamImages