【By Zhang Zhonglin, Observer Group Columnist】
With the Chinese Ministry of Commerce introducing countermeasures against the United States, President Trump once again angrily threatened to restart a tariff war against China and impose 100% tariffs. Although these are all familiar tricks that have been seen countless times, this time Trump has apparently come up with a new move: threatening to impose export controls on Boeing aircraft parts as retaliation for China's restrictions on rare earth exports.
Frankly, when I first saw the news in the morning, I was still half-asleep and mistakenly read it as "threatening to impose export controls on Commercial Aircraft (COMAC) aircraft parts." I muttered to myself, thinking that this kind of talk had already been discussed back in May, why is it being brought up again now? It wasn't until the afternoon, when a journalist I know came to interview me about my opinion on this matter, that I carefully looked at it again and realized that the subject of the threat was "Boeing aircraft parts." At that moment, my expression was absolutely amazing. After shaking my head and lamenting that Trump was playing some abstract art I couldn't understand, I helplessly replied to my journalist friend: I think this old man must be crazy.
This threat is not only extremely stupid tactically but also extremely crazy strategically. It not only broke a certain unspoken agreement between China and the United States in the past few years, but also directly put Boeing, the representative of America's remaining high-end manufacturing industry and the northern industrial son of the United States, on the fire, staging a farcical play of "lifting a stone to kick one's own foot."
In 2017, Trump delivered a speech at Boeing's factory in North Charleston, South Carolina. Photo by the author
Destroyed Agreement
The most direct consequence of Trump's threat is that it completely shattered a bottom line that both sides had tacitly agreed upon since the beginning of the Sino-US trade war: not weaponizing the after-sales and maintenance systems of ordinary consumer goods.
Since the start of the trade conflict, the U.S. "small courtyard, high wall" strategy has focused on high-tech fields such as chips, advanced manufacturing equipment, and artificial intelligence algorithms. Although these sanctions are brutal, their logic is still coherent — that is, to curb the technological development and upgrading capabilities of the opponent. However, what is Boeing aircraft? It is essentially a means of transportation, a consumer good that carries the safe travel of millions of passengers. From a product perspective, a Boeing 737 is no different from a Cadillac car. Using the supply of civil aircraft parts as a stick to beat China is as absurd and senseless as declaring "prohibiting the export of brake pads for Cadillacs to China."
So far, only countries facing the most severe and comprehensive sanctions from the United States, such as Russia, Iran, and Cuba, have "enjoyed" the "treatment" of being completely blocked in the civil aviation sector — which is almost equivalent to expelling a country from the global aviation system. But the United States has either been in a state of war or quasi-war with these countries, or they are in mutual hostility. To give China, a country with one of the world's largest aviation markets and the most important customer of Boeing, the same treatment as Russia and Iran because of a trade dispute, sends an extremely dangerous and irresponsible signal.
Moreover, using this card so early will lead to having no cards left later, because this card should be used at the moment of "thousands of soldiers crossing the strait." If Trump really uses this card recklessly, it will inevitably make people think in reverse: if it's already like this, it can't get any worse, so why not "open the way through the turbulent waves" and welcome the new East Asian order!
American experience with this sort of thing
More far-reaching impacts lie in the fact that this behavior seriously undermines the foundation of commercial cooperation — trust. Modern large industrial products, especially those like airplanes and high-speed trains with lifespans of several decades, derive their value not only from the products themselves, but also from the continuous supply of components, technical support, and maintenance systems over decades. Any rational buyer, when purchasing such expensive assets worth tens of millions of dollars, must ensure that they can receive stable and reliable support in the future.
Trump's government's threat is equal to declaring to all Boeing customers around the world: The Boeing aircraft you purchase today may become a pile of un-maintainable and un-flyable scrap at any time due to the political winds in Washington. After-sales service and component supply are no longer commitments in commercial contracts, but political leverage that can be revoked at any time. This approach undoubtedly plants a huge trust mine for Boeing in the global market. Once this card is truly played, countries' airlines will have to add a brand-new dimension to their fleet procurement decisions: geopolitical risk. For Boeing, this is a nightmare.
In other words, this is something that can be done but cannot be spoken about. If you really want to use aviation materials to pressure China, you can easily use reasons such as "supply chain shortages," "insufficient capacity," or "impact of war" to deliberately withhold delivery. After all, there were indeed some parts that were severely out of stock, even affecting the operation of the fleet, and both sides knew the real reason. But once this matter is brought to the surface and the unspoken understanding is broken, things will be different — it's like "four taels on the scale, a thousand jin off the scale."
China's Boeing fleet and aviation materials
Although my personal judgment is that this card will not be played, it doesn't hinder us from analyzing whether it would cause any impact if it were. To analyze the potential destructive power of cutting off Boeing aviation materials and components, we first need to talk about the situation of China's civil aviation Boeing fleet and the role of aviation materials in maintaining the operation of the fleet.
After the start of the Sino-US trade war in 2018, China significantly reduced its orders for Boeing aircraft, causing Boeing's share to gradually decline from half the market, but it still has a very large scale. In 2025, the total number of aircraft in China's civil aviation fleet will exceed four thousand, of which more than one thousand eight hundred are Boeing aircraft.
The "aircraft parts" that Trump threatened to cut off are not screws and nuts as commonly imagined, but are collectively referred to as aviation materials. If classified, they can be roughly divided into three categories, not too seriously:
Low-value consumables: These are parts that are regularly consumed and need to be frequently replaced during the daily flight and maintenance of the aircraft, such as tires, brake pads, filters, and oils. These items have a large consumption volume and are essential for the daily operation of the aircraft, but they have relatively low technical barriers.
Key components: These are non-consumables but need to be replaced after failure. For example, avionics system modules, air conditioning components, hydraulic actuators, etc. These components often have high value and are key equipment for maintaining normal aircraft operation. Even if they fail, they won't be scrapped immediately, but will be removed for repair and circulation. These aviation material components are products with a certain level of technical content.
High-value core assets: These are the core components of the aircraft. Without them, it wouldn't be an aircraft. The most typical examples are aircraft engines and landing gear, which are priced in millions or even tens of millions of dollars. They are usually accounted for as fixed assets and are the most technically challenging and difficult parts of the aircraft.
Among these three types of aviation materials, low-value consumables are technically easy for China's aviation industry to produce, provided they obtain airworthiness certification.
As for key components, through efforts in recent years, a considerable portion has achieved domestic production and can be applied to aircraft, but Boeing's aircraft-related equipment components may not have corresponding models.
As for the last category, high-value core assets, they remain the strength of Europe and the United States, and are also the focus of our efforts in recent years. However, the efforts are mainly aimed at the supporting systems for domestically developed large aircraft, rather than Boeing, since we would not go out of our way to adapt the C919 to the Boeing 737. Fortunately, these high-value core assets are durable, and as long as they are maintained properly, they generally won't cause major problems and are very durable.
Moreover, these aviation materials have an unavoidable issue: they need to pass airworthiness certification to be used on aircraft. With China's current industrial capabilities, it is not difficult to replicate the shape and dimensions of the components. However, the key lies in "airworthiness certification." The modern civil aviation industry is built on extremely strict safety regulations and standards. Any component installed on an aircraft, regardless of size, must go through a series of complex processes including design, manufacturing, testing, and verification, and finally obtain airworthiness certification issued by authoritative institutions such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), before it can be legally and compliantly installed on the aircraft.
Airworthiness certification is not just a certificate, but also a guarantee of aviation safety. Russia's experience is the most painful lesson. Since 2022, after being subjected to comprehensive sanctions, Russian airlines could not obtain official Boeing and Airbus parts, forcing them to "take from one wall to patch another," dismantling parts from existing aircraft to maintain the operation of other aircraft, and even began to try using un-certified domestic or Iranian parts. The direct result is that the rate of failures and incident reports of Russian civil aviation aircraft has sharply increased in recent years, and the flight safety situation is worrying.
Boeing on fire
In this round of "wild breathing" by Trump, the first to be scared was not China, but Boeing itself.
The threat of cutting off aviation materials will directly kill Boeing's future in the Chinese market. China is the world's largest and fastest-growing aviation market, and it is estimated that it will need thousands of new aircraft in the next twenty years. This huge cake is something both Boeing and its only competitor, Airbus, are determined to win. Just recently, foreign media once reported that China might purchase as many as 500 Boeing aircraft. Although this agreement, if it exists, is still in the very early stages of discussion. But when the "Sword of Damocles" of part supply hangs over the head, wanting China to place such a huge order? Dream on! It's better for me to build the C919 myself. What? Want to talk about the neck of the C919 parts? Are you kidding us? We don't have a fully self-sufficient solution?
Some things are hidden in the details
Secondly, it will severely hit Boeing's most profitable business segment — the Global Services Group (BGS). Selling airplanes itself brings in huge revenue, but the profit margin is relatively limited. Like a car 4S store, the real source of continuous cash flow for Boeing is selling aviation materials, providing maintenance and repair services, and upgrading and modifying, and this business segment has a much higher profit margin than airplane manufacturing.
According to Boeing's financial statements, the Global Services Group has always been its most stable and main source of profit, especially during the years when the 737 MAX crisis caused a halt in plane deliveries, it was the strong performance of the service business that helped Boeing get through the crisis. Prohibiting the sale of parts to China is equivalent to cutting off one of its most profitable businesses, a "self-harm" sanction that is rare in global business history.
Finally, and most importantly, it causes permanent damage to Boeing's brand reputation. As the crown jewel of American industry, Boeing's success is built on nearly a century of technical accumulation, safety records, and commercial credibility. Customers buy Boeing for a sense of security and assurance. However, the actions of the Trump administration have turned this century-old company into a tool and sacrifice of geopolitics. This damage is global and long-term. Other countries' customers, especially those with delicate relations with the United States, will thus have doubts about Boeing. After all, who can guarantee that they won't be the next "China"?
This article is an exclusive contribution from Observer, and the content is purely the author's personal opinion, representing the platform's view. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; otherwise, legal liability will be pursued. Follow the Observer WeChat account guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7561646650579403318/
Declaration: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the [Like/Dislike] button below.