Purpose – The main target to do this analysis is to find out the competitiveness between 2 countries(China and USA) in the aircraft business industry. The purpose of this research is to realize which country is more competitive between 2 country’s trade structure. Research design, data, methodology – This research conducted for period from 2000 to 2017. Expecting effect is to learn how to improve aircraft industry for 2 countries. Research method is used by comparative advantage trade theory. Results – Even though general data about aircraft industry are open to world society, detailed classified data are not easy to get them. Namely, it is research limitation that overseas productions both China & USA are not available due to company business strategy. Conclusion – From early 50’s, every USA industries hold a dominant position so far. Now, China is comparative advantage against that of USA in the field of aircraft industry. Sound competition relationship is good for both 2 countries for mutual benefits. The future prospect is China needs export market diversification to enlarge economic growth in the long run.
Arminen, I., & Auvinen, P. (2013). Environmentally coupled repairs and remedies in the airline cockpit: Repair practices of talk and action in interaction. Discourse Studies, 15(1), 19-41.
Arminen, I., Koskela, I., & Palukka, H. (2014). Multimodal production of second pair parts in air traffic control training. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 46-62.
Bazeley, P. (2006). The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 64-74.
Balassa B. (1965). Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33(1), 99-123.
Finlay, W. M. L., Walton, C., & Antaki, C. (2011). Giving feedback to care staff about offering choices to people with intellectual disabilities. In C. Antaki, Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (161-183), New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hindmarsh, J., & Llewellyn, N. (2010). Finding organisation in detail: Methodological orientations. In N. Llewellyn & J. Hindmarsh, Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (24-46), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton, Cognition and communication at work (15-34), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerne, Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (13-31), US: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Kitzinger, C. (2011). Working with childbirth helplines: The contributions and limitations of conversation analysis. In C. Antaki, Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 98-118), New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koschmann, T. (2013). Conversation analysis and collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O'Donnell, International handbook of collaborative learning (149-167), ), London, UK: Routledge.
Koskela, I., Arminen, I., & Palukka, H. (2013). Centres of coordination as a nexus of aviation. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile, Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp245-276), Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Margutti, P. (2010). On designedly incomplete utterances: What counts as learning for teachers and students in primary classroom interaction? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 315-345.
Melander, H., & Sahlström, F. (2009). Learning to fly—The progressive development of situation awareness. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 151-166.
Nevile, M. (2007). Talking without overlap in the airline cockpit: Precision timing at work. Text & Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 27(2), 225-249.
Nevile, M. (2010). Looking for action: Talk and gaze home position in the airline cockpit. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 1-21.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276.
Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The ‘Conversation analytic role-play method’. In C. Antaki, Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (119-139). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stokoe, E. (2014b). The conversation analytic role-play method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255-265.
Tuccio, W. A. (2011). Heuristics to improve human factors performance in aviation. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 20(3), 39-53.
Tuccio, W. A., & Nevile, M. (2017). Using Conversation Analysis in Data-Driven Aviation Training with Large-Scale Qualitative Datasets. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 26(1). 25-37
Tuccio, W. A., Esser, D. A., Driscoll, G., McAndrew, I., & Smith, M. O. (2016). Interventionist applied conversation analysis: Collaborative transcription and repair based learning (CTRBL) in aviation. Pragmatics and Society, 7(1), 30-56.
Uncomtrade (2017). 2012 Annual Statistics Reports. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from http://comtrade.un.org/
Wilkinson, R. (2011). Changing interactional behaviour: Using conversation analysis in intervention programmes for aphasic conversation. In C. Antaki, Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp32-53). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilkinson, S. (2011). Improving ethnic monitoring on a telephone helpline. In C. Antaki, Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp75-97). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.