Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bombardier Unshelves 100-seat Jet Project  
User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4697 times:

Bombardier did shelf the BRJ-X project a few years ago. It seems they finally changed their mind.

The head of Bombardier Aerospace says the world's third-largest aircraft maker is diligently studying the possibility of producing a larger regional jet.

But Pierre Beaudoin said the division of Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. will not be pushed into a hasty decision by competitors Embraer SA, Airbus Industrie and Boeing Co., which already have aircraft in the 100-seat category, because a new Bombardier aircraft would have to be totally different, especially in terms of efficiency.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031027/RBOMB27//?query=Bombardier


Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineS.p.a.s. From Liechtenstein, joined Mar 2001, 962 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

Well, I would say that this decision is quite late, doesn't it? All R&D efforts that Bombardier will have to put into this will send the first flight to the last years of the decade, specially because the airlines will be looking, or favouring, new designs not another stretch...and the CRJ900 is already waayyy to long...

My 0.02 cents

RS



"ad astra per aspera"
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4598 times:

Thanks for that link.

it would have to be 15 to 20 per cent more efficient than the planes that are out there today

I wonder how they are going to achieve this? Obviously, this project will take a long time to reach the market. So if it is only available in 5 or 6 years, then it will benefit from new engine technology that may be used as upgrades to the products of the other manufacturers.

I disagree with the article, because Bombardier really is playing catch-up.



"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4429 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4498 times:

It seems that Bombardier is seeing that they're losing a huge opportunity to compete with Embraer's EMB-170/190/195 series unless they produce a product that is similar.

It is a little late for Bombardier though, they may face an L-1011-like situation, in which they get their product out much later than the competition's product, and lose tons of potential sales as a result.


That said, it had better be a darn good airplane to beat the EMB 190, especially this late in the game. If the product doesnt promise the moon, and deliver it, airlines aren't going to wait around for Bombardier when the EMB jets are on the market already.


That also means that it probably shouldn't be another stretch of the CRJ. It should be a jet designed from scratch in order to best serve the market. A stretch of the CRJ, while giving additional seats, probably wont be able to match the range of the EMB, among other things.


Interesting development. Wish them luck, but I see an L-1011 in Bombardier's future.

(Not that the L-1011 wasnt an amazing aircraft...it was...but it's late entry due to Rolls Royce problems really killed alot of sales.)

[Edited 2003-10-27 17:48:42]

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4425 times:

Bombardier looking at a 100-seater that would not be based on the CRJ? That would imply that they won't build something that could be shortened and thus cannibalize their CRJ sales. This in turn implies that it could probably be eventually lengthened to 140-150 pax territory.

So that means that Bombardier wants to butt heads with Boeing's 737--600 and -700, and Airbus' A318, A319 and A320.

Ambitious. Good luck to them - it would be nice to see a little more competition in that segment.

Charles


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4412 times:

Qb001:

Mr. Beaudoin said ... "we would not be in a position to make a decision before 12 to 18 months."

BBD hasn't changed their mind. Although they did shelve the BRJ-X several years ago they continued to work on the concept, most notably their FBW approach via their ACT Challenger.

What you are reading is a lot of BBD spin since they are effectively out of the running in the 100 pax market. They have to say something positive to offer hope to shareholders and stock analysts that BBD Regional Aircraft will have a future beyond the next few years.

Furthermore, they are no longer looking at the 90-110 seat market that the BRJ-X was originally targetted at but at the 110-130 seat market.


S.p.a.s.:

The BRJ-X will not be another stretch of the CRJ (hence the BRJ monniker). It is a completely new design that has wing mounted engines and a 5-abreast cabin. The design is quite advanced and if they did launch within a year, first flight would be around 3Q 2005.


Captaingomes:

The Prez of BBD Regional Aircraft stated that they are looking at 7E7 type technology (all electric aircraft, new engines - P&W were picked to supply the engines on the original BRJ-X) to acheive the 15-20% improvement over existing offerings. And he clearly stated that if they can't can offer the 15-20% improvement then they won't launch the aircraft.

BBD was actually ahead of FD and EMB with the BRJ-X until they lost the Lufthansa and Crossair orders. They even had a cabin mock up that they lugged around to various airshows.







Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineDAL12 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

That would imply that they won't build something that could be shortened and thus cannibalize their CRJ sales. This in turn implies that it could probably be eventually lengthened to 140-150 pax territory.

If BBD is smart, they should not dive into a 110-140 seat market. They should just recognize the CRJ-900 was a mistake and have the new family go all the way down to the 90 seat range (although this is unlikely to happen). They need to compete with less established types like the 717s and 190/195s of the world rather than 737NGs and A319/A320s.

But I do think that developing a new type is absolutely critical for the future of the company.


User currently offlineBryston From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4277 times:

Seeing that now, it seems like the 728JET buying from BBD would have been good for them. Don't you think? Or is the BRJ-X work they have already done is advance enough?


I'd rather be flying...
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

Bryston:

I think that there is certainly a doubt now whether BBD should have bought the FD 728/928 program. At the time that they were looking at FD, as we now know, BBD was in a terrible financial state and it would have been impossible for them to have pulled it off. By the way, that was the second time that BBD walked away from purchasing another 70-100 pax jet program - the other being Fokker.

I will go further than Dal12's statement: "But I do think that developing a new type is absolutely critical for the future of the company." I think that it is already too late and that BBD is now in critical condition.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

The 318 and 736 are not exactly what you might call best-sellers. And the market would certainly appreciate to see more than one player. IMHO there is a 90-110 seat market up for grabbing.

If I take issue with Bombardier, it's when Beaudoin is saying that to "create something that exists already three times is not our trade.". Au contraire, this is their trade. I vividly remember an interview with then Bombardier chairman who explained their strategy in saying that "they don't have to keep re-inventing the wheel"... And that's what they've done for the most part: Bombardier's engineering has not being very creative and been VERY conservative. But they are excellent bean-counters.

If they now realize that their conservatism is boomeranging on them now, that can only be good.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4001 times:

Qb001:

In case you didn't realize it, the BRJ-X is not now being targetted for the 90-110 seat market but for the 110-130 seat market.

I am in total agreement with your post!! - except for the assertion that BBD are excellent bean-counters. If they were, why are the company's bonds just one grade above junk status? Why did they have to sell off the "heritage" Ski-doo/Sea-doo/ATV divsion? The truth is that they have not been a very well managed company that indulged in a lot of smoke and mirrors (plus government handouts) to look much better than they ever were. It isn't an opinion - it is fact. One just has to look at their financial report.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineDAL12 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3974 times:

Planemaker, I'm not convinced that BBD is done for yet -- the CRJ-700 is a nice competitive aircraft. However, one very troublesome sign for them is that even with a very good output of 200+ airframes per year the past couple years, the other divisions dragged them to unprofitability.

Embraer who lost out on many sales to Bombardier the past couple years still manage to be slightly profitable with a much-decreased 110 airframe output this year. BBD's output will decrease to less than 200 next year, and Embraer's will increase significantly with the 170 coming out.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out which company is run better.


User currently offlineRockyRacoon From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 951 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3938 times:

anybody know where I could find a picture?

Tim


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3878 times:

Cfalk:

I was thinking the same thing. I expect that we'll see increased competition in the airliner-construction market over the next 20 years.

Qb001:

There's already a player in the 90-110 seat market: 717-200. Although it is not a regional jet in the strict sense of the term (indeed, I've frequently defended its "mainline" status), it is a viable option for airlines that need an aircraft in this market and has proven reliability and efficiency.

Additionally, the 717-300, if it is built, will be targetted at the 110-130 seat short-medium range market which is pretty much left open by the 736 and A318 (these are economised for long-range operations). The 713 will be available long before a BJR-X model.

DAL12:

I prefer reading balance sheets. However, since I haven't the time to read either company's sheets, I'll just say that today's "boom" company is sometimes tomorrow's chapter 7. Read up on Enron...



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3798 times:

DAL12:

Actually, it was the Aerospace division that got BBD into the biggest financial trouble - after having to restate their prior years financials because of "questionable" accounting approaches. What is amazing is how quickly things unravelled for BBD. Tellier, the current CEO, has done a good job of shoring and cleaning things up - but that was the past. However, I personally do not think that when he took over he had a clear understanding of the aerospace division, nor obviously of the industry - on paper it looked impressive. BBD can hold its own for the next few years but the dilema is how to go forward beyond that point.

I agree with you that the CRJ-700 is a competitive aircraft but it is becoming a "one trick pony" for BBD. Let's face it, if the E170/190 had been around a few years earlier the 700 would a) not have sold as well and b) been less profitable due to the competition. Now, BBD is reaping the benefit of being first to market and mainly scoring top up orders from existing customers.

The CRJ-900 is, as the press has called it, "a stretch to far" as a true 86 seater - hence the 705. Mesa is the only customer for it even though it has very high commonality with the 700. No one seriously expects to see too many additional orders.

CRJ-200 sales are slowing as the industry is reaching its limits for 50 seaters. Plus, it really is showing its age. BBD a couple of years ago even had plans to come out with the CRJ-500 - a 700 shrink, to replace the 200.

The DH division is almost dead and, although there might be a "dead cat bounce" with the Q400, but the future looks very bleak. BBD, again, had a plan to develop another shrink: the Dash8-Q500 - a 50 pax version of the Q400 but they fortunately killed it. They would have had another big write off.

The biz aircraft division is in worse shape going forward. They are being hammered by the economy, intense competition and the surplus of biz jets on the second hand market. Not many people realize that most of BBD's Challenger 300 sales are to themselves - the FlexJet division, which is up against the "gorilla" NetJets. Plus the 300 will eat into the already small Challenger 604 and the Lear 60 sales, further marginalizing those programs. And the Lear 40/45 program is going to get hit very hard by the new Eclipse, Adams 700 and Cessna jets (not to even mention the existing competitors and the many others that are trying to break in...)

The above is just a brief overview of the current state of BBD aerospace affairs and, thus far, management hasn't indicated how they are going to remain competitive moving forward (other than to put out the spin such as in the Globe & Mail article.) If anyone has a differing opinion I would be interested in hearing it.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4429 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3797 times:

I find it somewhat odd though that a 130 pax jet would now be considered "Regional". Even a 110 pax jet is a mainline jet to me.

I consider Embraer's latest offerings to be mainline jets, not RJs, although they will be used as RJs for the most part. Something of a compromise and I have to applaud Embraer for creating pretty much a new type of mainline regional jet...you just can't fully classify them as being strictly mainline, or strictly RJ. They're right between.

For comparison...the 737-200 holds a similar amount of pax to the EMB-190. Yet I dont think anyone truly considers the 732 to be a regional jet in terms of CRJs or ERJs. It's a mainliner. These new aircraft have the same amount of pax.

What this says to me is that Bombarier and Embraer have now moved past the point of being regional aircraft manufacturers. They've now stepped into the ring with the big boys and these 1001-130 seat jet proposals could very well be considered mainline offerings.

5 years ago I would have seriously doubted that either company would ever build a mainliner. 5 years from now I wouldnt be a bit surprised to see either, or both, look into offering a 150-190 pax jetliner, competing head on with the 737NG family.


I'd lay money on it. And it's exciting. VERY. With Mcdonnel Douglas gone there's only two major mainliner manufacturers, and having two more come into the ring makes for diversity, and makes aviation as a whole more interesting.  Big thumbs up

I'd also like to see a picture of this proposed jet.


Oh one more thing....Embraer used to call their 170/190/195 series "EMB 170" etc. Now their site lists them as "ERJ 170". I thought that earlier it was a thorn in Embraer's side to have the new aircraft labeled ERJs, now it seems that they've labeled that themselves.

Interesting. EMB sounds better and more appropriate really. An ERJ is a 135, not a 170, to me.  Smile


User currently offlineDAL12 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3700 times:

Elwood64151:
I prefer reading balance sheets. However, since I haven't the time to read either company's sheets, I'll just say that today's "boom" company is sometimes tomorrow's chapter 7. Read up on Enron...


!?! This is very off-topic, I know, but all financial statements can be cooked and one is not inherently better than the other -- just measure different aspects of financial health. A Balance Sheet is the moral equivalent of your net worth, whereas the income statement your employment status, and statement of cashflow, your ability to collect your paychecks. All extremely important.



User currently offlineBryston From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3576 times:

A quick googling and voila.



[Edited 2003-10-27 23:00:33]

[Edited 2003-10-27 23:01:37]


I'd rather be flying...
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

Another look-alike, unfortunately.

Charles


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3494 times:

Aloha717200:

Oh one more thing....Embraer used to call their 170/190/195 series "EMB 170" etc. Now their site lists them as "ERJ 170". I thought that earlier it was a thorn in Embraer's side to have the new aircraft labeled ERJs, now it seems that they've labeled that themselves.

Take a look again, it isn't ERJ. A bit of history: Originally, when Embraer offered the aricraft to LH and Crossair there were only the ERJ-170 and the ERJ-190. The ERJ-190 spilt in two: the ERJ-190-100 and the ERJ-190-200. Eventually, Embraer decided to produce 4 models, hence the evolution to the 170/175 & 190/195. Then Embraer dropped the ERJ monniker and was just calling them 170, 175, etc. for the very reasons that you stated - they weren't traditional regional jets. They had more range, wider seats and aisles, etc.

During the last year Embraer initiated another change to start calling the 170/190 family the E-jets. So they are now the E170, E175, etc. The press for the most part still calls the aircraft the Embraer 170 (or EMB 170) although they sometimes still use the ERJ incorrectly. I have noticed, however, that some stock analysts and aviation consultants are using the E-jets term now.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineWGW2707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1197 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

If this jet goes into production, it will be good for the airline industry as it will vastly increase the selection of smaller jet aircraft. The airlines will have a choice of the following new aircraft:

Airbus A318, Boeing 717-200, Boeing 737-600, Bombardier BRJ-X, Embraer 170/175 & 190/195, Fairchild Dornier 728/928, Ilyushin IL-114, Tupolev Tu-334, Yakovlev Yak 142

Plus, if the airlines are willing to get by with used aircraft, they'll have the added selection of these types:

Boeing 737-200/500, Fokker F28, F70 & F100, McDonnell Douglas DC-9 15/30 & MD-87

Too bad there isn't this much choice in the 150-250 seat range....

Of course, this boom in smaller jet aircraft is being driven by declining load factors and a desire for more non-stop flights between secondary cities, and it is likely to be one of the most profitable areas for the aircraft manufacturing industry in the years ahead. Also having a positive effect (unwittingly) is the 737-600, which has rather poor operating economics and has been somewhat of a disappointment.

Perhaps if we are lucky one of the companies in this market will pull ahead and begin producing larger aircraft, to rival Boeing and Airbus.

-WGW2707


User currently offlineRb211 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 632 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

It's sad about the CRJ-900. Some markets lost alot of "big jet" action that the DC-9 used to dominate. Just please, no more props.


Airline photography. Whether they're fully clothed, butt naked, having issues or confused I'm taking pictures!!
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7737 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3300 times:

I wouldn't be ready to stick a fork into Bombardier just yet.

I feel that pre-9/11 the 75-100 seat market seemed a lot smaller. The airlines could fill up the 130-150 seat aircraft well enough, and the record setting pilot contracts allowed for enough 50 seaters to fill in the smaller end of the spectrum. With Embraer, Bombardier, and Farchild-Dornier all developing planes in the 70-110 seat class the market did look highly segmented.

But post 9/11 with the need for less capacity, likely new pilot contracts (like USAirways and its MidAmerica subsidiary) make this market a lot more attractive. Plus the fact the neither Boeing nor Airbus really offer a plane in that size category that anybody wants. And throw in the fact that the FD-728/928 program appears to be stillborn, there is a chance that Bombardier has a viable chance in this market now.

BUT... The E-jets are flying now and will be in revenue service next year. So if Bombardier is to have a snowball's chance, they need to make a decision in a much quicker timeframe than 12-18 months. Because they will be facing stiff competition by a well received model that will be hard to beat.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineDAL12 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3250 times:

DesertJets:

And throw in the fact that the FD-728/928 program appears to be stillborn, there is a chance that Bombardier has a viable chance in this market now.

I agree that they still have a chance, but they need to approach it in a smarter way: they are targeting a seat range where the A319 and 737-700 thrive. It's hubris to think they can compete in that league without first taking on easier competitors (190, 717).

In addition, instead of trashing the competitors, they need to realize that they are the underdogs -- big time. The odds are against them, as I think they will have a very, very difficult time operating as they are AND absorbing the $1 billion investment necessary for a new type.


User currently offlineBryston From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3071 times:

When they say that they'll make a decision in 12-18 months, what does that mean? Usually, what is done between the announce of a new aircraft project and the Go/NoGo decision? Only market analysis, financial evaluation, very rough design to show to potential client? Or some "real" design is done?

Do someone knows is BBD have still work on the project, even slightly, while it was shelved?

Also, is it possible to BBD to just unshelve a project and continue it where they left it? When they shelve it, it was pre-9/11, the regional jets market was dominated by them, they have, what they tough, a good product coming for the 70-90 seats market, well in advance from any competitor. Everything was different from now. We can assume that the BRJ-X will required a lot of re-design, to fit as closely as possible with the airlines specifications. What would be the sooner they can fly it? At that time wouldn't the market be already dominated by Embraer, Boeing and Airbus?



I'd rather be flying...
25 Aloha717200 : If Bombardier doesn't make a decision whether to go/no go ahead with the project for another 12-18 months they might as well forget having any chance
26 B2707SST : The FD 728/928 program is not dead, at least not yet. The new owners completed static stress testing on the first 728 airframe last week and are now w
27 Planemaker : BRYSTON: I would like to know how did you paste the BRJ-X pic to your earlier post? I mentioned in an earlier post that BBD didn't shut down all work
28 Bryston : Planemaker, thanks for sharing your knowledge! As for the image, I just search BRJ-X on Google to find it, and then I insert its URL in HTML tags. Lik
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Has Anyone Flown Every Western Built 100+ Seat Jet posted Sun Feb 15 2004 13:33:34 by SQ25J
What 100-Seat Jet Aould AC Choose? posted Mon Oct 15 2001 02:56:25 by CanadianDC10
Bombardier Too Late In The 100+ Seat Market? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 20:40:17 by PVD757
Bombardier May Build All-New 100-Seat RJ posted Thu Jun 26 2003 15:45:58 by Ord
NWA, AC, And The 70-100 Seat Aircraft Issue posted Mon Feb 6 2006 01:58:46 by TR1
Bombardier's Profits Sink, Slows Jet Production posted Thu Dec 2 2004 08:05:45 by Greaser
100 Seat Or Less Market (A And B) posted Sat Feb 21 2004 20:23:37 by FlyABR
Bombardier Confirms Starting New JET posted Fri Feb 20 2004 22:31:21 by MartinairYYZ
Did Embraer Consider 30 Seat Jet? posted Wed Feb 11 2004 15:51:12 by Boeing nut
100-Seat Aircraft Market, A Yes Or A No? posted Thu Oct 9 2003 16:55:09 by GoAibusGo