Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BBD Ncap Looking Good...  
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1688 times:

Sorry to paraphrase...a simple search will result in the entire article.

The head of Bombardier Inc.'s new commercial aircraft program can't think of any reason why the company wouldn't go ahead with the proposed 110- to 135-seat aircraft, despite the fragile state of the world's major airlines and Bombardier itself.

Gary Scott (ex Boeing 737 manager) said the aircraft program he has assembled is so compelling that several airlines he has talked to "are excited about it." Bombardier chief executive Paul Tellier has given Scott's team until about the end of next January to bring a proposal to the board saying whether it should go ahead or not.

Also states that EMB190 is too small..lacks range. A318 and 736 too heavy. 717 does not meet most range/payload requirements....you get the idea.



9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePdpsol From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1110 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

Hmm... It appears as if BBD's choice to enter the 110-135 seat market, rather than ERJ's 70-110 seat market places BBD in a completely different competitive position.

ERJ never intended to compete directly against the B73G or the A318 and, instead, chose the 70-110 market as a response to a 'void' it saw in the market. It even has a presentation on its website, 'the rule of 70/110' describing its analysis. It sees a vast market for DC9/F100/F70/Bae146/B717 replacements and argues its chosen size best meets carrier requirements.

BBD, on the other hand, appears to be directly targeting the B73G/A318 market. Hmmm.... Not surprising considering the project leader is an ex-B73G guy himself.


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1660 times:

There are many that will say the 70/110 ruled is flawed in practice--although it's a great marketing tool to show off. I'll venture to say the 70 seats...while under the radar for scope clauses...is limited.

I've always thought a good solid 100-110 seat would do the industry a lot of good. Pity that both Fokker and Boeing blew it royaly by not investing in totally new wings, fbw, and other upgrades to be more competitive (Fokker screwed the engines up as well....).

I think we'll see EMB and BBD in competition for many years. Good for airlines and enthusiasts.

And please...no more on the impending doom of BBD...they, like many other companies are looking at the long haul. They are a long way off from closing their doors--despite dismall earnings.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1656 times:

"Looking good" is a bit premature. The cheerleading by Scott is a given -- it's his job after all. But, as has been mentioned a few times before, "where are they going to get the money to fund development?"

The first of many hurdles for funding is June 28th. If the Liberals lose the election BBD is in big trouble since the Conservative Party is against "corporate welfare" -- and BBD has stated that they expect 1/3 of NCAP funding to come from the government, followed by government sales financing.

Next, most analysts see BBD continuing to lose money as RJs sales continue to plummet. But, in the best case scenario, even if they don't lose money, they will not be generating enough internal cash to fund their share of development.

Sure, on paper there is certainly a compelling "commercial case" for the NCAP on the sheer basis of replacements for not only the "DC9/F100/Bae146" but also the older 737 classics and MD-80s (the NCAP EIS date is expected to be 2010). All added up there are several thousand aircraft to be replaced. However, as Pdpsol stated, the NCAP would pit BBD directly up against the A318/A319 AND the 736/73G!! And to lesser extent against the E190/195.

"Looking good" -- and only for development green light, is when BBD will have government funding in place, their own funding lined up and risk-sharing partners signed up. If BBD even gets that far, it will then be very interesting to see how Boeing, Airbus and Embraer respond - in words and deeds.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePdpsol From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1110 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1655 times:

Should BBD's decide to authorize the development of a new 110-130 seat family of aircraft, the firm will face years of massive investments in R&D, testing, certification, marketing, etc. Does BBD have the wherewithal to afford these costs, given the firm's current financial position and performance?

Will shareholders and the firm's creditors permit BBD to proceed with such a project? I do know the Bombardier family holds voting control of BBD, but its independent shareholders may demand the firm liberalize its corporate governance structure. After all, if I were a minority investor, I wouldn't like the arrangement at all.

Then again, perhaps this is all moot; I suspect we have yet to see the last of the Canadian nation government or the Quebec provincial government involved in BBD and its operations.


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 1638 times:

BBD will survive.
And as long as their is enough airline interest, it likely will be a viable project. And the further they push of EIS...the more likely airlines will recover.

I'm not as pessimistic as you, Planemaker. You clearly want it to fail before it even gets launched! A disturbing trend in most your posts regarding any competition for the EMB's.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

And as long as their is enough airline interest, it likely will be a viable project.

BBD has to be able to fund at the very least 1/3 of the development costs - airline interest or not in the NCAP. You should be able to appreciate this simple point considering your position on the FD728. Even with orders from LH and GECAS it failed due to lack of funding. And D'Long couldn't even resuscitate it even though they picked up the assets for only $10-million.

I'm not as pessimistic as you

I only state facts and all the points I make are supported by verifiable facts. Fact - the Aerospace Division has not made a profit for the last 3 years. Fact - RJ sales will shrink again next year and will be 66% lower than only 2 years ago. Fact - BBD has an outstanding pension liability of $2.8-billion (more than total NCAP development costs!) Fact - Over 50% of BBD's backlog is to airlines in Chap. 11 or threatening to go into Chap. 11.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Yes, Planemaker, I got it...you apparently hate anthing that isn't Brazilian.
Don't sweat it.

Again, which manufacturer do you work for? Thought so....


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Greg, why don't you try sticking to facts! I would have thought that it would have been second nature to you considering your profession.


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1618 times:

I'll stick by my original statement....The NCAP is looking like a good program--run by a very respected Program Manager. While BBD is having short term problems--this is a very long term industry.

I'd prefer to keep the post upbeat. As an enthusiasts I like to see new airplanes developed.

Enough said.



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...
SoCal Airports-Arnie Too Busy Looking Good? posted Sun Dec 25 2005 02:16:44 by RichardJF
TZ Update, Looking Good! posted Sat Dec 17 2005 20:36:32 by ChiGB1973
Mexico, Toluca Airport Not Looking Good! posted Mon Oct 24 2005 07:10:31 by Ghost77
DUO - Looking Good? posted Fri Apr 2 2004 18:19:32 by BFS
Seattle (Everett) Looking Good For 7E7 posted Fri Dec 5 2003 13:41:06 by United777
Things Looking Good At Astraeus! posted Tue May 28 2002 21:14:15 by Englandair
It Seems Its Not Looking Good For US Airways. posted Sat May 11 2002 04:46:47 by Ejaymd11
USA Today: Future Looking Good For Delta Air Lines posted Sat Apr 27 2002 03:05:06 by DeltaSFO
Do You Have To Be Good-looking To Become A FA? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:00:46 by B777A340Fan
Good Looking Butt On The A380 posted Tue Apr 26 2005 19:55:44 by KhenleyDIA