Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would Airbus & Boeing Ever Consider RJ's?  
User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 627 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I look at the run-a-way success of the Bombardier CRJs and the Embraer ERJs, as well as the decent debut of the Embraer 170/190 and the revival of the turboprop and I can't help but wonder if Airbus and Boeing would ever consider building smaller regional jets and/or turboprops. I know those two companies have more experience building larger mainline aircraft so it would probably cost a great deal of time and money to develope and build such aircraft, but the potential business they could add would probably more than offset the costs. Similarly, would either one of these companies every consider trying to buy out or merge with another company which produces RJ's or turboprops?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4258 times:

You mean like Boeing's 717 or Airbus' hypothetical A317? Big grin

I'd be ignorant to make the claim that an RJ is just a seriously stretched business jet, but then I don't see Cessna jumping into the category. We never know; perhaps in commercial aviation, two or three competitors is enough. If ether Boeing or Airbus would dare jump in, it could mean saturation and maybe even bankrupcy for whomever. It could be any company really.

I think it is best they remained specialized in larger transports. I'm not for monopolies, even if the commonality argument was as wide as the 20 to 600 pax market.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Boeing had De-Havilland (correct name?) that sold turbo props... dash 8 and such, and basically gave it away in the early 90s.

This market segment is the most subsidized market in the world. Every government wants a piece of aviation, and this is where they start. In addition, whilst it may seem that there are a lot of deliveries, the actual dollar value is very small.

Cheer


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12796 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4226 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This week's FI has an article about Boeing's 737 replacement and mentions that they are looking at the option of offering two types. One would cover the traditional A320/737 range of 130-190 seats, the other much lower in the 90-110 seat range.

Sales of A318s and 736s would seem to indicate that shrinking a 150-seat single-aisle to that size is not a particularly good idea.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26709 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 3):
Sales of A318s and 736s would seem to indicate that shrinking a 150-seat single-aisle to that size is not a particularly good idea.

Actually, the A318 is a double shrink of a 179 seat (max capacity anyway, 150 is more common) aircraft.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 2):
Boeing had De-Havilland (correct name?) that sold turbo props... dash 8 and such, and basically gave it away in the early 90s.

Um, DeHavilland was a British company

Anyway, to answer this, Boeing actually does have an interest in a Regional Jet. They have contributed to the development of the RRJ. Beyond that, the backlash against the RJ segment (50 seaters anyway) has really hurt Bombardier and could have been a disaster for Embraer if not for their truly amazing E170-195 family.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4209 times:

In the electronic version of this week's FI, it says Boeing is considering a double pronged attack with the 737 replacement. One of these prongs could be a 90-100 seater, with the other prong being a true 737 replacement. Very interesting, but very preliminary.

User currently offlineRpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

While it's 100% theorical, how about this scenario:

Both Boeing and Airbus have relatively bad time to compet with RJ. There is of course products like A318. Being a member of the A32X familly is a plus, for sure. But it's not yet enough. I think Jet Blue is a good example. So with not try to join power? I could see Boeing/Bombardier versus Airbus/ATR/Embraer.

In both case, I do not see a merge, but rather joint venture. I do NOT state that there is something on the pipe or so. It's pure speculation and I could be wrong. I also know that there is some advanced RJ projet in Asia and Russia.

My 2 cents


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6341 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4175 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Um, DeHavilland was a British company

... and there is de Havilland Canada located in Downsview, Ontario. Boeing bought the company in 1988 and only kept it for a few years (in fact, they unfortunately closed Twin Otter production during their ownership.) They later sold DH to the Provincial government. In 1992, DH was acquired by Bombardier.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineTraveler_7 From Estonia, joined May 2000, 540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4074 times:

A few years ago both (A and B) had an opportunity to buy ready for production design - FD728, but neither Boeing nor Airbus bought it. Most probably it is wise to stay out of this market for a while?

User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7801 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4052 times:

The RJ market has proven to be a pretty fickle one. A pretty fast and hectic ten-year run only to have both of the 2 major builders consider shutting down their 50 seater lines.

Largely the reason we don't see Airbus or Boeing in this segment is that the development costs, for them, are too high for a relatively small return on investment. Bombardier and Embraer had the benefit of scaling up existing designs, which helped to reduce development costs.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineRpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

Quoting Traveler_7 (Reply 8):
which helped to reduce development costs

That's a good point of view. That said, it could be a good idea in my humble opinion to join force both for a RJ maker and a Long hauler one. Both a them comes with solid background on respective markets. There is probably room for synergies.


User currently offlineSmokescreen From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3905 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 7):
and there is de Havilland Canada located in Downsview, Ontario

Worth emphasising that DHC has been designing aircraft independently from the British company since immediately after WWII. The first original DHC design was the DHC-2 Beaver, cert. in 1948.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3882 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Um, DeHavilland was a British company



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 7):
... and there is de Havilland Canada located in Downsview, Ontario. Boeing bought the company in 1988 and only kept it for a few years (in fact, they unfortunately closed Twin Otter production during their ownership.) They later sold DH to the Provincial government. In 1992, DH was acquired by Bombardier.

Furthermore, dH Australia is now called "Boeing Australia," and they do a lot of important work on civil and military Boeing products.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6341 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting Smokescreen (Reply 11):
The first original DHC design was the DHC-2 Beaver, cert. in 1948.

Very close... but just not quite close enough. The DHC-2 designation should have tipped you off. The first original de Havilland Canada design was the DHC-1... Chipmunk.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2257 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

I don't think there's a market to support RJ builders. The "Day of the RJ" has pretty much passed as I see it. The deliveries are dwindling faster than orders.

For the sake of this argument, I don't consider the E170/190 series an RJ. If you haven't been in one that may not make sense to you. They are more like riding in an A320/737 with two seats missing. It also reminded me of the old Convair 580s.
From a Controllers point of view they perform more like the As and Bs than the CRJs and E135/145. In a descending arrival sequence situation, many times the 170/190 is the faster, or when needed, willing to be the faster aircraft. The CRJ7/9 is a good performer.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3848 times:

Boeing seems willing to split the 737 succesor in a smaller and larger variant. The smaller Boeing will likely be around 100 seats, so considered a regional.

It is hard to design a basic aircraft that isn´t heavy when shrunk (736, A318) of running against its payload range limits above 215 seats (A321/739ER).

A rational decision IMO, both markets seem large enough to justify 2 designs. Technology wise synergies can be archieved anyway.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...g+widens+search+for+next+737+.html

[Edited 2006-03-06 22:29:41]

User currently offlineSmokescreen From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
Very close... but just not quite close enough. The DHC-2 designation should have tipped you off. The first original de Havilland Canada design was the DHC-1... Chipmunk.

I know we're going off topic here, but... IIRC the Chipmunk was designed by DH (UK) as an RAF primary trainer to replace the Tiger Moth, and that all production was farmed out to DHC exclusively as the parent co. needed all it's capacity for Comets. The Beaver was the first aircraft designed and manufactured by DHC.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6341 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting Smokescreen (Reply 16):
I know we're going off topic here, but... IIRC the Chipmunk was designed by DH (UK)

If so, they wouldn't have called it the DHC-1.

"One of the RAF's longest serving aircraft types, the Canadian designed Chipmunk entered RAF service in 1950."

http://www.rafmuseum.com/london/coll...t/aircraft_info.cfm?aircraft_id=23

"The Chipmunk was designed, initially built and flown by de Havilland Canada subsidiary."

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/dehavilland_chip.htm



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3698 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 14):
I don't think there's a market to support RJ builders. The "Day of the RJ" has pretty much passed as I see it. The deliveries are dwindling faster than orders.

While I am reluctant to use this source, look through it and come to your own conclusions.

BMCO2005, page 3I don't know about you, but 4,000 airplanes are a lot to me.

Note: it is a biased report, normally I would never consider market forcasting by said company to be objective, i.e. they'd never play down their own products -- it's business. But you did not think there was much left for RJ's when Boeing (at least  Yeah sure ) can speak of a future for the market.

Though in my mind, the only reason they would include it is if they had an interest in it. Even if half of those were Boeing RJ's... Big grin



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

I think the RJ market belongs to Embraer, low labor price is one reason, the long term commitment of the Brazilian government another.

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 19):
I think the RJ market belongs to Embraer, low labor price is one reason, the long term commitment of the Brazilian government another.

This presumes that capital and technology can't negate any labor price advantage. If those manufacturing technology advantages are closely coupled to the ability to make a better performing plane, labor price may be not an advantage at all.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6341 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3586 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 18):
3I don't know about you, but 4,000 airplanes are a lot to me.

Not really that much when you divide 3,900 by 20 years (CMO time period) and then divide that by at 4 or 5 (competitors)... that works out to between 40 and 50 aircraft per year. With a relatively low profit margin I don't think that Boeing would be really interested in going after this relatively small segment.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1671 posts, RR: 49
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3528 times:

For perspective, the whole RJ market is worth 1/5th of the 737/A320 market.

mrocktor


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...
Aircraft Deliveries Airbus & Boeing, Bottom Line.. posted Thu Nov 23 2006 00:04:08 by Keesje
Airbus & Boeing Names posted Wed May 10 2006 06:30:28 by WunalaYann
Airbus & Boeing Marginalizes Their Products posted Mon Mar 20 2006 18:43:31 by OyKIE
A380: Airbus & Boeing Interiors? posted Thu Feb 23 2006 12:44:40 by LHB727230Adv
Airbus & Boeing Security? posted Fri Aug 27 2004 20:52:55 by Aa777jr
THY Gets Airbus & Boeing posted Thu Jun 24 2004 21:04:42 by Solnabo
Airbus & Boeing Fans posted Wed May 19 2004 23:49:15 by Northwest717
Where To Find Airbus & Boeing Checklist? posted Fri Apr 9 2004 00:34:44 by Santhosh
Airbus & Boeing Working Together On New A/c posted Wed May 14 2003 04:44:18 by Zebfly2
The Economist Has A Jab At Airbus & Boeing posted Sun May 6 2001 12:58:51 by Capt.Picard