Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bombardier: Bring Back The BRJ-X Project!  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3154 times:

In the not so distant past, Bombardier thought of the BRJ-X or "Bombardier Regional Jet eXpansion". This project included an 5-abreast airplane ranging from 80-120 passengers. The cabin width would have been spacious 3,26 meter, which would offered wide seats without the risk of some low-cost carrier being tempted to try out a 6 abreast seating. The plane was intended to compete head on against the E-Jets from Embraer.

However, Bombardier shelved the program in favour of stretching the CRJ-700 to the CRJ-900 and then later stretch the CRJ-900 into the CRJ-1000.

Since then Bombardier has concentrated on the C-serier project which ranges from 110-144 seats. The C-series will compete head on against Airbus and Boeing. The C-series will offer a 3,4 meter cabin width, which could tempt low cost carriers to try out a not so comfortable 6 abreast seating instead of the original 5-abreast seating.

Why did Bombardier stop this program? This plane could replace their current CRJ family and at the same time enter the low end 737/A320 market. We all know that a five abreast plane can be stretched as far as the MD-80. IMO the BRJ-X would be a better option for Bombardier than the C-Series. Bombardier is a dominant player in the 70-100 seat segment, but above they have no market share. To launch a new program into a new are a bigger risk for bombardier, but if they could launch a 80-120 seat plane, then they could replace the narrow CRJ and at the same time take on the low end Airbus and Boeing market.

So here is my suggestion: BRING BACK THE BRJ-X PROJECT!


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3082 times:

Just to show how it could have looked.



Courtesy of http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRtypen/FRBRJ-X.htm

IMO a better way to go than their current C-Series. Take out the E-Jets, and offer something in the 100-120 seat range!



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

I believe they concluded that the economics going against the E-jets were just not there
to guarantee enough sales to cover the development costs. The C-series wouldn't be up
against the E-jets, but the (failing) A318 & B736, which are far too heavy for their mission.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 2):
I believe they concluded that the economics going against the E-jets were just not there
to guarantee enough sales to cover the development costs.

That may be true. But the similar sized 728 and 928 5 abreast Fairchild airplanes weighs less than the E-Jets, so it should be possible for Bombardier to make that plane just as light.

When Bombardier offered this plane, there was much stiffer expected competition. There was the ongoing E-Jets, the 728 and 928 from Fairchild, the Avro RJX from BAe. Now all those competitors are gone. Except for the E-Jets, so perhaps now is the time to start think of the BRJ-X again?  Smile



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wasn't the BRJ-X to be built with "conventional" materials while the C-Series is to have a lot more lighter composite materials, making the BRJ-X outdated in that respect?


Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineSkyexRamper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2832 times:

Bombardier needs to stop trying to make things that they have no expertise in. They know how make biz jets and modify them. Airliners are totally out of their scope of possibilities.

User currently offlineJamesJimlb From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1023 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 5):
Bombardier needs to stop trying to make things that they have no expertise in. They know how make biz jets and modify them. Airliners are totally out of their scope of possibilities.

completelly agree. IMO if they go in to the 110-140 seating either Airbus or Boeing will get rid of it when they can. IMO the E-jets were a waste of time, sure they get flown alot, and they look cool, ERJ should of just stayed in their market. an ERJ-155 would of been cool, a long version of h ERJ-145. but if bombardier did bring back the BRJ it could dominate the
e-jets or it could not. but who knows maybe some day in the faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar future boeingand airbus will be making regionals only and ERJ and CRJ will be making the the big boys, buuut that is so doubtful that it is hard to imagine.



The sky is no longer the limit, but the mere minimum
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12431 posts, RR: 100
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2627 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JamesJimlb (Reply 6):
IMO the E-jets were a waste of time,

 rotfl 

Yea... considering their sales success, I'm sure Embraer is crying all the way to the bank.  Wink

The fact is that there was a long neglected capability at the 100 seat size. Yes, there were the Fokkers... but their maintenance issues were famous.  cry 

The E-jets are now established. To kill them off would require a 7% to 15% improvement in fuel burn. (Possible, BTW, e.g., carbon fiber, GTF, etc.)

But there here and selling well.

As to the comments about Embraer and Bombardier dominating large jets... yea... real serious... not!

But stranger things have happened. Remember, at one point in time Fokker produced the largest pax planes...

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5320 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2608 times:

The same as there is room for 2 large plane makers, there is probably room for 2 smaller plane makers. Fokker, Bae and the rest have fallen by the wayside, leaving E and BBD. Both have had great success building wee airliners and they'll probably continue to do so for some time.

For Boeing or Aibus to really get into the 100-120 seat market would be the same as Bombardier getting into the VLJ market. Sure they could do it but their resources can be put to more profitable use elsewhere.

It's not rocket science...mostly. It's economics.



What the...?
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2595 times:

maybe if you tell Bombardier that you'll buy 200 of them they will restart development.

Like it or not, they're in it for the money and however much you say "but I want to look at them therefore you must make them" that's not going to change their minds, just as airlines aren't going to determine what aircraft to buy based on what some kid here thinks looks good in their livery (and yes, I know that will come as a shock to more than a few of you).



I wish I were flying
User currently offline757MDE From Colombia, joined Sep 2004, 1753 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
but their maintenance issues were famous

I've always wondered... what was sooo bad on the F-100 to have that reputation?
How does that compare with the issues the E-190 is having that have made it earn the nick "E-180"?



I gladly accept donations to pay for flight hours! This thing draws man...
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 4):
Wasn't the BRJ-X to be built with "conventional" materials while the C-Series is to have a lot more lighter composite materials, making the BRJ-X outdated in that respect?

This is very true, CRJ900. I was not to serious, when I wrote that headline, but my opinion is that it would be less risk for Bombardier if they develop a future platform that can both replace the existing CRJ700,900 and 1000 and at the same time have a platform to try competing in the 100-150 passenger plane segment.

They would need 2 wing platforms at least to really be competitive, but if they could be assembled on the same line and used much of the same technology I believe that would have made economical sense for Bombardier.

IMO the 3,4 meter cabin width could tempt some airlines to put 6 abreast seating, were as the older 3,26 meter cabin width fuselage would have prevented this.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
The E-jets are now established. To kill them off would require a 7% to 15% improvement in fuel burn. (Possible, BTW, e.g., carbon fiber, GTF, etc.)

Would a C-110 be able to offer 7-15 % improvement in fuel burn compared to the E195?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 8):
Both have had great success building wee airliners and they'll probably continue to do so for some time.

I hope so to, but the CRJ platform is very stretched compared to the E-jets. When BBD launched the CJR1000 there was some question from financial institution and journalists who wondered if an overstretched CRJ could be seen as a serious competitor since the competition had better seat width and more headroom.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 9):
Like it or not, they're in it for the money and however much you say "but I want to look at them therefore you must make them" that's not going to change their minds, just as airlines aren't going to determine what aircraft to buy based on what some kid here thinks looks good in their livery (and yes, I know that will come as a shock to more than a few of you).

Are you serious? Because I can tell you a 747SP would look really nice in the new SAS colors  Wink

I get your point. However, my point was not that I wanted a nice plane to look at, but rather discuss if the path Bombardier is taking is the right one. As you say they are in it for the money, and right now it seems like they are trying to continue to sell the CRJ, and if they are lucky to get enough airlines interested they will get the C-series from 2013 or so. If the C-Series are on from 2013, then they will have two platforms from 50 to 144 seats. Not bad, but when looking at the BRJ-X program it seems like they could have covered 70-150 seats with one platform. That would give Bombardier a better return of investment. Eventually the CRJ program needs to be replaced, and why not do that with one platform that can both replace the existing product portfolio and at the same time try to open up new markets for BBD in the 100-150 seat market.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5320 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

From what I can surmise, airlines such as Lufthansa are pretty happy with the crj family within certain roles. As I understand, the CRJ is cheaper to run than the Ejets, though less roomy for the passenger. I've been on AC's 705's and it seemed ok to me. I'm 6'1" and 240lbs. I had plenty of legroom. The wall did slope in on me a bit but I still had less intrusion than I get from QR 330's with their very bulky avod system.

The CRJ's are light, quick and pretty reliable. They have their limitations but what doesn't. I'm fairly confident that BBD will sell the Cseries to some airline. If not, life will still go on...



What the...?
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2462 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
Yea... considering their sales success, I'm sure Embraer is crying all the way to the bank.

Agreed 100%. When I read that, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. These guys are making a killing off these E-Jets and they laugh everytime the cash register goes "cha-ching!"



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
From what I can surmise, airlines such as Lufthansa are pretty happy with the crj family within certain roles.

I to believe that they are. But why did they opt for the E-190 instead of the CRJ-1000 on the recent order? Was that because of an old agreement Embraer had with Swiss or was it because it was a better fit for replacing some of their planes?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
As I understand, the CRJ is cheaper to run than the Ejets, though less roomy for the passenger.

Indeed it is, Joe. The CRJ has according to Bombardier a 15% better operating cost than the E-190. Makes one wonder what Lufthansa was thinking?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
The CRJ's are light, quick and pretty reliable.

 bigthumbsup 



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5320 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

I can think of a few reasons why an airline might want to have both types in their fleet. Though they hold about the same number of people, they are quite different planes...not as different as between props and jets, but still different enough to be assigned their own roles.

It could be as simple as a previous contract or even a side by side, in house comparison. I think there will continue to be room for both types. Look how healthy things are between the 737 and 320.



What the...?
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...
Bring Back The Boeing Testing Journal posted Sat Jun 10 2006 10:56:01 by KhenleyDIA
Bring Back The Meals In North America! posted Sun Jan 22 2006 11:14:59 by Ppostro
Bring Back The Hamilton Airshow..... posted Mon Jun 6 2005 19:17:43 by Fubar37
Should Qantas Bring Back The Timetables? posted Thu Jun 10 2004 02:09:53 by Terminal688
Bring Back The Bus! posted Tue Mar 5 2002 00:14:16 by A300 American
Bring Back The Cheat Line posted Mon Oct 9 2000 16:47:16 by Caribb
Boeing,bring Back The 7J7 posted Thu Jun 10 1999 15:35:28 by William
Will Bombardier Go On With The BRJ-X? posted Thu Apr 27 2000 22:17:36 by QB001
Will AA Ever Bring Back STL-CUN/SJU posted Sun Mar 18 2007 21:53:49 by CIDflyer
Bring Back Eastern Airlines posted Mon Oct 16 2006 04:30:00 by Flyer62