Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Haven't Bombardier Started Selling CSeries?  
User currently offlineAirbuske From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 466 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2710 times:

"The Bombardier* CSeries* is the only family of aircraft designed specifically, without compromise, for the lower end of the 100- to 149-seat market. CSeries is the perfect balance of proven methods, materials and leading-edge technology to meet the airline needs for 2013 and beyond.

This competitive aircraft family will be built with unmatched operating economics, optimal environmental friendliness, total life-cycle support, unparalleled passenger appeal, superior operational flexibility and mature reliability levels at the entry into service."

Source : www.bombardier.com


According to the information above, 1st delivery is scheduled for 2013 , about the same time frame as the A350XWB. So why hasn't BBD started booking orders for the CSeries? ( As we all know, Airbus has already received a tonne of orders for the XWB)

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMattRB From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1624 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2656 times:

Because nobody wants what BBD is selling. Embraer beat them to the market with the E170 family of planes and BBD ended up getting caught with it's pants down.

They've been pedalling the C-Series for a few years now, trying to find a launch customer. With the infusion of capital from AVIC (iirc, they just bought into the program), the C-Series might actually see the light of day.

But don't hold your breath.



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
User currently offlineHNLtrades118 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Quoting MattRB (Reply 1):
They've been pedalling the C-Series for a few years now, trying to find a launch customer. With the infusion of capital from AVIC (iirc, they just bought into the program), the C-Series might actually see the light of day.

But don't hold your breath.

I remember reading about the C-Series in Airways a few months back...(too lazy to dig out the article) It did sound like the program was majorly stalled though.

Also, and this is purely speculation on my part, but from what I'm reading the proposed capacity of the C-Series (110-130 seats) would put it into direct competition with the smaller A320/B737 family members and their successors. Perhaps Bombardier is choosing their fights wisely, knowing that Airbus and Boeing will be rolling out their next-generation narrowbodies in the next few years or so?

I don't really know about AVIC and what that means for the program though. Perhaps someone can elaborate on this or point me in the right direction?

~jon



"Do not wait for extraordinary circumstances to do good action; try to use ordinary situations." -Sam Rayburn
User currently offlineAirbuske From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

Quoting HNLtrades118 (Reply 2):
Also, and this is purely speculation on my part, but from what I'm reading the proposed capacity of the C-Series (110-130 seats) would put it into direct competition with the smaller A320/B737 family members and their successors. Perhaps Bombardier is choosing their fights wisely, knowing that Airbus and Boeing will be rolling out their next-generation narrowbodies in the next few years or so?

I understand your point and I am aware that Airbus and Boeing are soon going to be offering A320/B737 replacements, but at the same time I could argue that even if Airbus and Boeing were to create a family catering to the 100-200 seat market, for regional carriers who operate turboprops and RJ's , BBD's CSeries would still be very attractive because the CSeries family offers more flexibility in the 110-135 seat range especially if BBD will offer CSeries commonality with the current CRJ's (which I think is the plan anyways).

To me, it just makes sense that a regional carrier would prefer an a/c with more flexibility in the 100-140 seat range than one that caters for the 100-200 seat market.

Also, BBD plan to offer the a/c by 2013 and we all know that Airbus and Boeing will probably be introducing their next a/c family about 5-8 years after that time period. So this does give BBD an advantage in terms of capturing the market.

[Edited 2007-07-03 17:07:22]

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2480 times:

The problem with the CSeries (and potentially the RRJ) at the low end is that the E-Jets are entrenched in the market for aluminum RJs, and it will take a monolithic CFRP barrel game-changer (such as the Mitsubishi RJ) to disrupt the market. At the high end, the market is mostly saturated with newer 737s/A320s, and the remainder of that market is probably anticipating the monolithic barreled Y1 and whatever Airbus offers in the form of the NSR.

[Edited 2007-07-03 17:22:41]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

The gain from CFRP for aircraft that size is very debatable.

User currently offlineAirbuske From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

The CSeries is aimed at the regional carrier who wants slightly more capacity than current largest available RJ's but less than that of say the A320 or B737 family. I wonder how much of a difference it would make to them if the a/c was aluminium or CFRP based as long as the operating economics favoured the CSeries.

And even if it did matter to the regional carriers,

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 5):
The gain from CFRP for aircraft that size is very debatable.

I fully agree with the comment above.

I think the experience and expertise that BBD or Embraer have with a/c of that size would easily outweigh any advantages gained by CFRP or NSR based a/c offered by Airbus or Boeing.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 5):
The gain from CFRP for aircraft that size is very debatable.

There's more to this than weight savings. Manufacturing efficiency and maintenance savings are a big one, as well as airframe durability. Think multidimensionally here. By the way, thanks for adding a comment without substance.

Quoting Airbuske (Reply 6):
I think the experience and expertise that BBD or Embraer have with a/c of that size would easily outweigh any advantages gained by CFRP or NSR based a/c offered by Airbus or Boeing.

What advantage? It's not that long ago that Boeing offered an aircraft in this market space. They certainly have the know-how. Why are you writing off two very powerful entities which are more than capable of offering a threat?

[Edited 2007-07-03 18:09:32]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 5):
The gain from CFRP for aircraft that size is very debatable.

That's either flat out wrong or just poorly worded. The gain from CFRP from an inflight cost-savings perspective is negligable, but the overall cost savings in terms of maintenance windwos and cycles is a SIGNIFICANT advantage for aircraft of that size.

Remember CFRP frames have 2-3x the amount of time between D checks, which are a big deal for an aircraft that's going to run a TON of short hop lights during a day.

It's not all about fuel burn 24x7 guys.. I can't believe how often this is forgotten.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineAirbuske From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):
What advantage? It's not that long ago that Boeing offered an aircraft in this market space. They certainly have the know-how. Why are you writing off two very powerful entities which are more than capable of offering a threat?

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not writing off the two largest commercial aircraft manufacturers. All I am saying is that BBD with it's NextGen CRJ and EMB with the E-Jets have already got a lot of experience in builiding a/c that seat 70-100 pax. Because of this, in my own opinion, BBD and EMB would be able to introduce a very competitive 110-130 seater a/c with a cheaper base price. (they already have a strong foundation for an aircraft that size, so less research related investment)

I probably overlooked the fact that Boeing have produced similar a/c in the past. Airbus have made a statement that suggests that they would be parterning with EMB for the development of the A320 replacement. It is probably mostly due to the fact that Airbus is out of finance, but I think it also has a lot to do with inherting experience and benefiting from economies of scale.

Once again, these are just my opinions. I'm by no means an aviation expert, I'm just a college student.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
That's either flat out wrong or just poorly worded. The gain from CFRP from an inflight cost-savings perspective is negligable, but the overall cost savings in terms of maintenance windwos and cycles is a SIGNIFICANT advantage for aircraft of that size.

Remember CFRP frames have 2-3x the amount of time between D checks, which are a big deal for an aircraft that's going to run a TON of short hop lights during a day.

It's not all about fuel burn 24x7 guys.. I can't believe how often this is forgotten.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't CFRP frames significantly more expensive to purchase when compared to their aluminium counterparts?


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8630 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

But the C-Series could be a dinosaur if Boeing comes out with a plastic 737-600 that outperforms it.

No one wants to take that chance on the C-series.. They want to see the new 737 first.


User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):

That's either flat out wrong or just poorly worded. The gain from CFRP from an inflight cost-savings perspective is negligable, but the overall cost savings in terms of maintenance windwos and cycles is a SIGNIFICANT advantage for aircraft of that size.

We'll see. None are flying as of now. It being done right, there's a lot of potential... but there's a lot of pitfalls as well.
Mrocktor is right as far as the effects of non-linear scaling means that higher performance materials have a more pronounced effect on large aircraft than on small. As far as maintenance? I think you're right as far as a big cost savings due to the length of time between checks, however small aircraft have different life cycles than large aircraft. They undergo more cycles at smaller airports. They probably spend more time on the ground, which means that all the things Boeing is saying about the ease of fixing ramp-rash are hopefully true.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2249 times:

Quoting Airbuske (Reply 9):
Airbus have made a statement that suggests that they would be parterning with EMB for the development of the A320 replacement.

Have you heard that directly from Airbus or elsewhere? Embraer wants to be a partner in the 737/A32X replacement, but thus far I've heard nothing from A or B. Seems way too early for them to announce something like that IMO.

[Edited 2007-07-03 20:40:52]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 12):
Have you heard that directly from Airbus or elsewhere? Embraer wants to be a partner in the 737/A32X replacement, but thus far I've heard nothing from A or B. Seems way too early for them to announce something like that IMO.

I don't know how you'd classify this. Speculation, rumor, or something more?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Replacement%20Alone&channel=comm


User currently offlineAirbuske From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 12):
Have you heard that directly from Airbus or elsewhere? Embraer wants to be a partner in the 737/A32X replacement, but thus far I've heard nothing from A or B. Seems way too early for them to announce something like that IMO.

Thanks Remcor for pulling up the article for PPVRA.

PPVRA, just in case you are interested, there is also an active thread that is discussing the same issue - whether Airbus will team up with Embraer and Boeing with BBD for the replacement of the A320 and 737 families respectively.

Airbus May Not Do A320 Replacement Alone (by Elvis777 Jul 3 2007 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

Thanks for the links. Very interesting.


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offline6YJJK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1990 times:

Quoting Airbuske (Thread starter):
Why Haven't Bombardier Started Selling CSeries?

The C-series was designed as a DC9 replacement, with Northwest in mind. Bombardier really should read a.net before doing these things.  Wink


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
The gain from CFRP from an inflight cost-savings perspective is negligable, but the overall cost savings in terms of maintenance windwos and cycles is a SIGNIFICANT advantage for aircraft of that size.

If the technology performs as envisioned savings from extended maintenance intervals would indeed be significant.

On the other hand, these planes are subjected to much more severe wear and tear on the ground (more cycles, more loading/unloading cycles etc). Also, since the planes are smaller, the relative extent of a ground mishap (such as being "rammed" by a service vehicle or boarding tunnel) is larger. A lot rides on how practical the repair process for CFRP actually turns out to be.

On anything smaller than a 150 seater there might even be a weight penalty associated with CFRP. Anything short of massive gains in maintenance makes the idea unatractive (a CFRP plane means a significant change in the operator's maintenance practices - and the operators of small jets usually have pretty lean organizations).

Finally, the "savings" from the industrial process come from replacing high cost union workers (at Boeing and Airbus) with robots. Embraer already has low wage costs, BBD is starting ventures in low labor cost countries as well. The labor cost "savings" from CFRP would only bring the production costs closer to what Embraer already has and BBD is trying to achieve - but it is not likely that it is actually cheaper to produce a CFRP fuselage in Japan than it is to produce an aluminum fuselage in Brazil.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
It's not all about fuel burn 24x7 guys

Very true.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Considering that Bombardier has shelved this concept on several occasions and extent dates back to the BRJ program they looked at in the mid-to-late 1990s and shelved in 2000 to concentrate on the CRJ-900 as the a/c to somewhat fill niche the BRJ-X was designed for (85-100 seat), the waving support for the concept makes it a bit harder to sell an a/c.. At that time the BRJ program was shelved, there were several other competitors trying to offer products in that niche as well. In addition to the E-Jets, Fairchild-Dornier had their 528/728/928JET program, the rumors of Rekkof were being to emerge, Avro had their ARJ-X and ATR was proposing their AIR 70. You can even throw in the 717-100 into the mix as well, as it had been long proposed, dating back to when it was still the MD-95.

Bombardier took the quick and dirty route when it came to their 70 and 90 passenger a/c. They did like other a/c builders have done in the past and stretched the base design and tweaked it as needed. This is cheaper than doing a clean sheet design, but you end up having to make some concessions along the way. For example, cabin size and height. Embraer really had no choice but to go with a clean sheet design with the E-Jets because the parent a/c the original ERJs were based off couldn't be stretched any further without making the design awkward and potentially economically unfeasible. Could you imagine how long the E-170 would be if they based it off of the EMB-120? Because the CRJ-700 and 900 were derived from an existing product, they could get them to market quicker than a clean sheet design.


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...
2 Class CR7 Why Haven't More Airlines Done This? posted Fri May 18 2007 19:43:53 by RocANDtpa
Why Is BMed Not Selling Freetown Flights? posted Thu Sep 14 2006 18:28:11 by ZuluTime
Why Have Manufacturers Started Using -8, -9, Etc.? posted Sun Sep 3 2006 01:40:32 by Yellowstone
Why Hasn't Airtran Started BOS-MCO? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 18:01:23 by Quickmover
Why Can't Bombardier Launch An All New 100 Seater posted Wed Jun 28 2006 22:42:37 by Tangowhisky
Bombardier: Reports Of CSeries Demise Premature posted Wed Feb 22 2006 14:29:29 by Leelaw
Bombardier To Jilt CSeries In Favor Of RRJ posted Mon Jan 30 2006 12:24:45 by Leelaw
Why Hasn't WN Started JAN-DAL, BHM-DAL? posted Thu Mar 3 2005 23:02:48 by ATLgaUSA
Why Hasn't American Started Their Own LCC posted Wed Mar 2 2005 14:37:49 by Alberchico
Why Haven't Any US Carriers Ordered The 7E7? posted Sat Jul 31 2004 02:56:39 by Horus