AC320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 1395 times:
Here's an interesting possibility I've been thinking about recently. Since the "Big Two" already have control of the 100+ passenger market with a wide range of products, they had been slugging it out in the 500+ pax market and looks like both may start competing against each other for a high speed subsonic aircraft. The thought crossed my mind that perhaps they should consider developing regional jets and turboprops. This may prove to be a good idea for them since they do hold some leverage with nearly every airline on this planet, and could offer technology and characteristics similar to their large jet fleets. Just imagine Airbus regional jets with the sidesticks, and glass cockpits. However, this would but both corporations in direct competition with industry heavyweights such as Bombardier, who already have firmy established themselves in the regional market, and would make it an uphill battle for Boeing and Airbus. Any thoughts on this?
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2106 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1322 times:
There was a thread on this yesterday, actually... i think boeing signed some agreement with a Russian company to develop a 90-seater.. i didn't read it too closely, but I don't think it's a good idea. Mostly because my Step-dad works for Bombardier and I don't want him to lose his job... lol. But seriously, that market is already so intensely fought over by Bombardier and Embraer, I think it would (or Should!) be hard for Boeing or Airbus to really identify a market "need" for a <100 seat plane.
I'd like to see them stick with the big planes, and let the regional specialists fight over the regional plane market.
Qantas737 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 738 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
Up to now, Airbus and Boeing have expressed no interest in the RJ market as they dont see much in it. I'm quite sure Boeing used to own Bombardier and they were not happy with the Dash 8s sales and they preferred to stick with the 100+ seat aircraft. Correct me if im wrong.
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2106 posts, RR: 23 Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1308 times:
Ahhh, I think boeing used to own DeHavilland, but definitely not Bombardier. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly sure Bombardier's been around longer than Boeing! Anyway, i think what happened is Bombardier bought DeHavilland from Boeing because, as you said Boeing didn't see much in the Dash-8's. but since DeHavilland was not part of Bombardier at the time, there were no regional JETS in the picture there.
I may be mistaken in a few details but I think that's the general situation.
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2106 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1300 times:
Oops, I wa swrong on the history. Bombardier's been around since 1942, which I'm sure is less than Boeing, thoguh not by much, i guess. They bought DeHavilland in 1992.
Juanchito From Guatemala, joined Nov 2000, 1082 posts, RR: 11 Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
I would like that this two big aircraft producers don't enter to the regional market or the <100 seaters because then their will be less orders for small companies that are trying to succed in the aircraft market. Well that my opinion.
Qantas737 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 738 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1296 times:
My mistake, it was Dehavilland that Boeing owned and not Bombardier, since they sold it to bombardier. I knew it had something to do with either company
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2106 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
It's all good, didn't mean to be too critical! I just hope Bombardier and 9if they have to) Embraer can keep the big boys out. I heard somewhere that Airbus was thinking of buying Embraer. I hope that doesn't happen for two reasons. First, because I like Airbus and i don't like Embraer...
Second, because I really like the CRJ, and if Airbus buys Embraer, boeing would then be certain (I think) to develop competing regional aircraft, and I'm worried that bombardier would not have the resources to compete with the two big companies! I need that Bombardier paycheck (see above) to keep coming!
AC320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1290 times:
LOL, I don't think you'll have to worry about that paycheck, Bombardier's going to be around and making money for a long time. It would be nice to see Airbus and Bombardier team up to co-develop a regional aircraft. And then if Air Canada buys it, my life would be complete!
IFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
Boeing is very close to the regional market as it is, with the 717-200. However, if they DO go ahead with the 717-100X, they will even be closer. The fact that they have still not decided to build it, kind of tells me the direction that they are thinking. Of course the launch of this derivative is based upon airline orders, but on the other hand, nobody will commit to it until Boeing decides to build it. It's a classic Catch 22.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1274 times:
Boeing did a horrible job with de Havilland, kept on waiting for the government to bail them out. A lot of people lost their jobs. Thank goodness Bombardier knows what they're doing.
If I'm not mistaken, EADS (the 80% owner of Airbus) has a stake in Embraer. I doubt they will become activley involved in the production process, or Air Canada will probably not be giving them so many orders
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1231 times:
I do not think that any of those two companies would be very successful one the sub-100 airliners market (I do not like the expression RJ, because it sounds like a not full-scale airliner which is not true). They have too high production and development cost.
I do not think that turboprops will be developped further. Don't misunderstand me, a modern turboprop is a quiet, clean and reliable airliner with lower operating costs than a jet (have a look at the 328 / 328Jet), but passengers just want jets, so airlines buy jets...
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 738 posts, 
From Guatemala, joined Nov 2000, 1082 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
