Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Real Civil Gamechanger Is?  
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

What is the actual real game changer in the civil market?


Some month ago i was absolutely sure that TWO aircrafts changed the game, or lets say the economy of commercial flights.

1. The Airbus A380

2. The B787


Both offered stunning lower operating costs than older aircrafts and in case of the B787, introduced a high number of new technologies, but the bleedless engines didn´t offer the expected improvements.


But my conclusion seems to be completely wrong.


The real game changer is indeed the CS-Series from Bombardier, or to be more precise, its new GTF-engine.

This engine technology from PW was, after a short disregard from all other engine producers and airplane producers, the kick-off for a variety of new technologies which will significantly lower the fuel burn.


1. We will see a new product from china and japan with the GTF.
2. A new engine for both the A320- and B737-family and most likely the E-Jets.
3. A new engine technology from CFM and RR.


It seems that the presentation of the GTF was a real shock for the complete airline industry.

But then they reacted very quickly after repeating the nonsense from the last years that no new technology is available for engines.


So, in my opinion, despite its low sales numbers so far, the CS is the real game changer of the civil market.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirCanadaA330 From Canada, joined Aug 2008, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6383 times:

all the C-Series needs now...is some more orders....


Cheers;
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6094 times:

I think what's hurting the CSeries is the lack of a CS500 sized aircraft. Without something that size, it can't be the bridge between a regional jet and small narrowbodies.

For example, the CSeries would be perfect for Air Canada, replacing both the A3xx family and the E90s if it had a CS500 that was even somewhat come marginally close to an AC A320 (say 130 seats in a mixed config), it would have been a perfect aircraft.

But without that size, it's too big to replace ERJs and too small to replace anything but a 736 and A318.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 6022 times:

I think both the A380 and CS300 offer new payload range combinations at substantial lower cost. Just like the A300, 767, A330/A340, 747, DC10 and 777W did.

From a network standpoint I do not see a natural gap between 110 and 150 seats. There just hasn't been an optimized aircraft to fill it in during the last 2 decades.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7638 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 5919 times:

I think it is too early to tell at least in my way of looking at game changing. The 787 is not yet in operation but closer than the GTF, the A380 has not been in service long enough or in sufficient numbers.

RJ's had a "chance" but high fuel prices put an end to that dream, shrinks of the A320 / 737 have also not been successful, as of right now the C-Series either needs a family or one a/c with good enough economics to be abused at either end of the regional to NB segment say 80 to 150 seats.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6428 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 5803 times:

Quoting 328JET (Thread starter):
This engine technology from PW was, after a short disregard from all other engine producers and airplane producers, the kick-off for a variety of new technologies which will significantly lower the fuel burn.

So does the LEAP-X which was chosen for the C919.

Quoting 328JET (Thread starter):
1. We will see a new product from china and japan with the GTF.

From Japan, yes, from China, no.

Quoting 328JET (Thread starter):

It seems that the presentation of the GTF was a real shock for the complete airline industry.

It is not a shock, let alone a "real" shock for the "complete" airline industry... everyone has known about GTFs for years.

Furthermore, RR and GE and Snecma and Aviadvigatel, etc, would all be pumping out GTFs if that was the definitive route.

Quoting 328JET (Thread starter):
But then they reacted very quickly after repeating the nonsense from the last years that no new technology is available for engines.

It is a chicken and egg argument. And, as of now, there is only talk... no action.


BTW, this is the latest article on the CSeries and PW's GTF...

Bombardier C Series deal delayed by engine talks

Qatar Airways has ‘issues’ with Pratt & Whitney gear on Bombardier jet

Qatar Airways appears poised to become the fourth customer for the new Bombardier Inc. (BBD.B-T4.560.132.93%) C Series jet, but a deal is being delayed by discussions between the airline and the company making the engines for the Canadian transportation giant.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ed-by-engine-talks/article1644486/



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5733 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 2):
and too small to replace anything but a 736 and A318.

Good for them then - they'd have all these airlines as target customers for 736 replacements alone.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dana Low
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joost de Wit


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johannes Kreutzer
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Nichols


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jens Achauer
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Holger Frank


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Soon-Gyu Ko - Korea Aero Photos
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Air Sheep



They could chase Frontier, LAN, Mexicana and Tarom for the A318s later.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5634 times:

@ planemaker


you are right, i mixed up china and russia...  


User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 664 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5479 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
So does the LEAP-X which was chosen for the C919.

With technology that is much less far along than the GTF.

Quote:

BTW, this is the latest article on the CSeries and PW's GTF...

Bombardier C Series deal delayed by engine talks

Qatar Airways has ‘issues’ with Pratt & Whitney gear on Bombardier jet

Qatar Airways appears poised to become the fourth customer for the new Bombardier Inc. (BBD.B-T4.560.132.93%) C Series jet, but a deal is being delayed by discussions between the airline and the company making the engines for the Canadian transportation giant.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...44486

If you understood the nature of the deal b/w BBD and P&W, P&W's position would make sense.

It is important to note that this has nothing to do with engine performance -- it's a commercial issue (which, as I always say, is what engine deals turn on, not performance/technology).


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25989 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5284 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 6):
Quoting ytz (Reply 2):
and too small to replace anything but a 736 and A318.

Good for them then - they'd have all these airlines as target customers for 736 replacements alone.....

Air China no longer operates the 736 as far as I know. They were sold to the US government for use on the "Janet" flights from LAS to various US military installations in Nevada (e.g. Area 51), replacing previous 732s.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5188 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
They were sold to the US government for use on the "Janet" flights from LAS

Ahh thanks.....these little guys then.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jakub Vanek

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
to various US military installations in Nevada (e.g. Area 51), replacing previous 732s

Wouldn't it be awesome to find the structures there transformed into the Luxor, Sphinx and Obelisk for a change?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Konstantin Von Wedelstaedt




"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinemiller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 721 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5150 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 2):
and too small to replace anything but a 736 and A318.

You left out all of the CS300 competitors, such as the 73G and 319. That's quite an omission seeing as the fleets increase 10-fold at that capacity.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5031 times:

Quoting 328JET (Thread starter):
It seems that the presentation of the GTF was a real shock for the complete airline industry.

As others have said, the fact that Pratt & Whitney were working on a geared turbofan wasn't exactly an industry secret. Unfortunately, over the past couple of decades, P&W has had a number of high-profile misses in their engine programs -- the PW4098, PW6000, and the aborted SuperFan for the A340. I suspect that Airbus and Boeing have been reluctant to commit to multi-billion-dollar aircraft programs with an unproven engine technology from a supplier that has had issues meeting performance promises in recent years.

And honestly, A & B probably can afford to wait a little while to see how the PW1000G performs from the standpoints of efficiency, reliability, and maintenance cost. Bombardier, Mitsubishi, and the Russians aren't going to be able to satisfy global demand on their own in the short to medium term, and A & B certainly have the ability to push forward with either re-engining projects or next-generation narrowbody designs should the CSeries and GTF really perform up to the promises from Bombardier & P&W.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4665 times:

Is the CS300 really a viable a replacement for the A319 and 737-700 though?

But the problem as I see it, even if it is a viable replacement is how airlines buy planes. In a lot of cases, the A319 is the bottom end in size and airlines acquire significant fleets of A320s and 738s as well. Now, why would anybody induct a new type to replace one model? How many airlines out there have their narrowbody fleets largely consist of A318/736s and A319/737-700s?

Don't get me wrong. I love the CSeries. I like Bombardier. I even own their stock. However, I really think they've made a strategic mistake here by not offering the stretch right off the bat (despite the airframe being built to accomodate one). And I don't think it's even clear if they can offer it in the future, because of the limitations on their deals with the Chinese (althought contracts can always be renegotiated or amended). But I do think the lack of an airplane that seats 140 pax in a 2-class arrangement is hampering sales.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6428 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 13):
However, I really think they've made a strategic mistake here by not offering the stretch right off the bat (despite the airframe being built to accomodate one).

Perhaps the strategic mistake is that they should have gone the other way with a shrink.  

After all, Republic just signed an LOI for 24 more E190s...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...igns-for-24-more-embraer-190s.html

And Stevey H signed for 10 E190s...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ase-signs-loi-for-10-embraers.html

Quoting ytz (Reply 13):
Is the CS300 really a viable a replacement for the A319 and 737-700 though?

But the problem as I see it, even if it is a viable replacement is how airlines buy planes. In a lot of cases, the A319 is the bottom end in size and airlines acquire significant fleets of A320s and 738s as well. Now, why would anybody induct a new type to replace one model? How many airlines out there have their narrowbody fleets largely consist of A318/736s and A319/737-700s?

You highlight just one point as to why the CSeries is having such a difficult time getting orders. There are several others.

BTW, RBS just announced yet another 737/A320 order - 52 & 42 frames respectively.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 664 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

It's not too late for there to be a CSeries order announcement at Farnborough.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6926 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3396 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 14):
You highlight just one point as to why the CSeries is having such a difficult time getting orders. There are several others.

Cargo capacity ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3333 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 13):
But I do think the lack of an airplane that seats 140 pax in a 2-class arrangement is hampering sales.

I and many others (Airbus!) think a stretch is already build in (the wing). Launching it means outright war with both Airbus and Boeing. I think BBD is tightlipped on this, officially they haven't even thought about it. They need a backlog / major customers first.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6428 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 16):
Cargo capacity ?

No, it isn't cargo capacity. The CS300 actually has slightly more cargo capacity than the 73G. That is why the lack of CSeries orders has so many people on here perplexed... on paper it is has good specs but it isn't translating into "game changer" sales.

I think that many people on here are quite surprised that BBD couldn't announce a single order, let alone an MOU or LOI, especially when A & B (and to a much lesser extent EMB) racked up orders for their non-"civil game changers".



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineA5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2996 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 18):
I think that many people on here are quite surprised that BBD couldn't announce a single order, let alone an MOU or LOI, especially when A & B (and to a much lesser extent EMB) racked up orders for their non-"civil game changers".

But the reason is quite evident. The CSeries is still a paper airplane... The airlines are afraid of A380 and 787 like development/production problems. They don't want to be guinea pigs. Before they commit to invest loads of hard earned money, they want performance/reliability guarantees. I'm sure when the first CSeries takes off for flight testing, and the test flight data is made public, then we'll see airlines lining up to buy the planes.

Al Bakker is a wise man.

A5XX



we are the boeing... resistance is futile...You will be assimilated
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11459 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2715 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

My view of the CS is that, it's a very good project but fail to create such a niche.

The fact is there's a real appetite for 70-120 seats jets, a niche Boeing and Airbus does not offer products, but it's not the case of a 140 seat jet considering the A319 and the B73G delivers a little more in terms of seats, but it's part of the family that covers 150-220 seat. I doubt so many airlines will handle two families for this market.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 18):
No, it isn't cargo capacity. The CS300 actually has slightly more cargo capacity than the 73G. That is why the lack of CSeries orders has so many people on here perplexed... on paper it is has good specs but it isn't translating into "game changer" sales

That's why i believe they would need to venture into larger and smaller sizes. If they want to offer an alternative to A319/B73G they would need to think in offer also something to compete with B738/A320.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

If the GTF really works reliable with expected performance, this might be a new round in the game. The C-Series has nothing to do with it.

Up to now it is a game changer only in the sense that we wait for it since 20 years. Do not forget that the first aircraft that was designed for the GTF was the A340. An A340 with GTF in 1990 would have killed the nonsense of flying long range on twins before the beginning.


User currently offlineThe Shadow From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Bombardier put on a pretty hopeless show at Farnborough and failed to convince, not only in terms of order numbers but also their other 'annoucement'. It's a shame because as far as concepts go, the CSeries is a promising machine.

Sukhoi, on the other hand, put together an excellent PR and marketing effort. If they can match it with delivering late this year, I think the Superjet could pick up at least a few credible western orders.

FYI Sukhoi has recently starting claims a 6-8% (having aimed for 10%) cash operating cost advantage compared to the Embraer 190/195, where Bombardier today claims 15% for the CSeries.


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1081 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

Is the PW GTF engine a game changer? Perhaps.

That perhaps is dependent on the reliability of the gearbox.

PW's claim on this GTF engine is that the gearbox will be reliable to commercial airline engine reliability standards.

Gearbox reliability has been the problem with GTF engines in the past (at a lot lower horsepower levels).

If the gearbox does not turn out to reach the claimed reliability standards.... the PW GTF, and every aircraft built around it, will fail in the marketplace.

I understand that PW is offering guarantees on reliability for this GTF engine.

Ask again in 10 - 15 years if it worked.


I do admire PW for doing the development work - and regardless of how this turns out for this specific engine. It will move GTF technology forward.

Have a great day,


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6428 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2379 times:

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 20):
The fact is there's a real appetite for 70-120 seats jets

One can certainly argue that BBD covers that range fairly well with the CRJ700 thru CRJ1000... requiring the CS100 to fill out the very top. And there's the problem... lack of commonality at the very top of that range.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 20):
That's why i believe they would need to venture into larger and smaller sizes. If they want to offer an alternative to A319/B73G they would need to think in offer also something to compete with B738/A320.

While in theory you would be correct, business reality dictates the current strategy of trying to "sneak" in under A & B's radar with two slightly smaller offerings. To expand beyond the two models would not only be a direct frontal assault on A & B but, more importantly, a HUGE strain in finances for them. Realistically, they couldn't afford to take on 3 variants (let alone 4) at the same time.

Quoting The Shadow (Reply 22):
Bombardier put on a pretty hopeless show at Farnborough and failed to convince, not only in terms of order numbers but also their other 'annoucement'. It's a shame because as far as concepts go, the CSeries is a promising machine.

Unfortunately for them, all the orders by airlines and leasing companies for competitor's products at the show effectively took away all their previous excuses as to why only 2 airlines and one leasing company have ordered the aircraft since "official launch" at Farnborough two years ago.

Quoting A5XX (Reply 19):
I'm sure when the first CSeries takes off for flight testing, and the test flight data is made public, then we'll see airlines lining up to buy the planes.

The problem with that scenario is that it is still 2 to 3 years away... and in the meantime, as at the show, airlines and leasing companies are loading up with competitors products, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, competitors will have announced their own re-engining/upgrade or all-new build programs. Time is not kind to BBD.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
25 LHCVG : Did I miss something, or is the CS300 not a roughly (supposedly) ~130-seat plane? I'd think that would be competition for 73G, A319, and maybe even M
26 planemaker : Yes you are correct for an all Y CS300... but he was referring to a mythical CS500 with a target of ~130-seats in two classes that would maybe compet
27 Post contains images keesje : If you fly around 130 passengers on 600NM flights in a design that can also carry 210 passengers 3000NM, this is a situation that is smart when fuel
28 LHCVG : Oh my mistake -- thanks for the clarification!
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...
PHX To MNL What Is The Real Weight Allowed? Usair? posted Thu May 4 2006 22:38:04 by Redneckslim
Window Sizes, How High Is The Real Value, ROI? posted Mon May 1 2006 16:51:21 by Keesje
GE Gets The Spotlight, But Is RR The Real Star? posted Mon Sep 19 2005 14:37:39 by Glom
What Is The Real Gulf Air Colourscheme? posted Sat Aug 21 2004 10:49:17 by Braybuddy
The Real Mile High - How Much Is True? posted Mon Apr 12 2004 01:27:26 by Pixuk
What Is The Best Civil Aviation Magazine? posted Fri Nov 21 2003 04:55:56 by Qantasclub
Continental-So What Is The Real Deal? posted Mon Jul 8 2002 21:56:55 by Deltaflyertoo
What Is The Real Problem With Aerolineas Arg? posted Wed May 30 2001 19:45:04 by WiLdmanVzla
Is Emirates The Real Deal? posted Sat Oct 7 2000 08:49:18 by Northwest 777
The Next V Australia Route Is .... Fiji! posted Wed Aug 12 2009 21:28:19 by ANstar