Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CSeries Update  
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 689 posts, RR: 3
Posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10993 times:

Some news about the CSeries from FlightGlobal:

Bombardier confirm that the CS100 (in all business config) is designed to do non-stop transatlantic flight
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...siness-class-cseries-order-366588/

The CS100 will be certified ETOPS 120 at EIS (ETOPS 180 6 months after) and other flight test program information
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ries-flight-test-programme-366583/

Bombardier to deliver 10 CSeries per month in 2016
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-cseries-per-month-in-2016-366585/

Bombardier begins CSeries Aircraft 0 activation
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ries-aircraft-0-activation-366590/

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4471 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10972 times:

Thanks for posting the links.

Interesting on the "trans-Atlantic" they say:

Bombardier confirms that customers are discussing an all-business class CSeries CS100 to fly non-stop between London City and New York-John F Kennedy airports.

Why JFK???? What about EWR? Is it that BA is the customer and looking to replace the current 1-stop westbound service on the A318?


User currently offlinepolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10926 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 1):
Why JFK???? What about EWR? Is it that BA is the customer and looking to replace the current 1-stop westbound service on the A318?

Probably referring to Odyssey airlines:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...ines-odyssey-idUSLNE7BI03X20111219


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4471 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10879 times:

Quoting polot (Reply 2):

Probably referring to Odyssey airlines:

Yeah, the linked article in the OP mentioned them too - whether that actually happens though....  

I guess, though, with the arrival of the C-series, we'll be seeing RJs eventually flying transcons here in the USA. 


User currently offlineboberito6589 From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 354 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10666 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 3):
I guess, though, with the arrival of the C-series, we'll be seeing RJs eventually flying transcons here in the USA.

At that point are they no longer called RJs? haha


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10615 times:

CS100 in 4-abreast J seats should have 40 seats, whereas the BA A318 has 32 seats. I expect the CS100 to be 18% lighter than A318, while offering 25% more seats if configured 4-abreast in all J--which translates to nearly 40% lower fuel burn per seat relative to A318.

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10234 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 1):
Why JFK???? What about EWR? Is it that BA is the customer and looking to replace the current 1-stop westbound service on the A318?

I think they are targeting BA as well to replace the A318 and ERJs with a single type, an order is more a case of when not if in my opinion. The airport's masterplan is to increase passengers to 8 million a year, they can't do all that through adding frequencies alone, so will be keen to have their major operators increase seating capacity instead. Now LCY is already a very costly airport to operate from, the more passengers the better, so I can imagine the airport will seek to achieve this by raising the minimum number of passengers who are charged for towards 50 or higher, making aircraft like the ERJ 170 less attractive.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10182 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 6):
I think they are targeting BA as well to replace the A318 and ERJs with a single type, an order is more a case of when not if in my opinion. The airport's masterplan is to increase passengers to 8 million a year, they can't do all that through adding frequencies alone, so will be keen to have their major operators increase seating capacity instead.

I can certainly see that approach working for BA on the London-EDI routes - take out flights and capacity from LHR-EDI (this will happen when BA gets their hands on BMI) and add capacity to LCY-EDI. The overall number of flights from London will go down (releasing slots) but capacity will be maintained by using larger aircraft from both airports.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1555 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7004 times:

Quoting boberito6589 (Reply 4):
At that point are they no longer called RJs? haha

If the guys/gals up front are making regional wages, i'll still call them RJs!  



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineshamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4175 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6971 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 6):
I think they are targeting BA as well to replace the A318 and ERJs with a single type, an order is more a case of when not if in my opinion.

So soon after buying the ERJ?

I reckon it's Cityjet / AF this is really being targetted at.



Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6946 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 6):
think they are targeting BA as well to replace the A318 and ERJs with a single type

Not disagreeing thats what Bombardier are intending to do, but the E-Jets & A318's are relatively recent additions for BA and chosen when the C-Series was on offer, so I cant see them replacing them any time soon.

Wonder if Privatair might be interested?



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6917 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting queb (Thread starter):
Bombardier confirm that the CS100 (in all business config) is designed to do non-stop transatlantic flight

Thanks for the links. From the 1st link:
"But Bombardier's designers established the non-stop westbound leg across the Atlantic Ocean with an all-business class configuration as a requirement for the CS100, Dwar said.

More incentive for Pratt to beat fuel burn.  
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 5):
which translates to nearly 40% lower fuel burn per seat relative to A318.

Umm... With a more efficient engine, it should do even a little better than that.  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6805 times:

It's nice to hear some real news from the CSeries camp. Progress is happening though I'm still concerned about potential delays.

My guess is the most pressure is on the fly by wire systems. They're a first for BBD. Hopefully Parker Aerospace is up to the task...though they did design the fly by wire systems on the G650...which seems to be working, the accident having nothing to do with fly by wire.



What the...?
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6756 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11):
Umm... With a more efficient engine, it should do even a little better than that.

You are right. For some reason I was thinking A318NEO which will not be offered. CS100 could have close to 60% lower fuel burn per seat relative to A318.


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6548 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11):
More incentive for Pratt to beat fuel burn

Could it be that the development has now progressed to the point that Pratt and Bombardier have a better picture to what extent the 4% fuel burn reserve is still required? Could it be that they now think they don't need that 4% to keep as reserve, but are now actually selling it, opening up a new market segment?

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6512 times:

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 9):
So soon after buying the ERJ?
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 10):
Not disagreeing thats what Bombardier are intending to do, but the E-Jets & A318's are relatively recent additions for BA and chosen when the C-Series was on offer, so I cant see them replacing them any time soon.

It might sound odd, but *if* the C series delivers on its promises then I can definitely see them placing an order around 2014/2015, once it's in operation and so delivery fits in with the timetable for LCY upgrading it's facilities to offer more large stands and a parallel taxiway. If they keep the generous pitch it would offer a 25-50% increase in capacity over the ERJs and reduced seat costs, so long as the larger C Series can perform well out of LCY. And if the smaller version performs as expected it would be able to open up new routes from LCY which even the ERJ 170 would struggle with, Moscow immediately comes to mind.

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 9):
I reckon it's Cityjet / AF this is really being targetted at.

I think they are as well, which presents an interesting situation. Unless the LCY masterplan is fast forwarded there isn't enough capacity to accommodate two sizable fleets of the larger C Series at LCY by 2015/16 as the aircraft needs them. So who jumps first, both companies have just replaced their fleets, no doubt CityJet would go with the maximum configuration of 145 pax if they could.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6321 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15):
And if the smaller version performs as expected it would be able to open up new routes from LCY which even the ERJ 170 would struggle with, Moscow immediately comes to mind.

LCY-SVO is only 1341 nm so I don't think the E170 would have a problem with that. But the CS100 should do better on burn and load, for sure.

But if the CS100 can do LCY-JFK/EWR n/s, this opens up some interesting possibilities, particularly if the GTF exceeds expectations:
LCY-DXB/AUH I think would be a natural
LCY-JED/RUH ditto
LCY-DCA (3201 nm) if the fuel burn can support it westbound - there's also the issue of the restrictions on flights departing DCA, which has been discussed before. But this can be negotiated, I suppose.

Fuel burn aside, the ETOPS issue in the end depends on the gearbox, IMHO. What happens if it seizes mid-Atlantic ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6249 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):
LCY-SVO is only 1341 nm so I don't think the E170 would have a problem with that. But the CS100 should do better on burn and load, for sure.

Yes the range should just about be fine, but I'd question the economics of a 76 seater on the route. It would be better with the 98 seat ERJ 190, but that would be very questionable on range year around, I don't think it could do it with a meaningful payload.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6051 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 17):
Yes the range should just about be fine, but I'd question the economics of a 76 seater on the route. It would be better with the 98 seat ERJ 190, but that would be very questionable on range year around, I don't think it could do it with a meaningful payload.

But what about an all-J E170 ? The RASM there would be pretty decent. Same for an all-J CS100 to SVO.

Is the E190 even approved for LCY ? The glideslope is a lot steeper than normal. If the E190 could get in/out of LCY, I guess it can't carry sufficient fuel for SVO given the runway available.

With a decent runway, range wouldn't be an issue: AC have been using E190s YYZ-SEA (1791 nm) and YYZ-SAN (1874 nm).



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineTrucker From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 190 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5936 times:

Kind of off topic from CS100 but since this thread has drifted toward "What aircraft can best operate TATL from LCY" I'm going to ask about something that I've always wondered about. And please, nobody laugh too hard.

Would it be possible to take a C17 and configure it to carry passengers on a route like LCY-JFK. It's suposed to be really good on a short runway and with a passenger load rather than a heavy cargo load I'm thinking it should be able to do LCY-JFK nonstop without any trouble. And you'd be able to carry alot more than 40-50 passengers. I know there's a few C130s out there that have carried passengers so why not a C17?


User currently offlinemuncc22 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

Quoting Trucker (Reply 19):

well...I have flown a C17 in "pax form" multiple times while i was downrange. They take standard air force pallets and bolt economy class seats to them with about 28" seat pitch. IIRC its 12 rows of ten across. Then you also have the normal rows of troops sitting sideways. No pax in his right mind would pay more than 1/10th of what a regular flight costs to fly on a c17. No hot catering, and they are noisy as hell even with ear plugs in. And you can forget about IFE. while this would be theoretically possible, it would NEVER be a money maker.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5823 times:

Quoting Trucker (Reply 19):
Would it be possible to take a C17 and configure it to carry passengers on a route like LCY-JFK.

That's an interesting concept. I think in terms of "could it work" then I think yes. I believe the C-17 could lift enough fuel to do TATL from the runway but I'm not sure of the useful load. Is 10/28 still ~3,500 ft or has it been extended ? I think it has, actually, there was a proposal to get it to about 4,000 ft. if the runway is longer, then likely a C-17 could carry a useful load.

Moot point, of course, as the C-17 is not, AFAIK, JAA/FAA certified for commercial ops, nor is it likely to be.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineshamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4175 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5674 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15):

Cityjet started fleet replacement 5 years ago, and those frames were already 7 years old at that stage. So, they are much further down the line of needing to replace.



Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5650 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 3):
I guess, though, with the arrival of the C-series, we'll be seeing RJs eventually flying transcons here in the USA. 

Fail to see what's wrong with that, I have been in the cabin mock-up in 3-2 config and it was surprisingly comfortable and roomy. Nothing like a CRJ/E145/F70..



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5537 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 18):
But what about an all-J E170 ? The RASM there would be pretty decent. Same for an all-J CS100 to SVO.

The RASM wouldn't be decent I'm afraid. First off you would have to design an individual BA J seat specially for the narrower cabin of the ERJ and then you could only have 1_1 seating thanks to the cabin bins and double bubble fuselage design. So you would get a maximum of 14 seats in the aircraft whilst still paying for 37 passengers at LCY thanks to their minimum fees structure, and only be looking at fares around £2-3k rtn. Nice idea and it would be a dream to fly in, but that's not going to cover the costs of operating such a flight.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 18):
Is the E190 even approved for LCY ? The glideslope is a lot steeper than normal. If the E190 could get in/out of LCY, I guess it can't carry sufficient fuel for SVO given the runway available.

Yes the entire E-Jet family is certified for LCY, but the ERJ-190 could not make LCY-MOW non stop with a meaningful payload, if at all year around. I think even the ERJ-170 would struggle with a full load, especially in hot weather.

Quoting Trucker (Reply 19):
Would it be possible to take a C17 and configure it to carry passengers on a route like LCY-JFK. It's suposed to be really good on a short runway and with a passenger load rather than a heavy cargo load I'm thinking it should be able to do LCY-JFK nonstop without any trouble. And you'd be able to carry alot more than 40-50 passengers. I know there's a few C130s out there that have carried passengers so why not a C17?

An interesting idea, but the aircraft is not permitted to land at LCY, even considering its STOL and steep approach performance. LCY is a Cat. 2C airport, this means all aircraft using it must have a wingspan of 35.99m or less. Which brings us nicely back on topic; this is why the C Series has been designed practically to the max within Cat. C limits, having a 35.1m wingspan. Also the C17's tail is far too high and would breach the transitional surface of the runway, this projects at a gradient from the side of the (75m wide) clearway and fouling it is not allowed. In cross section form this resembles a sort of triangle and is why aircraft have to park nose facing the runway, in that respect the C Series has a higher tail than the E-Jets but a lower tail than the A318 and could only use the four newest stands built to accommodate the Airbus.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 21):
Is 10/28 still ~3,500 ft or has it been extended ? I think it has, actually, there was a proposal to get it to about 4,000 ft. if the runway is longer, then likely a C-17 could carry a useful load.

It has a 4,948ft/1,508m total strip length, but declared take off/landing distances are capped at 1,319m by CAA/ICAO regs.

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 22):
Cityjet started fleet replacement 5 years ago, and those frames were already 7 years old at that stage. So, they are much further down the line of needing to replace.

And the fact that they went with cheaper second hand aircraft with the same type rating (I think) could suggest they were waiting for something better than the E-Jets and didn't want to use them as a stop-gap.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
25 connies4ever : CSeries is hardly an RJ. Design range is 2,950 nm for the ER variant of both the CS100 & CS300, i.e., YVR-MBJ. This is not RJ country. OK, hadn't
26 Post contains images PlymSpotter : LCY makes use of a special exception in certification rules, that could be why there are a lot of confused reports about its runway length - one pers
27 queb : The maximum range for E170 at LCY is 750 nm, 800 nm for the E190 and 2200 nm for the A318.
28 queb : No, E170 and E190 only.
29 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Hmm, interesting - you are right thank you. I thought they were all allowed in for two reasons; they are certified as 170-200/190-200 and a year ago
30 Alias1024 : I can't help but think that the CSeries is the airplane Midwest needed, about a decade too late. It would have had the range to easily reach the west
31 Post contains images lightsaber : I wonder. It would depend on how confident Bombardier was on weight and their aerodynamics. Pratt certainly has enough flight test data to know if th
32 Tangowhisky : LCY-JFK with the CSeries? We are talking about ETOPS certification on a brand new airframe with an all new engine. This is no slam dunk. The only othe
33 Post contains links JoeCanuck : BBD is planning ETOPS 120 right out of the box and 180 within 6 months after EIS. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ries-flight-test-programme-3
34 lightsaber : True. However: Am I the only one who thinks that Pratt is pushing for this to sell GTFs and for Bombardier to sell the C-series? ETOPS out of the box
35 JoeCanuck : I have a feeling that there is a well worn path across Mirabel between the Pratt shop and BBD's. The two projects are so closely tied to each other t
36 Post contains links voodoo : --------------------- Interesting what you get when you google the word 'Odyssey' and a current transatlantic airline> the first one is a bit obvi
37 Tangowhisky : Wow.....Look at this .......http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bombardiers-premium-plan-132471/ In 2001 Virgin looked at an all Premium Class
38 JoeCanuck : Your point is still valid...those etops plans are very ambitious, and the more things they promise, the more potential for egg on their face should s
39 bennett123 : IMO, anyone considering the C17 does not appreciate how urban LCY is.
40 bonusonus : So, the current schedule is first flight at the end of 2012, first delivery at the end of 2013, and 40 deliveries in 2014. Think Bombardier can pull i
41 Post contains images lightsaber : Yes, there are better military aircraft for such a target. Lightsaber
42 JoeCanuck : I'm inclined to take BBD at their word...nothing has gone terribly wrong but they have eaten most of their time padding with normal ambitious develop
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...
Air Berlin Business Class Update posted Mon Dec 26 2011 15:02:26 by DLD9S
Status Of LOT's SP-LPC - Update posted Fri Dec 23 2011 01:34:04 by BlueSky1976
Could HA Order BBD CSeries To Replace B717?' posted Wed Dec 21 2011 09:07:49 by 747400sp
Need An Update! DL MD-90 & DC-9-50 posted Mon Dec 19 2011 11:49:26 by Bigbird
US A330-300 Cabin Upgrades: Update posted Mon Dec 19 2011 04:06:28 by cipango
UPDATE: Blocked Flights On Flightaware.com posted Sat Dec 17 2011 07:24:52 by michiganatc
Update EVA And *A posted Thu Dec 15 2011 22:18:40 by kiwiandrew
PIT Update Thread #21 posted Tue Nov 29 2011 02:42:26 by PITrules
LO New Livery Update posted Sun Nov 20 2011 02:44:14 by BlueSky1976
Air Canada Regional Livery Update posted Tue Nov 15 2011 20:18:46 by Boeing757/767