Hello All,

I just saw a photo on social media of a CS300 parked at the GA ramp in SFO. The photo caption states that BBD sent the CS3 to SFO to show case the aircraft to United.

Could this be a precursor to an order? From what I've read, in order to get scope relief UA needs to bring a new type onboard for mainline use. However, if I remember correctly the CS3 would not trigger scope relief due to its size. UA has plenty of aircraft in the segment the CS3 fits. What use could UA find for the aircraft their 320 and 737 series aircraft could not?

77H

Could it also be for VX? the UA HQ is ORD right?

BBD already showed the aircraft off to United at ORD.
If it was for UA it would have parked at the Tech Ops base, not at the FBO.

From what I gather its just doing various flight testing and racking up hours from its base in ICT. Was in ANC on Monday.

LAXintl wrote:

BBD already showed the aircraft off to United at ORD.
If it was for UA it would have parked at the Tech Ops base, not at the FBO.

Not necessarily, when they showcased it for Rochard Anderson in ATL, it was parked at the Signature ramp.

Could be just another ETOPS certification stop. They did the same in Ottawa, rising rumors of fed funding

Why would they send it there to showcase to UA, instead of ORD (or even IAH)?

The bombardier C has a longer range than the 737 and the airbus. It is WAY better for pax comfort than either of those old aircaft. it is also WAY more efficient than the 737, and more efficient than the airbus.

LAXintl wrote:

BBD already showed the aircraft off to United at ORD.
If it was for UA it would have parked at the Tech Ops base, not at the FBO.

From what I gather its just doing various flight testing and racking up hours from its base in ICT. Was in ANC on Monday.

unless they don't have room at SMB.

When the CS100 came to Atlanta it parked over at the FBO. When the 350 come I guess Delta North didn't have anything going on in bay 10 and was able to park the plane there.

LAX772LR wrote:

Why would they send it there to showcase to UA, instead of ORD (or even IAH)?

Letting United TechOps get a look at it would be the only possible option.
but i imagine if it was for UA it would go to ORD.

777Mech wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

BBD already showed the aircraft off to United at ORD.
If it was for UA it would have parked at the Tech Ops base, not at the FBO.

Not necessarily, when they showcased it for Rochard Anderson in ATL, it was parked at the Signature ramp.

exactly.
depending on the time of the year hangar/pad parking is at a premium for most airlines.

ahj2000 wrote:

Could it also be for VX? the UA HQ is ORD right?

Not necessarily ORD. I remember when BBD brought a Q400 to PWK for UA.

Looking at the total flight time (also 6.5 hours in line with the previous flights this weeks) and especially the flight path (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airc ... do#c540b33) which was not a straight line to SFO (likely in order to make sure they made the 6.5 hours flight time) seems to me that this was just another ETOPS flight (although I'd like to believe otherwise )

ahj2000 wrote:

Could it also be for VX? the UA HQ is ORD right?

I imagine VX are no longer making aircraft purchasing decisions, especially in regards to new fleet types that won't ever be delivered until after VX ceases to exist anyways.

atpcliff wrote:

The bombardier C has a longer range than the 737 and the airbus.

The MAX and Neo have more range than the CS300.

atpcliff wrote:

it is also WAY more efficient than the 737, and more efficient than the airbus.

The 738MAX and A320neo are very similar in efficiency. Both are probably more efficient per a seat than the CS300, while not requiring introducing an entirely brand new fleet type.

Polot wrote:

The 738MAX and A320neo are very similar in efficiency. Both are probably more efficient per a seat than the CS300, while not requiring introducing an entirely brand new fleet type.

Well no, I think the PW1100G gives an edge to the A320 on efficiency over the 737, but remeber the CS300 is a cleansheet using better aerodynamics and lighter weigh construction, I don't think it's possible that a 737 or A320 could have better economics than the CS300 other than maybe the A321 or a 737-10, but those are completely different missions,.

767333ER wrote:

Polot wrote:

The 738MAX and A320neo are very similar in efficiency. Both are probably more efficient per a seat than the CS300, while not requiring introducing an entirely brand new fleet type.

Well no, I think the PW1100G gives an edge to the A320 on efficiency over the 737, but remeber the CS300 is a cleansheet using better aerodynamics and lighter weigh construction, I don't think it's possible that a 737 or A320 could have better economics than the CS300 other than maybe the A321 or a 737-10, but those are completely different missions,.

The A320neo might have a slight edge over the 737 (I don't know, the 738 is also slightly larger), but not enough to go from more efficient to WAY more efficient in any comparison with other aircraft.

I think it is entirely possible for the 737-8 and A320neo to have better economics per a seat than the CS300 (clearly the 737-7/A319 doesn't, but at this point Boeing/Airbus are barely even trying there). If that wasn't the case I suspect that the CS300 would currently have more than 237 orders, even with all the other advantages Boeing/Airbus have in their favor. Now I would expect the CS500 (whenever if finally gets launch) will beat those two planes, but on the other hand the CS500 will also have a noticeable range disadvantage over the 738/A320.

777Mech wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

BBD already showed the aircraft off to United at ORD.
If it was for UA it would have parked at the Tech Ops base, not at the FBO.

Not necessarily, when they showcased it for Rochard Anderson in ATL, it was parked at the Signature ramp.

Correct. BBD generally rents an FBO room and has some nice catering to do these official demos.

Polot wrote:

atpcliff wrote:

it is also WAY more efficient than the 737, and more efficient than the airbus.

The 738MAX and A320neo are very similar in efficiency. Both are probably more efficient per a seat than the CS300, while not requiring introducing an entirely brand new fleet type.

Probably, but BBD is selling a smaller airplane that is more efficient at the particular size that it is.

Polot wrote:

I think it is entirely possible for the 737-8 and A320neo to have better economics per a seat than the CS300 (clearly the 737-7/A319 doesn't, but at this point Boeing/Airbus are barely even trying there). If that wasn't the case I suspect that the CS300 would currently have more than 237 orders, even with all the other advantages Boeing/Airbus have in their favor. Now I would expect the CS500 (whenever if finally gets launch) will beat those two planes, but on the other hand the CS500 will also have a noticeable range disadvantage over the 738/A320.

It really boils down to how many seats you can fit in the aircraft. Remember the CS300 can fit 160 seats in absolute sardine can configuration, but then you're most likely talking seat pitch like 737-8 MAX 200 or A321neo with 240 seats. I believe airBaltic has configured their CS300s with 145 seats in a spacious one class configuration. Not sure about the seat pitch.

But like you said, the CS300 should be compared to the A319neo and 737-7MAX which are similarly sized.

Aircraft headed to Panama today.

UA's fleet decisions are made in downtown Chicago. VA's fleet decisions are now made in Seattle. Lessor Macquarie AirFinance, on the other hand, has a large office in SFO.

wrongwayup wrote:

UA's fleet decisions are made in downtown Chicago. VA's fleet decisions are now made in Seattle. Lessor Macquarie AirFinance, on the other hand, has a large office in SFO.

Yeah, ORD is where everything happens mostly for UA put possibly its just another tour to show more of UA that it is a great plane. And I thought I'd heard Macquarie come up in relation to the CSeries before, and I found this from back in 2014. http://www.macquarie.com/us/corporate/n ... s-aircraft Maybe BBD is trying to get them to confirm that order.

nikeson13 wrote:

Maybe BBD is trying to get them to confirm that order.

They did. As the article states it was a firm order for 40 CS300s + 10 options. That is not a MoU or LoI.

wrongwayup wrote:

UA's fleet decisions are made in downtown Chicago. VA's fleet decisions are now made in Seattle. Lessor Macquarie AirFinance, on the other hand, has a large office in SFO.

I was simply repeating what the caption said below the source photo. The photographer may well have been wrong. That said, ultimate fleet decisions are made in CHI yes, but as others stated, the aircraft could have been in SFO to showcase for tech ops. Additionally, HQ workers are not stationary , members of fleet acquisition/planning could easily fly to SFO to see the aircraft alongside tech ops and kill two birds with one stone.

77H

77H wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

UA's fleet decisions are made in downtown Chicago. VA's fleet decisions are now made in Seattle. Lessor Macquarie AirFinance, on the other hand, has a large office in SFO.

I was simply repeating what the caption said below the source photo. The photographer may well have been wrong. That said, ultimate fleet decisions are made in CHI yes, but as others stated, the aircraft could have been in SFO to showcase for tech ops. Additionally, HQ workers are not stationary , members of fleet acquisition/planning could easily fly to SFO to see the aircraft alongside tech ops and kill two birds with one stone.

77H

Fair enough. Mind sharing a link?

Polot wrote:

767333ER wrote:

Polot wrote:

The 738MAX and A320neo are very similar in efficiency. Both are probably more efficient per a seat than the CS300, while not requiring introducing an entirely brand new fleet type.

Well no, I think the PW1100G gives an edge to the A320 on efficiency over the 737, but remeber the CS300 is a cleansheet using better aerodynamics and lighter weigh construction, I don't think it's possible that a 737 or A320 could have better economics than the CS300 other than maybe the A321 or a 737-10, but those are completely different missions,.

.

I think it is entirely possible for the 737-8 and A320neo to have better economics per a seat than the CS300 (clearly the 737-7/A319 doesn't, but at this point Boeing/Airbus are barely even trying there). If that wasn't the case I suspect that the CS300 would currently have more than 237 orders, even with all the other advantages Boeing/Airbus have in their favor. Now I would expect the CS500 (whenever if finally gets launch) will beat those two planes, but on the other hand the CS500 will also have a noticeable range disadvantage over the 738/A320.

Baseless assumption! Polot fleet planning is not as simple as choosing the one with the best economics. It's a long & thorough process. (at least it wasn't for United). The c series has been viewed as a risky proposition & has faced aggressive competition from all sides. Let's just assume for all intents and purposes that cs300 was found to have better economics.... is the risk reward justifiable? Many airline have decided that it was not.

Polot wrote:

The A320neo might have a slight edge over the 737 (I don't know, the 738 is also slightly larger), but not enough to go from more efficient to WAY more efficient in any comparison with other aircraft.

I think it is entirely possible for the 737-8 and A320neo to have better economics per a seat than the CS300 (clearly the 737-7/A319 doesn't, but at this point Boeing/Airbus are barely even trying there). If that wasn't the case I suspect that the CS300 would currently have more than 237 orders, even with all the other advantages Boeing/Airbus have in their favor. Now I would expect the CS500 (whenever if finally gets launch) will beat those two planes, but on the other hand the CS500 will also have a noticeable range disadvantage over the 738/A320.

My guess is this:

The 737-8 and A320neo are not clean sheets, the CS300 is. All three are what would be considered the baseline variant that balances economics with capability/versatility. One could guess by looking at what materials are used to construct these planes and overall construction of them that the CS300 weighs less per passenger than an A320N of 737-8. One could also make the inference that since it is a clean sheet and it looks more aerodynamic (not a reliable way to tell), it most likely is more aerodynamic. Both of these help efficiency. The PW1000G boasts better than expected fuel burn while the LEAP-1B is anywhere from on par to subpar on the suboptimal sized fan it uses. Supposedly the PW1100G is 1% better for what it does than the PW1500G so that gives back a little advantage to the A320, but overall one would likely infer that the CS300 is more efficient per seat than an A320N both in 2 class configurations with the same pitch and ratio of J to Y.

The problem in terms of sales has nothing to do with fuel efficiency. One issue is that the numbers for the 737 max and A320N are way better because they have older model counterparts to replace where the CSeries is a new entry to the market. This is a normal occurrence. The other is that currently fuel efficiency does not matter quite as much right now which lowers the need for such an efficient but expensive plane. I think the CS300 will be a good fit for any airline looking to replace their A319s or 73Gs with something.

Also consider that the CS500 would have enough range to do 90% or more of A320/738 missions while using much less fuel much like the A321 can currently do 90% of 757 missions while using much less fuel.

LAXintl wrote:

Was in ANC on Monday.

You read it here first! Peninsula Air is gearing up for a big CSeries order!

wrongwayup wrote:

UA's fleet decisions are made in downtown Chicago. VA's fleet decisions are now made in Seattle. Lessor Macquarie AirFinance, on the other hand, has a large office in SFO.

VA = Virgin Australia
VS = Virgin Atlantic
VX = Virgin America

UA will legitimately get C-Series? Why do I feel like this is the first I'm hearing of this?

LAXintl wrote:

Aircraft headed to Panama today.

Im assuming most just glossed over your post. I wonder if BBD can get COPA to order some C-Series airplanes to replace their 73G & E190s. I think an order for 20-25 planes wouldn't be far fetched.

I wonder if there is a particular reason why BBD completely avoided Mexico with it's flight down to PTY
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BBA5 ... /KSFO/MPTO

[photoid][/photoid]

wrongwayup wrote:

77H wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

UA's fleet decisions are made in downtown Chicago. VA's fleet decisions are now made in Seattle. Lessor Macquarie AirFinance, on the other hand, has a large office in SFO.

I was simply repeating what the caption said below the source photo. The photographer may well have been wrong. That said, ultimate fleet decisions are made in CHI yes, but as others stated, the aircraft could have been in SFO to showcase for tech ops. Additionally, HQ workers are not stationary , members of fleet acquisition/planning could easily fly to SFO to see the aircraft alongside tech ops and kill two birds with one stone.

77H

Fair enough. Mind sharing a link?

I am not sure how to link a photo but the gentleman's page I saw mentioned the aircraft was there to see UA is below.

https://www.instagram.com/ac_aviation_photos/

77H

INFINITI329 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Aircraft headed to Panama today.

Im assuming most just glossed over your post. I wonder if BBD can get COPA to order some C-Series airplanes to replace their 73G & E190s. I think an order for 20-25 planes wouldn't be far fetched.

I wonder if there is a particular reason why BBD completely avoided Mexico with it's flight down to PTY
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BBA5 ... /KSFO/MPTO

A complete guess on my part, but someone above thought these may be ETOPS certification flights... maybe they wanted more time airborne?

(that, or they didn't want to hit the wall ? )

77H wrote:

I am not sure how to link a photo but the gentleman's page I saw mentioned the aircraft was there to see UA is below.

https://www.instagram.com/ac_aviation_photos/

77H

The photographer said in one of his photos that UA took over Republic's order. Is this fact or just speculation.?

Pure speculation.

wrongwayup wrote:

Pure speculation.

It is not speculation or fact. The poster got the plane types wrong. The Republic order UA picked up was for 175's not, CS aircraft.