clearskies1 wrote:

I think we are loosing sight of the big picture. The CS100/300 program must stand on its own. The aircraft did not sell well with extremely deep discounting. The Canadian citizens are asked to throw another $700M of good money at an already overpriced $6B program.
When will the pricing allow for not only a unit profit but when will the nearly $7B investment be recovered? Units sold below cost never adds up to a profit. The program needs to turn a profit to be viable in the long run. Adding Airbus as its "sales agent" does not change the basic problem. The aircraft was announced in 2010 and has not garnished many sales over 7 years. It was not because of the price or because it was an inferior product. It is because the market has changed. Airlines have consolidated and realized that 4 flights a day to a hub is better than 7 flights in a smaller aircraft. The airlines also understand that overflying hubs on point to point flights or operating long thin routes with expensive equipment and crews does not add to the bottom line.
Changing the name on the aircraft, changing the sales team or minor changes in the supply change does not change the basic economics. The CS program does have a place in many airline fleets. The problem is it will be ordered in limited numbers. United/Delta/American/ British Airways/Emerites/JAl/ANA/Easy Jet/Ryan will never order 2-300 units for their fleet like they have done with the 737 and A320 aircraft. The aircraft will serve a niche market and never achieve unit volume to make it profitable. Airbus realizes this and that is why they have asked the Canadian citizens to fund shortfalls for years to come.
Yes, it is a great aircraft. There have been many great aircraft built in their day that never were commercially viable.. A great aircraft does not make a commercial success and this what both Embraer and Bombardier have found. The market is limited as we have moved to larger aircraft at lower prices in the current hub and spoke system. Point to point low cost airlines like Ryan and Easy Jet have also moved to larger aircraft on established routes.
Economics will prevail. The aircraft must be sold in volume at a profitable price to the airlines who them must make an additional profit operating the aircraft over an established diverse network. This is not about jobs, not about the aircraft, it is about finding enough airlines to buy them at a profitable price to the manufacturer. New sales will occur, but sales must dramatically increase or the people of Canada will pay the price.

I don't get why people have a hard time understanding the sales situation that Bombardier was in. No airline wants to get stuck with orphan aircraft. And Bombardier was struggling to sell because Airbus and Boeing would undercut them at every turn. See Boeing's Black Friday Special on 73Gs for United. So they had to resort to deep discounts to gain traction. That, of course, put them in a worse bind. Because now they make worse margins and airlines still won't be sure about the long term stability of the program. Add to that the longer they went without sales the worse it looked. That was quite the negative feedback loop.

All those doubts are now gone with the Airbus deal. After this deal closes next year, this will be an Airbus airplane. Not a Bombardier airplane. There will be no doubts about the programs longevity. And there won't be any deep discounting either. Nobody else is going to get the deal that Delta got.

As for numbers, Airbus sees the potential for 6000 sales over 20 years in this space. If they see that, I don't get why other people don't think the airplane is sellable. Airline abusing A320s and 738s or artificially limiting frequencies to fill larger than needed narrowbodies now have a great option that will be offered to them by Airbus. Ditto for any airlines watching their regionals get crunched in the pilot shortage. They can now upgauge. It was always ridiculous to think that mainline should start at over 150 seats. Airbus now has options for their customers.

I am really not worried as a Canadian taxpayer. I think the feds will get their loans paid. And I think the Quebec government will make a nice profit when Airbus buys out their stake in 2023, along with any profit from sales once the program is stable (around say 2020). Bombardier probably won't make a ton, but they'll probably get their investment back between profits on sales and the buy out in 2025. They live to fight another day, instead of watching the CSeries bankrupt the company.

I expect we'll see a substantial uptick in orders over the next few months. I would not be surprised at all to see the CSeries order book double by Christmas 2018. Every current CSeries customer is sitting on options that gained substantial value overnight. And they will convert.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As a US consumer, I like “dumping”- it makes one aspect of life cheaper, so I can save or spend the money elsewhere. Pity the taxpayer who is making my standard of living better.

GF

Only if BBD “dumped” the CSeries on Delta’s competitors as well. If not, Delta isn’t going to drop any prices but rather just pocket a fatter margin.

Probably not true. Fares are very elastic, so the consumer is more likely to benefit than DL. The lower capital cost should cause DL, in the competitive environment, to compete by lowering fares. This will reduce its competitors’ profit margin as they cannot match DL’s cost of capital. It would also inspire more deal making.

For DL to “pocket” a windfall profit due to the subsidy, the market would have to be less competitiv, in my estimation. A lot depends on elasticity of demand for tickets and my guess is it’s still pretty elastic.

GF

Nothing to do with elasticity. Delta isn’t going to drop their profit margins if they don’t have to, especially in this business where margins are so extremely difficult to create.

They might do it in certain hubs where they want to grow market share, but it would be temporary and certainly not a general strategy.

Again, no competition capable of similar aggressiveness, no drop in price.

highflier92660 wrote:

For Boeing, if there is good to come out of this ass-whupping by Airbus it may serve as a final awakening to produce a competitive aircraft. Thanks in-part to Jim "no more moonshots" McNerney Boeing has become a risk adverse airframe manufacturer that would rather hide behind government lobbyists and attorneys than turn to their incredibly talented aeronautical engineering staff. Even if your name is Boeing, you can only go so long selling an airliner equivalent to the ancient Wagon Queen Family Truckster.

A300/A310 ---> 757/767
737/727 ---> A320
A330/A340 ---> 777
A380 ---> 787
A350 ---> 797 (?)

In there we've also had:

A320neo ---> MAX
A330neo ---> 747-8
A340NG ---> 777X

(none of these are meant as direct competitors - I'm just listing the frames out)

Nobody expects them to continue selling new MAX frames into the 30's without a replacement in the works if not in production. However, at a minimum it looks like they'll be doing either an MoM or an NSA by the mid-late 20's, which means a likely launch in the next 1-2 years. They're keeping up with the Jones' even if they aren't doing it in the way that "we" would like them to.

fsabo wrote:

Do you think europe will just roll over?

Not just Europe, the fuselage is supposed to be made in China. 300% import tariff on Boeing aircraft in the EU common market, Norwegen, Ryanair,..., and the Chinese market is a fairly high price to protect the US domestic market a little.

And of course Airbus is right, you only use those desperate measures to keep competition down if you can´t do it with your products.

best regards
Thomas

MSPNWA wrote:

People are "missing" it because what you said doesn't make any sense even if Airbus owned 100%. Airbus would absolutely compete against itself with the CS500. They will already with the CS100 and 300. The difference between the A320 and CS500 will be minute. Airlines would simply play the CS500 and A320 off each other. You think Airbus is going to spend the money to develop and produce the CS500 just so it can try to trade orders between itself? Nonsense. Your dislike of Boeing is clouding your judgement.

So is your like thereof. When Ferdinand Piëch, former CEO of VW, was asked why VW Group has so many cars on the same platform, he said: "Many rods catch more fish". A Nobel Prize in Economics, no less, was once given to a person who proved that the less choice people have, the less they buy. So YES, Airbus can easily play A320 against CS500. Also, Airbus will be able to give their clients more choice in terms of economics focus, A320 for longer haul vs. CS500 for shorter operations.

It'll be interesting to see where the new line is drawn at in the selling price of the CSeries. Usually, charging more isn't a great motivator for higher sales, but obviously Airbus brings a lot to the table in that regard. If $25M was too much to pay last month, will $30M be just fine today? Or only $27M? Or $35M? If the economy slows and that narrowbody backlog becomes a bit soft, will Airbus be happy to lose A320neo sales to the CS300 (or the apparently "sure thing" CS500)?

No doubt it's a great deal for Airbus and for the CSeries program. Just wondering how it will actually end up going for the line?

strfyr51 wrote:

since that'scthe ONLYvway for them to get into the USA??
I think it's a good deal. As long as the USA get's a piece of the cake?
I can't complain, As LONG as nobody is "dumping airlanes" in the USA.
Because even Airbus can't do that!! Nor should they be allowed to..

But Boeing can, and does, is allowed to. Dumping 737 at 20 million a piece is fine with you? Boeing trying to sue a competitor off the market using legal loopholes is okay with you? Do you even realize that, had Boeing won, YOU would be the victim, my dear American Patriot.

Revelation wrote:

An airplane program that doesn't have a huge backlog will now have to fund a 2nd assembly line.
Doesn't seem to be optimal to me.

Au contraire! (I'm speaking Canadian to emphasize my point) A very underutilized line will now be loaded with something that they didn't have before - a new airplane which they got FOR FREE. It's not just optimal. It's PERFECT.

Revelation wrote:

That's not clear to me at least. One thing that makes A3xxx so profitable is its high build rate which leads to volume discounts from their downstream vendors.

No. One thing that makes A320 so profitable is the fact that, unlike Boeing, Airbus doesn't need to dump the prices in order to win at least some orders. Airbus makes money on each and every plane they sell. How much does Bobbing lose on every "Nightmareliner"?

kitplane01 wrote:

I would not trust the American ITC to rule in their favor either. But they gave up half the program and got nothing more than marketing and supply chain advise. Are there not Chinese investors would have paid actual money for the program? Even a small amount is more than zero!

LOL, yeah, Chinese investors would happily do it. Only they would demand that the production is moved over to China and the technology is transfered. Even IF, by some miracle, that's approved by the regulatory agencies, they then would steal the technology and just bury the CS.

"Nothing more than Airbus's marketing advice" is something A LOT of companies, including Boeing itself, would die to have. Unless you noticed, just a few years ago, Airbus had TWO models (320, 330/340) where Boeing had FIVE (737, 757, 767, 777, 747). A marketing department that can pull such a trick AND win 51% of the market share is worth their weight in diamonds. As for the supply advice... do you seriously not see how Airbus easily assembles planes from parts arriving from all over the world, while Boeing lost 32 BILLION trying to immitate that? So you should look at this at quite a different angle - Bombardier got Airbus's enormous marketing and supply experience by simply offering them an aircraft that would otherwise be dead.

767333ER wrote:

They are going to keep the CSeries going as they have stated that the CS300 will effectively replace the A319neo

WHOA! I have to admit I did miss a bit of this, but WHERE did they state that?

BREECH wrote:

Revelation wrote:

That's not clear to me at least. One thing that makes A3xxx so profitable is its high build rate which leads to volume discounts from their downstream vendors.

No. One thing that makes A320 so profitable is the fact that, unlike Boeing, Airbus doesn't need to dump the prices in order to win at least some orders. Airbus makes money on each and every plane they sell. How much does Bobbing lose on every "Nightmareliner"?

LOL, Delta just fell out of its chair laughing at this post.

BREECH wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

since that'scthe ONLYvway for them to get into the USA??
I think it's a good deal. As long as the USA get's a piece of the cake?
I can't complain, As LONG as nobody is "dumping airlanes" in the USA.
Because even Airbus can't do that!! Nor should they be allowed to..

But Boeing can, and does, is allowed to. Dumping 737 at 20 million a piece is fine with you? Boeing trying to sue a competitor off the market using legal loopholes is okay with you? Do you even realize that, had Boeing won, YOU would be the victim, my dear American Patriot.

So lets be clear, are you stating that Airbus has NEVER offered the A320 in a major sales campaign to a major player for $20 million?

william wrote:

So lets be clear, are you stating that Airbus has NEVER offered the A320 in a major sales campaign to a major player for $20 million?

I suppose you have examples showing otherwise?

william wrote:

So lets be clear, are you stating that Airbus has NEVER offered the A320 in a major sales campaign to a major player for $20 million?

Ryanair paid 29 million USD on its first 100 pcs 737 order, you really think that wasn´t a major sales campaign and Airbus lost despite offering 30% cheaper?

best regards
Thomas

Two consideration I find interesting:

1 Was the tarriff purposefully made so ridiculously high to have a shot at keeping the price of mobile built c-series too high by applying it to the foreign parts only as well?

2 There now is conflict of interest for Airbus. The more succesfull they make the c-series NOW the more costly taking over the remainder will be later. I would expect that would have an influence on the level and timing of Airbus commitment and investment. On the other hand perhaps that's why they got the 50% for free and part of deal is they're going full in from 2nd half of 2018.

The US / Boeing won't be outmanoeuvred that easily. This all ties in to 'America First' on one side of the Atlantic and a post Brexit Trade deal for the UK on the other. Prime Minister May depends on the Belfast-based DUP to prop up her Government and Belfast is where 4,000 Bombardier jobs are based. Aviation and Brexit are analysed in: http://theconversation.com/a-pre-brexit ... haos-82105.

I read most of the comments to this thread and scanned through the rest and all I can say is wow. Boeing got properly shafted here, I'm sure their butts hurt like hell this morning. Incredible move Airbus, well done for spotting an opportunity and taking it. I have no doubt the C-series will be successful and I can't wait for my first flight on one of them. Boeing is still paying the price for underestimating Airbus in the 80's, now it is even worse and they will play catch-up for a long time. Serves them right, after the way they tried to kill off the C-series with duties. Pathetic.

What follows is deeply subjective and probably has next to nothing to do with the reason why airlines buy their equipment. BUT, as someone who flies way to much, I really curse Boeing every time I have to squeeze my backside into a 17" seat on the ancient 737. Plastic surgery and lipstick only goes so far, just ask Joan Rivers. There is no way for Boeing to hide the 60's origin of this aircraft, and I for one can do without the bun fight to find space for my carry-on luggage, the cramped seating, narrow isle, the list goes on. Instead of making enemies left, right and center maybe they should pull out their fingers and design something that can make short haul flights as comfortable for us as the A320. The same goes for long-haul, I avoid the 787 where I can, I really don't like it. I don't mind the 777 but it is noisy like a beehive and for long flights I actively seek out the A330/340/350 or 380. Each time I endure a 777 flight I long for the comfort and peace and quiet of a wide-body Airbus.

Pre-BBD Airbus had an impressive line-up, post-BBD it is hard not to be impressed with what Airbus can now offer their clients. Boeing has so much work to do, maybe they can stop stirring up trouble wherever they go and start working on planes that can be a real challenge for Airbus without the need to resort to dirty tactics like what they tried to do to the C-series.

Jayafe wrote:

douwd20 wrote:

"Move heaven and hell to stop it?" Asking the government to investigate is hardly "moving heaven and hell". And surprise the US government agreed. Moving heaven and hell is what the Canadian and European governments have done to make their needy children a success in a very mean world.

Lobbying and pushing political influences to get a rigged verdict is a big move. And has been a massive strategic mistake.

Oh, the US, European childish toddlers, indeed...

"Rigged verdict"? So now the US government is in on it too?

And then a "massive strategic mistake"? A. Airbus is paying zero euros for this partnership which should provide a clue of it's real value and B) the market for 100 seat jets is what you might call miniscule and will remain so.

Taxi645 wrote:

There now is conflict of interest for Airbus. The more succesfull they make the c-series NOW the more costly taking over the remainder will be later. I would expect that would have an influence on the level and timing of Airbus commitment and investment. On the other hand perhaps that's why they got the 50% for free and part of deal is they're going full in from 2nd half of 2018.

I don't see any conflict of interest here.

While it is true that the more successful Airbus can make the program, the more cash they will need to find to purchase the remaining shares, the entire cost of purchasing those shares is guaranteed to be more than covered by the value of the 50.1% stake that they have acquired for nothing. It's a win-win situation for Airbus.

Aviatonics wrote:

The US / Boeing won't be outmanoeuvred that easily. This all ties in to 'America First' on one side of the Atlantic

Seems to me that Boeing already has been outmanoeuvred that easily.

As for "America First", the genius of this deal is the Mobile final assembly line plan. That will benefit the USA far more than tariffs on imported C-series aircraft would have. So, if the US authorities are genuinely putting "America First", and not just fulfilling the will of Boeing lobbyists, they ought to be happy to see this deal go through.

Chrisba320 wrote:

I have no doubt the C-series will be successful and I can't wait for my first flight on one of them.

You do because you hate Boeing? John Leahy, Airbus’s master salesman, dismissed the C Series as nothing more than a “cute little plane” offered in a narrow segment of the market where there was no demand. And now a miracle has happened and Airbus now believes demand of up to 6,000 C Series? But that is still unproved. The C Series has not won a new order for more than a year, while Airbus’s own slightly bigger A319neo has not clinched a deal for at least four years. Sounds like Airbus has another A380 on their hands but at least they got this white elephant for free.

Turnhouse1 wrote:

So does the Mobile Final Assembly Line mean the tariffs are history?

No. Experts say jets assembled by Airbus and Bombardier in Alabama, as the companies have proposed, could still be subject to the tariffs if a significant portion of their parts come from overseas. So they are going to have to significantly rework the supply chain with a lot of lawyers pouring over the details. This is most definitely not the end. The fact that Airbus took over without paying anything tells you what they think of the transaction.

douwd20 wrote:

You do because you hate Boeing? John Leahy, Airbus’s master salesman, dismissed the C Series as nothing more than a “cute little plane” offered in a narrow segment of the market where there was no demand. And now a miracle has happened and Airbus now believes demand of up to 6,000 C Series? But that is still unproved. The C Series has not won a new order for more than a year, while Airbus’s own slightly bigger A319neo has not clinched a deal for at least four years. Sounds like Airbus has another A380 on their hands but at least they got this white elephant for free.

It seems not only Boeing is in denial.

As explained by Leeham, CS sales have lagged because of a lack of confidence in BBD's ability to manage and support the program. All those concerns have now been wiped away at a stroke.

douwd20 wrote:

No. Experts say jets assembled by Airbus and Bombardier in Alabama, as the companies have proposed, could still be subject to the tariffs if a significant portion of their parts come from overseas.

Which experts are these? Do you have any sources to share?

douwd20 wrote:

This is most definitely not the end. The fact that Airbus took over without paying anything tells you what they think of the transaction.

Your post tells us you don't fully appreciate the finer points of the deal. Airbus is playing a longer game than your attention span - if Airbus ends up owning 100% of CSALP they certainly will not have paid nothing for it.

douwd20 wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

So does the Mobile Final Assembly Line mean the tariffs are history?

No. Experts say jets assembled by Airbus and Bombardier in Alabama, as the companies have proposed, could still be subject to the tariffs if a significant portion of their parts come from overseas. So they are going to have to significantly rework the supply chain with a lot of lawyers pouring over the details. This is most definitely not the end. The fact that Airbus took over without paying anything tells you what they think of the transaction.

Well how will Boeing fare when Airbus Inc. asks the authorities to look into subsidies the Japanese government provided for the production of those 787 wings? Be careful how much you scratch as you may make it worse than you intended. Boeing has a significant number of parts that come from overseas as well and just like Airbus Inc. they are also a American company.

douwd20 wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

So does the Mobile Final Assembly Line mean the tariffs are history?

No. Experts say jets assembled by Airbus and Bombardier in Alabama, as the companies have proposed, could still be subject to the tariffs if a significant portion of their parts come from overseas. So they are going to have to significantly rework the supply chain with a lot of lawyers pouring over the details. This is most definitely not the end. The fact that Airbus took over without paying anything tells you what they think of the transaction.

And other experts say they can not, as laws about dumping do not apply to a frame assembled in the USA.

douwd20 wrote:

And then a "massive strategic mistake"? A. Airbus is paying zero euros for this partnership which should provide a clue of it's real value .

yeah, the real value if Bombardier remains in charge of the program alone, as they don´t have the cash to set up a 2nd assembly line. That value is close to zero.

This deal is a classical win-win situation, Bombardier gets a program that has value once again, doesn´t have to write off the whole program, and Airbus gets 50% of a clean sheet airliner for almost free.

douwd20 wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

So does the Mobile Final Assembly Line mean the tariffs are history?

No. Experts say jets assembled by Airbus and Bombardier in Alabama, as the companies have proposed, could still be subject to the tariffs if a significant portion of their parts come from overseas. So they are going to have to significantly rework the supply chain with a lot of lawyers pouring over the details. This is most definitely not the end. The fact that Airbus took over without paying anything tells you what they think of the transaction.

Boeings experts say that. Boeing will also be the one to full on lobby those tariffs being removed once China decides to replicate those tariffs in kind.
And many of those parts will have been developed by their respective supplier at own risk and cost, so there isn´t even a case whatsoever to extend tariffs to those.

And it won´t matter, even if those few remaining components from Canada have a 300% tariff, per Unit R&D and Tooling costs have just halfed, they can probably sell those frames cheaper without doing price dumping, and since the FAL is in the US, there is no rule on the book to prevent the Airbus/Bombardier sales organisation to discount as steeply as they like, since selling below cost to kick a competitor out of the market is apparently legal in the US. And getting a customer like WN to look at something other than a 737 does make strategic sense no matter how low the price is. Heck, they can give them 30 CS series for free for a 3 year trial period and now there is absolutely nothing Boeing can do about it. If they don´t like it, shifting those Units for L/T "Tomorrow" shouldn´t be all so difficult.

Don´t forget the unbeatable advantage the CS series now has to offer: You can get it with a very short lead time, try getting an Max or Neo on short notice. And now you can rely on the OEM being around for the whole aircraft´s lifetime.

best regards
Thomas

aerolimani wrote:

There was no wad of cash being offered by Airbus. It's a cashless deal.

You are not seriously saying that "marketing and supply chain expertise" come free, are you? It's going to cost Airbus A LOT. "It's a cashless deal" is a mantra for Airbus shareholders who are not all that enthusiastic about "their" company spending money on what looks like a lost case. I also hope you don't think Airbus has only joined the project for CS. Airbus is obviously planning to buy out BBD altogether. Otherwise why guarantee jobs through 2041. All of that (and other things I can't even imagine) costs a lot of money.

As for shutting down Q400, BBD is not the one to decide ANYTHING anymore. They screwed up their chance at having an independent aircraft manufacturer. 50 orders is great, but those billion numbers are "list price". The real cash paid, as we know very well, can be less than half that. Your bet is as good as mine right now. But my bet is, adieu aux Q400es.

Here's a deal for the accountants and lawyers to ponder;
At some stage in the near future, two different airlines both want 40 CS300's each.
Airline X will only buy them with heavy discounting, and nails CSALP down to a low price. Not much profit there.
Airline Y sees the CS300 as a real bonus to it's fleet, and will pay whatever CSALP ask for it (within reason).

If I wanted to stick it to Trump; I would build the "X" machines at Mobile, make a loss on the deal, and pay zero taxes to the US Gov't
And conversely, build the "Y" machines on the Montreal line, declaring a fat profit that will be taxed by Quebec.

Of course this is fantasy, but how exactly will the US and Canada apportion (& tax) any profits/losses made by CSALP?
I can see room for plenty of creative accounting here.

BREECH wrote:

Revelation wrote:

An airplane program that doesn't have a huge backlog will now have to fund a 2nd assembly line.
Doesn't seem to be optimal to me.

Au contraire! (I'm speaking Canadian to emphasize my point) A very underutilized line will now be loaded with something that they didn't have before - a new airplane which they got FOR FREE. It's not just optimal. It's PERFECT.

What makes you think that Airbus Mobile is underutilized?

And no, they can't just 'load' a C Series into an A3xx assembly line. It will take a bunch of new (expensive) custom tooling (with long lead times) and a bunch of newly trained workers to make it happen. It could also mean changes in assembly procedures and sequencing depending on exactly which parts can be exported without tariff. And the new plant will need to be certified by the appropriate aviation authorities. Sure, it's all been done before, but nothing about it is easy, cheap or efficient.

The program would be far better off if the tariff issue could be solved without needing a 2nd FAL, especially since it needs to happen in the same time frame as their first FAL is ramping up and drawing large sums of money out of the program.

If it were PERFECT, then BBD would have opened the 2nd line long before the Airbus investment. It is not PERFECT, it's a huge burden.

douwd20 wrote:

[
"Rigged verdict"? So now the US government is in on it too?

A law purposely designed for that outcome by the USA congress and an US trade commission set up to look after USA interest. Of course it is rigged purposefully so.

ytz wrote:

As for numbers, Airbus sees the potential for 6000 sales over 20 years in this space. If they see that, I don't get why other people don't think the airplane is sellable. Airline abusing A320s and 738s or artificially limiting frequencies to fill larger than needed narrowbodies now have a great option that will be offered to them by Airbus. Ditto for any airlines watching their regionals get crunched in the pilot shortage. They can now upgauge. It was always ridiculous to think that mainline should start at over 150 seats. Airbus now has options for their customers.

Interesting numbers, but still with a lot of qualifiers: potential, "this space", etc.

FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-442298/ ) provides another:

Bombardier chief financial officer John Di Bert estimates Airbus's involvement doubles the value of CSeries to "something that is north of" $4 billion.

So BBD's CFO admits something that BBD invested over a decade and $5.4B in will eventually become worth ~$4B and that BBD will only see ~$1.3B back after seven more years of investing and involvement. That's not a glorious admission for a CFO to be making.

IMHO these numbers are a lot like a parent looking at a child and predicting greatness for it -- that's fine, but there's a lot that needs to happen before you can claim success.

It's quite true that Airbus's marketing, support and supply chain assets add a huge amount to the program. Hopefully the customer demand for that size aircraft justifies the hope. So far both A and B have been betting that it does not.

scbriml wrote:

douwd20 wrote:

No. Experts say jets assembled by Airbus and Bombardier in Alabama, as the companies have proposed, could still be subject to the tariffs if a significant portion of their parts come from overseas.

Which experts are these? Do you have any sources to share?

douwd20 wrote:

This is most definitely not the end. The fact that Airbus took over without paying anything tells you what they think of the transaction.

Your post tells us you don't fully appreciate the finer points of the deal. Airbus is playing a longer game than your attention span - if Airbus ends up owning 100% of CSALP they certainly will not have paid nothing for it.

Thank you. You nailed it! Great reply to perhaps the best shade-throwing and bashing of today...LOL

Revelation wrote:

ytz wrote:

As for numbers, Airbus sees the potential for 6000 sales over 20 years in this space. If they see that, I don't get why other people don't think the airplane is sellable. Airline abusing A320s and 738s or artificially limiting frequencies to fill larger than needed narrowbodies now have a great option that will be offered to them by Airbus. Ditto for any airlines watching their regionals get crunched in the pilot shortage. They can now upgauge. It was always ridiculous to think that mainline should start at over 150 seats. Airbus now has options for their customers.

Interesting numbers, but still with a lot of qualifiers: potential, "this space", etc.

FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-442298/ ) provides another:

Bombardier chief financial officer John Di Bert estimates Airbus's involvement doubles the value of CSeries to "something that is north of" $4 billion.

So BBD's CFO admits something that BBD invested over a decade and $5.4B in will eventually become worth ~$4B and that BBD will only see ~$1.3B back after seven more years of investing and involvement. That's not a glorious admission for a CFO to be making.

IMHO these numbers are a lot like a parent looking at a child and predicting greatness for it -- that's fine, but there's a lot that needs to happen before you can claim success.

It's quite true that Airbus's marketing, support and supply chain assets add a huge amount to the program. Hopefully the customer demand for that size aircraft justifies the hope. So far both A and B have been betting that it does not.

I see no basis for your numbers in that article. There is no numbers regarding the call or put options. One thing that is forgotten in that article is, who pays for or finances the the FAL in Mobile? The no money from Airbus is a red herring, there is no description on investments that Airbus will have to do.

BREECH wrote:

767333ER wrote:

They are going to keep the CSeries going as they have stated that the CS300 will effectively replace the A319neo

WHOA! I have to admit I did miss a bit of this, but WHERE did they state that?

In an interview with Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... sales-push

Airbus will “definitely” push the Canadian model’s largest variant, the CS300, at the expense of the similarly sized A319neo, Enders said in an interview Wednesday. The European planemaker hasn’t announced a new airline customer for the jet in five years, since Bombardier’s aircraft emerged as a serious rival.

“That was the last time we sold the plane,” he said. “That tells you something about the competition between the A319 and the C Series.”

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

What’s so facetious? Economically, that is exactly what is happening—another country’s product is being subsidized so I, and DL’s passengers, fly marginally less expensively.

Whereas the American tax payer (by way of taxes the ordinary worker gets to pay while Boeing does not thanks to its tax breaks) gets to pay for expensive lawyers, executive bonuses and share buybacks.
By comparison, I much prefer the BBD approach of using government help to actually develop better planes rather than bully tactics and similar sheenanigans.
Because, you know, BBD were at least bloody trying (yeah, they made mistakes as well, I know).

727200 wrote:

My understanding is Airbus is not putting any money into the project and getting 50% share which eventually may go as high as 70%, And that up to $500M in debt will be borne by partner. Sounds like a fire sale to me.

Airbus' share may (and probably will) actually go up to 100% eventually.
Were BBD under pressure and not in the best of negotiating positions? Absolutely.
But Airbus is not getting this for free. The value their marketing and sales organisation, plus their supply chain expertise and clout bring to the table is enormous.
Also, Airbus will be paying for the assembly line in Alabama, a multi-bn$ investment.
Lastly, don't forget that Airbus and BBD have the option (and every intention) of making the CSeries a 100% Airbus programme by the mid-2020s. At that point, fair market value is to be paid for the remaining 49,99%.
So for now, Airbus is BBD's and Québec's way of getting the plane out of some dire straits. That's worth more to them than getting any cash upfront. If the whole scheme succeeds, they'll still get their cash some 8 years down the line. Oh, and 49,99% of profits in the meantime, of course.
Airbus, meanwhile, get a cheap way of selling planes to airlines for whom the 737-7/A319NEO simply don't cut it any more. And it's not a paper plane. Ramp-up needs some work still, but the plane is fully developed, in production, and performance and reliability data is known (and looks quite good).
With all this, they also get a brand-new platform that they can base the lower end of the A320 successor family on, while doing their own MOM new development that would cover the A321-to-A330 niche.
Airbus would be absolutely stupid to not use this new platform in their portfolio to its fullest.

keesje wrote:

I guess it means so much convinced of their own truth, reality takes time to get accepted. Happened to them in 2010 too. Boeing only believed the NEO was happening when AA was waiving a huge A320NEO LOI in front of them and was going in all direction after that. At the day of signing the AA deal, a name for the MAX was not decided and no models were available. http://cdapress.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/stor ... g?MaxW=640

A lot of people - especially those pointing to how well-run Boeing allegedly is - seem to have forgotten this already.
Their best-selling programme only came to fruition after Airbus/AA effectively forced their hand. Before that, they had themselves and their cheerleaders convinced that the NEO only just about matched the NG's performance and a re-engined 737 was therefore a frivolous and quite unnecessary undertaking. Now they convinced themselves that some bully moves would enable them to kill a plane that everybody knows is way better than their own offering (and their bully moves demonstrated to the world how worried they actually were about the CSeries). Because screw competition if you're not the winner. And now they didn't expect this and according to Ostrower, who's usually a reliable source, they've still got themselves convinced that this deal isn't going to actually happen. Despite the fact that a BBD/Airbus deal was already under discussion in 2015 and talks only collapsed because news of them becaume public.
This was announced quite out of the blue for most, but with the talks in 2015 having already taken place, you can fully expect that due diligence was done on this on both parts. Trade, tariff etc. implications included.

douwd20 wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

So does the Mobile Final Assembly Line mean the tariffs are history?

No. Experts say jets assembled by Airbus and Bombardier in Alabama, as the companies have proposed, could still be subject to the tariffs if a significant portion of their parts come from overseas. So they are going to have to significantly rework the supply chain with a lot of lawyers pouring over the details. This is most definitely not the end. The fact that Airbus took over without paying anything tells you what they think of the transaction.

As scrimbl already asked: Care to quote your experts?
Airbus US is already building A32X in Mobile, and no tariffs are due. Boeing themselves are building various types of planes with "significant portion of their parts come from overseas".
It's hardly three days since the deal was announced and the first few myths are already forming, such as Airbus not paying anything. They are not paying cash today, but they will pay for the second FAL, they will put in marketing, sales, support, supply chain management - and they will pay cash in 2023.

ytz wrote:

clearskies1 wrote:

I think we are loosing sight of the big picture. [...]

I don't get why people have a hard time understanding the sales situation that Bombardier was in. No airline wants to get stuck with orphan aircraft. And Bombardier was struggling to sell because Airbus and Boeing would undercut them at every turn. See Boeing's Black Friday Special on 73Gs for United. So they had to resort to deep discounts to gain traction. That, of course, put them in a worse bind. Because now they make worse margins and airlines still won't be sure about the long term stability of the program. Add to that the longer they went without sales the worse it looked. That was quite the negative feedback loop.

Fully agree with your assessment, ytz.
I'd also add that, if the CSeries was as dead a bird as many, including clearskies1, still appear to believe, Boeing wouldn't have activated friendly politicians and their own lawyers in order to stop it at any cost. The CSeries as such, by all accounts, appears to be a very viable airplane in its own right - just made by the "wrong" company. And by "wrong" I simply mean that BBD has financial troubles and simply not the clout to compete against A or B on its own.



Boeing's role during the dumping proceedings and now reminds me of a Leeham article from September 11, 2017. It was called Boeing's sense of invincibility and basically listed a few points where Boeing at the time thought they were sitting really pretty, feeling really good about themselves. The CSeries tariffs were part of that.
At the time, I wrote in the comments section:

anfromme wrote:

It tends to be the case that once an entity (superhero, corporation, rabbit or normal person) feels invincible… it sets them up for their downfall.
Quite a few of their current victories may end up being pyrrhic in nature after all.
Their case against Bombardier is a prime example. [...] Sure, the BBD case plays to Boeing’s home crowd – but the US isn’t Boeing’s only market, and playing to the home crowd exclusively has its risks when you’re in a global business. [...]

I think the amount of goodwill that Boeing are losing in all this should not be underestimated.
Even Aboulafia concedes this is a victory for both the CSeries and Airbus - and his firm, Teal, immediately see the value of the CSeries doubled after this, with potential to go even higher.
Also, looking at comments here and elsewhere (such as Leeham or Ostrower's twitter feed) , there's only a select number of people who don't think that Boeing shot themselves in the foot here - and deserve it.
Expect the same sentiment to be present with airline customers, potential defense customers (such as Canada and the UK) and others.

Revelation wrote:

FlightGlobal wrote:

Bombardier chief financial officer John Di Bert estimates Airbus's involvement doubles the value of CSeries to "something that is north of" $4 billion.

So BBD's CFO admits* something that BBD invested over a decade and $5.4B in will eventually become worth ~$4B*

"admits" - a word normally associated with the phrase "admits guilt", not very flattering is it? Could you not find it in your heart to use a more neutral word like "says" or "states"? Otherwise it comes across that your analysis is biased.
"will eventually become worth ~$4B" ? No, that is NOT what he said. He says it is worth $4B, right now, in fact from the moment that the deal was announced.

As time passes, as the deal is properly fleshed out, and the 2nd FAL starts to take shape, and above all as orders roll in, I would look forward to the program being worth considerably more than $4billion.
As for $4billion current value being less than the actual monies invested up to this point; this is the aviation industry,
and this is a project still very much in it's development stage. What planet have you been living on that you would expect it any different?

Revelation wrote:

IMHO these numbers are a lot like a parent looking at a child and predicting greatness for it -- that's fine, but there's a lot that needs to happen before you can claim success.

Yep, can't disagree with that.

(*) My bolding of text, not yours.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

So BBD's CFO admits* something that BBD invested over a decade and $5.4B in will eventually become worth ~$4B*

"admits" - a word normally associated with the phrase "admits guilt", not very flattering is it? Could you not find it in your heart to use a more neutral word like "says" or "states"? Otherwise it comes across that your analysis is biased.

Yes, I am trying to imply guilt. Anyone responsible for BBD in a financial way in the recent past SHOULD feel guilty. Their leadership of BBD has been disastrous for the company and its investors.

"will eventually become worth ~$4B" ? No, that is NOT what he said. He says it is worth $4B, right now, in fact from the moment that the deal was announced.

Then he's wrong. Something is only worth what someone else will pay for it. Right now no one else would pay $4B for this program, so right now it is not worth $4B.

Revelation wrote:

If it were PERFECT, then BBD would have opened the 2nd line long before the Airbus investment. It is not PERFECT, it's a huge burden.

As long as BBD was the vendor, the demand did not warrant a 2nd line. BBD as a vendor was seen far too unstable, to unlock the potential of the aircraft. The opposite is true now.

Revelation wrote:

It's quite true that Airbus's marketing, support and supply chain assets add a huge amount to the program. Hopefully the customer demand for that size aircraft justifies the hope. So far both A and B have been betting that it does not.

Because as long as BBD was the vendor, the customer demand did not justify the hopes in this aircraft size. BBD as a vendor was seen far too unstable, to unlock the potential of the aircraft. The opposite can be expected from now on.

Revelation wrote:

So BBD's CFO admits something that BBD invested over a decade and $5.4B in will eventually become worth ~$4B
Yes, I am trying to imply guilt. Anyone responsible for BBD in a financial way in the recent past SHOULD feel guilty. Their leadership of BBD has been disastrous for the company and its investors.

You may be right about that; I'm not qualified to say. I merely contend that $4billion current value vs $5.4billion past investment is not necessarily outrageous in itself.

I wrote:

"will eventually become worth ~$4B" ? No, that is NOT what he said. He says it is worth $4B, right now.

you wrote:

Then he's wrong. Something is only worth what someone else will pay for it. Right now no one else would pay $4B for this program, so right now it is not worth $4B.

Not worth $4billion? Again, I'm not qualified to comment on that in itself, but there are plenty of others on this thread who would argue differently, specifically all the Boeing supporters who thought that Boeing's best move was to make a counter-offer, and be quick about it before the ink was dry. True, I don't believe any of them actually mentioned $4billion; they merely suggested an offer that exceeded Airbus's "got it for absolutely nothing" deal.
And yes, I am perfectly aware of all that is so wrong in that last paragraph.

I am very surprised Boeing did not see this coming. There Legal team and executive decision makers have a lot to answer for concerning this screw up. The playground bully got a hiding from the smallest kid in class watched by the school prefect.
It's Karma. Boeing have been getting away with this for years. And it has now seriously bit them on the as+. The C series is no t free. However it well have been on Irbus get there Sales and Marketing team working on it.

The C Series is worth just about nothing if BBD remained in control.

Now, it is actually worth something or Airbus wouldn’t have touched it still. But this muddy deal isn’t a clean cut sale so we will never really have a clear picture.

scbriml wrote:

douwd20 wrote:

You do because you hate Boeing? John Leahy, Airbus’s master salesman, dismissed the C Series as nothing more than a “cute little plane” offered in a narrow segment of the market where there was no demand. And now a miracle has happened and Airbus now believes demand of up to 6,000 C Series? But that is still unproved. The C Series has not won a new order for more than a year, while Airbus’s own slightly bigger A319neo has not clinched a deal for at least four years. Sounds like Airbus has another A380 on their hands but at least they got this white elephant for free.

It seems not only Boeing is in denial.

As explained by Leeham, CS sales have lagged because of a lack of confidence in BBD's ability to manage and support the program. All those concerns have now been wiped away at a stroke.

Totally agree. And what did people expect Leahy to say? He’s a salesman. Plus I’m pretty sure when Leahy made this comments, the C-Series wasn’t in service yet with demonstrated numbers. It’s an incredible airplane that will now have a chance to show itself to the market with proper support. I don’t know how anybody could not see this as only a win win for all parties invlovled.

BREECH wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

since that'scthe ONLYvway for them to get into the USA??
I think it's a good deal. As long as the USA get's a piece of the cake?
I can't complain, As LONG as nobody is "dumping airlanes" in the USA.
Because even Airbus can't do that!! Nor should they be allowed to..

But Boeing can, and does, is allowed to. Dumping 737 at 20 million a piece is fine with you? Boeing trying to sue a competitor off the market using legal loopholes is okay with you? Do you even realize that, had Boeing won, YOU would be the victim, my dear American Patriot.

Do you have evidence that Boeing was selling below cost on the 737? Even if it was, its not illegal to underprice your product in your own home market to fend off import competition. Since when did illegal activity become beneficial?

enzo011 wrote:

douwd20 wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

So does the Mobile Final Assembly Line mean the tariffs are history?

No. Experts say jets assembled by Airbus and Bombardier in Alabama, as the companies have proposed, could still be subject to the tariffs if a significant portion of their parts come from overseas. So they are going to have to significantly rework the supply chain with a lot of lawyers pouring over the details. This is most definitely not the end. The fact that Airbus took over without paying anything tells you what they think of the transaction.

Well how will Boeing fare when Airbus Inc. asks the authorities to look into subsidies the Japanese government provided for the production of those 787 wings? Be careful how much you scratch as you may make it worse than you intended. Boeing has a significant number of parts that come from overseas as well and just like Airbus Inc. they are also a American company.

So, who is accusing Boeing of dumping?

mjoelnir wrote:

douwd20 wrote:

[
"Rigged verdict"? So now the US government is in on it too?

A law purposely designed for that outcome by the USA congress and an US trade commission set up to look after USA interest. Of course it is rigged purposefully so.

As opposed to a law set up by Canadian parliament and enforced by the CITT and CBSA. You do realize, don't you, that Canada has plenty of trade cases going as well?

Aluminum Extrusions: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Carbon and Alloy Steel Line Pipe: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Carbon and Alloy Steel Line Pipe 2: Dumping (Republic of Korea)
Carbon Steel Welded Pipe (CSWP 1): Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Carbon Steel Welded Pipe 2 (CSWP 2): Dumping (Chinese Taipei, India, Oman, Republic of Korea, Thailand and United Arab Emirates); Countervailing (India)
Concrete Reinforcing Bar: Dumping (China, Republic of Korea, Turkey); Countervailing (China)
Concrete Reinforcing Bar 2: Dumping (Belarus, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Japan, Portugal and Spain)
Copper Pipe Fittings: Dumping (China, Republic of Korea and United States); Countervailing (China)
Copper Tube: Dumping (Brazil, China, Greece, Mexico and Republic of Korea); Countervailing (China)
Fabricated Industrial Steel Components: Dumping (China, Korea and Spain) & Countervailing (China)
Fasteners: Dumping (China and Chinese Taipei); Countervailing (China)
Flat Hot-Rolled Carbon and Alloy Steel Sheet and Strips: Dumping (Brazil, China and Ukraine); Countervailing (India)
Gypsum Board: Dumping (United States of America)
Hollow Structural Sections: Dumping (Republic of Korea and Turkey)
Large Line Pipe: Dumping (China and Japan) & Countervailing (China)
Liquid Dielectric Transformers: Dumping (Republic of Korea)
Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG 1): Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Oil Country Tubular Goods 2 (OCTG 2): Dumping (Chinese Taipei, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam)
Photovoltaic Modules and Laminates: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Piling Pipe: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Pup Joints: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Refined Sugar: Dumping (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States); Countervailing (European Union)
Seamless Casing: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Silicon Metal: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Silicon Metal 2: Dumping (Brazil, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Norway and Thailand) & Countervailing (Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Norway and Thailand)
Stainless Steel Sinks: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Steel Grating: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Steel Plate 3: Dumping (China)
Steel Plate 5: Dumping (Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Romania)
Steel Plate 6: Dumping (Ukraine)
Steel Plate 7: Dumping (Brazil, Denmark, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea)
Thermoelectric Coolers and Warmers: Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Unitized Wall Modules (UWM): Dumping & Countervailing (China)
Whole Potatoes: Dumping (United-States)

This is a fantastic, smart forward thinking leadership on Airbus' part.

Not only does the C-Series get a major jolt of life support, it finds it with a major partner.

Airbus gets access to the 100-150 seat market.

Jobs get created (and hopefully preserved in Canada and Northern Ireland).

I'm so happy that the bullying move that was attempted has hopefully been thwarted.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

highflier92660 wrote:

For Boeing, if there is good to come out of this ass-whupping by Airbus it may serve as a final awakening to produce a competitive aircraft. Thanks in-part to Jim "no more moonshots" McNerney Boeing has become a risk adverse airframe manufacturer that would rather hide behind government lobbyists and attorneys than turn to their incredibly talented aeronautical engineering staff. Even if your name is Boeing, you can only go so long selling an airliner equivalent to the ancient Wagon Queen Family Truckster.

A300/A310 ---> 757/767
737/727 ---> A320
A330/A340 ---> 777
A380 ---> 787
A350 ---> 797 (?)

Curious as to how you can compare the A380 to a 787. Did you mean 747-8i?

If Boeing sold 737s below cost, they would have had to take a financial charge, just like BBD did with the Delta deal. And that would leave evidence in the financial statements just like BBD couldn’t avoid.

I don’t know if this happened and I’m not about to go digging through old financial reports. A quick google search yielded nothing.