Airbus and Bombardier Announce CSeries Partnership

BREECH · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:01 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
danj555 wrote:
How will Delta not have to pay tariffs now? The 220% tariff is on the product, not the manufacturer.

They plan to produce the CSeries in Mobile.

I think I missed something here. Could someone please explain this "tariff" to me? US imposed a 220% tariff on imported airplanes!? When did that happen!?

Speedalive · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:05 pm

ytz wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Speedalive wrote:
I’m curious about what Airbus could do to being the two models closer to each other. I can’t say I’m qualified enough to make an educated guess, but I get the impression that the two planes are really quite different. Would harmonizing the two models involve drastic design changes like, for example, ripping out the current CSeries cockpit and replacing it with an identical setup to the 320?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-envisions-harmonising-cseries-with-a320-442227/

My guess is that the cabin offers will be synchronized. Perhaps the Airspace interior will be offered on CSeries.

Why would they do that? The CS has a fantastic cabin at present. It doesn't need more investment.

Because one of the attractive aspects of buying airbus is the cost savings related to cockpit commonality. That’s lost now with the addition of the CSeries to the airbus lineup.

washingtonflyer · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:08 pm

BREECH wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
danj555 wrote:
How will Delta not have to pay tariffs now? The 220% tariff is on the product, not the manufacturer.

They plan to produce the CSeries in Mobile.

I think I missed something here. Could someone please explain this "tariff" to me? US imposed a 220% tariff on imported airplanes!? When did that happen!?

Where have you been?

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:10 pm

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

VirginFlyer · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:12 pm

BREECH wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
danj555 wrote:
How will Delta not have to pay tariffs now? The 220% tariff is on the product, not the manufacturer.

They plan to produce the CSeries in Mobile.

I think I missed something here. Could someone please explain this "tariff" to me? US imposed a 220% tariff on imported airplanes!? When did that happen!?

Yes you did; here's a thread detailing it:

U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Short story is it is a preliminary decision to impose a tariff on the C Series in response to a claim of dumping (specifically related to the low price for which the aircraft were sold to Delta). There's a lot of discussion about it - I would suggest having a look through that thread.

BREECH wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
BREECH wrote:
What happens in Belfast?

That they wanted to keep manufacturing CSeries' wings...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/man ... -1.3259860

Have they learned nothing from the Titanic!? Glad for the Irish, though. Always good to keep the job.

Yes, they have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harland_and_Wolff

Although that's entirely irrelevant to aviation, and the C Series; for that have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Brothers (who were manufacturing aircraft prior to the Titanic being built).

V/F

tofur · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:15 pm

ytz wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Speedalive wrote:
I’m curious about what Airbus could do to being the two models closer to each other. I can’t say I’m qualified enough to make an educated guess, but I get the impression that the two planes are really quite different. Would harmonizing the two models involve drastic design changes like, for example, ripping out the current CSeries cockpit and replacing it with an identical setup to the 320?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-envisions-harmonising-cseries-with-a320-442227/

My guess is that the cabin offers will be synchronized. Perhaps the Airspace interior will be offered on CSeries.

Why would they do that? The CS has a fantastic cabin at present. It doesn't need more investment.

According to Enders in the Flight Global interview, it sounds like Airbus will be looking to incorporate the Cseries innovations into the Airbus product line.

He points out that the CSeries has the capability of capturing a "major chunk" of the demand for some 6,000 aircraft in its sector over the next 20 years.

The acquisition will enable Airbus to concentrate on its higher-capacity single-aisle family while the CSeries will "cover the lower end", says Enders, and offer a "full spectrum" to customers.

But while the two aircraft lines are distinct, he signals that Airbus will aim to bring the two designs closer.

He says there is "strong potential" to develop, "step-by-step", a more harmonised single-aisle range with "higher commonality" – taking advantage of the technology and design incorporated into the CSeries and bringing further cost savings.

Further testament to the progressive, innovative Canadian designers and engineers!

BREECH · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:19 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
Yes you did; here's a thread detailing it:

U.S. Dept of Commerce backs Boeing in dispute with Bombardier

Short story is it is a preliminary decision to impose a tariff on the C Series in response to a claim of dumping (specifically related to the low price for which the aircraft were sold to Delta). There's a lot of discussion about it - I would suggest having a look through that thread.

Thank you. Boeing sure likes making enemies. :-)

ytz · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:26 pm

tofur wrote:
ytz wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:

My guess is that the cabin offers will be synchronized. Perhaps the Airspace interior will be offered on CSeries.

Why would they do that? The CS has a fantastic cabin at present. It doesn't need more investment.

According to Enders in the Flight Global interview, it sounds like Airbus will be looking to incorporate the Cseries innovations into the Airbus product line.

He points out that the CSeries has the capability of capturing a "major chunk" of the demand for some 6,000 aircraft in its sector over the next 20 years.

The acquisition will enable Airbus to concentrate on its higher-capacity single-aisle family while the CSeries will "cover the lower end", says Enders, and offer a "full spectrum" to customers.

But while the two aircraft lines are distinct, he signals that Airbus will aim to bring the two designs closer.

He says there is "strong potential" to develop, "step-by-step", a more harmonised single-aisle range with "higher commonality" – taking advantage of the technology and design incorporated into the CSeries and bringing further cost savings.

Further testament to the progressive, innovative Canadian designers and engineers!

Sounds to me like they are interested in the CS500 at some point. Not at all like the naysayers here saying they bought the CSeries to kill it or that they'll never develop the CS500. I think that frame is just a matter of time. It's way too easy low hanging fruit.

ytz · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:27 pm

Speedalive wrote:
ytz wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:

My guess is that the cabin offers will be synchronized. Perhaps the Airspace interior will be offered on CSeries.

Why would they do that? The CS has a fantastic cabin at present. It doesn't need more investment.

Because one of the attractive aspects of buying airbus is the cost savings related to cockpit commonality. That’s lost now with the addition of the CSeries to the airbus lineup.

The cabin interior has nothing to do with cockpit commonality.

JoeCanuck · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:30 pm

Well, I'm disappointed. To me, one mega corp is much like another. Airbus was just as keen and was willing to play just as dirty as Boeing to kill the CSeries. Boeing really screwed the pooch on this one. Regardless of how it turned out, it was always going to end up in a loss for them. I did figure the CSeries at least would go to China...and that BBD would have done a bit better than giving the program away.

I was thinking that BBD would at least wait another few months until the US court of international trade would rule on whether or not Boeing suffered harm in the deal with Delta. Since the CIT is an actual court, (as opposed to a commerce committee whose rulings go to the highest bidder), the burden of proof on Boeing is supposedly significantly higher.

If the CIT ruled against Boeing, the whole thing would have gone away, tariffs and all.

Now it's just more of the same, old, boring A vs. B.

Too bad.

BREECH · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:36 pm

rheinlaender wrote:
By producing the Delta Aircraft in Mobile, AL and importing the parts from their respective manufacturing plant (i.e. Northern Ireland) into the US or not exporting them to Canada in the first place.
Then starting a trade war against the european union might be less winable then against canada from an US point of view.

Somehow I don't think it'll stop Boeing. They are already facing a loss of some serious Canadian and British contracts but they just wouldn't back up. They still think they can bully their way into anything they want. I don't think they even realize how close to a catastrophic crash they are.

BREECH · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:50 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
So much for wanting a third competitor to the A/B duopoly. This thread hilariously exposes that the real point of rooting for Bombardier wasn't for the existence of another manufacturer.

This is sad news for the CSeries and for manufacturer variety in general. It's a shame to see Bombardier effectively end as a manufacturer. Now the CS500 is likely a non-starter, and having Airbus on board still doesn't change the fact that the business case for the CS100 and CS300 is extremely weak. In fact this might makes CSeries sales even weaker, as Airbus likely won't be willing to put up with loss-making aircraft that somewhat competes against itself. In the end, I think this is Airbus helping kill off BBD and the CSeries. It just might take more time now.

Bombardier wasn't even producing the same airplanes that Airbus and Boeing. Why this lament? You want a third manufacturer? How about Embraer? They're making EXACTLY the same aircraft as BBD, only they actually know what they're doing!

dtw2hyd · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:55 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
Well, I'm disappointed. To me, one mega corp is much like another. Airbus was just as keen and was willing to play just as dirty as Boeing to kill the CSeries. Boeing really screwed the pooch on this one. Regardless of how it turned out, it was always going to end up in a loss for them. I did figure the CSeries at least would go to China...and that BBD would have done a bit better than giving the program away.

I was thinking that BBD would at least wait another few months until the US court of international trade would rule on whether or not Boeing suffered harm in the deal with Delta. Since the CIT is an actual court, (as opposed to a commerce committee whose rulings go to the highest bidder), the burden of proof on Boeing is supposedly significantly higher.

If the CIT ruled against Boeing, the whole thing would have gone away, tariffs and all.

Now it's just more of the same, old, boring A vs. B.

Too bad.

If Boeing really sees the value in smaller NBs (or) larger RJs, they have several options.
1) Dust off 717 drawings and give to Chine or India, let them invest few $Billion to have an updated version
2) Get SSJ100 (their own baby) FAA certified and sell in the US.
3) Partner with Mitsubishi and sell MRJ in the US

Killing C-Series is not an option, at least in public opinion.

BREECH · Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:55 pm

leghorn wrote:
Q400 needs a new engine(which will be available) and a row of seats fore and aft of the wings.
A 100 seater turboprop will keep a lot of Canadians in work for another decade.

Airbus owns ATR so I think Q400 will be the first (and probably the only) victim of this joint-venture.

keesje · Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:01 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
According to Bloomberg article and interview with Patrrick de Castelbajak (Airbus Strategy & International Executive Vice President) and CEO Tom Enders

"Enders, speaking at the EU Aeronautics conference in Brussels, said Airbus plans to tap cutting-edge C Series technology in areas such as the cockpit, avionics and composite materials for future aircraft models."

“That has always been Airbus’s strategy, to look for as much commonality between the various aircraft as possible,” he said. “There’s a lot I think we can do. The C Series is a state-of-the-art aircraft in every aspect, one of the most modern generation aircraft in terms of cockpit, in terms of material.”

tofur · Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:20 pm

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

It is admirable to be a patriot. To be facetious is not.

According to the dictionary:
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

aerolimani · Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:21 pm

BREECH wrote:
leghorn wrote:
Q400 needs a new engine(which will be available) and a row of seats fore and aft of the wings.
A 100 seater turboprop will keep a lot of Canadians in work for another decade.

Airbus owns ATR so I think Q400 will be the first (and probably the only) victim of this joint-venture.

Airbus doesn't own any of Bombardier. They only have a controlling interest in the CSeries program, specifically. BBD is in complete control of all its other programs: Q400, CRJ, Global, Challenger, and Learjet. It's possible that Airbus have more influence over Bombardier now, but I highly doubt they could persuade BBD to outright cancel the Q400.

ytz · Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:21 pm

According to Jon Ostrower, Boeing is in denial over Airbus/Bombardier:

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 7760115713

If that's actually true (and a big if with second hand info), then Boeing's leadership are morons. What did they think was going to happen? Did they think that the Canadian, Quebec and UK governments would simply let the program die, let 6000 jobs in two countries fall away, and that Bombardier would not try to find a way to recoup any value from $5 billion in investments?

It's like they legit thought they had some kind of gentleman's agreement with Airbus to let them kill Bombardier and not to take advantage of the situation.

And this also means that they haven't anticipated this tie-up as some here have asserted, which means they will now have to re-calibrate their business strategy going forward. Maybe move up the NSA. They might well have to do the NSA and NMA at the same time.

flyingclrs727 · Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
LockheedBBD wrote:
The most interesting thing is what Bombardier's endgame in all of this? The CSeries under the Bombardier is history. Are they going to sell off the CRJ/Q400 for pocket change? I guess BBD can go back to its business jet roots but that market also seems smaller than in past decades.

Bombardier and Embraer were the only western companies that could potentially challenge Boeing/Airbus, but Bombardier is out and Embraer will most likely fold into Boeing eventually. I guess only Russia/China will be able to save the day, but that is decades away.
That's the only thing I don't get about this whole deal. What does BBD get out of it?

The hope that in 2023 the "fair market value" of 31% of CSALP is a significant amount of money. Before this deal, 62% of CSALP was not.

Note that they are still committed to pumping in a lot of money to the program over the next few years.

All this after putting $5B into the program.

It's a terrible deal for BBD, but it was still better than any other option they had.

Which is why Airbus waited as long as it did.

lightsaber · Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:24 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
- Airbus will put C-Series ahead of own A319neo in sales push
- Future Airbus projects will incorperate C-Series technology
- Enders said he’s confident the surprise deal will make both the CS300 and the smaller CS100 a “roaring success in the market.”

Other interesting snippets:

"Enders, speaking at the EU Aeronautics conference in Brussels, said Airbus plans to tap cutting-edge C Series technology in areas such as the cockpit, avionics and composite materials for future aircraft models."

Fair use quotes from:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... sales-push

I take out 3 things from this:
1. Airbus accepts the A319 won't sell. Boeing probably know the -7 MAX is done. They'd better, CS300 CASM almost matches the A320NEO.
2. They will sell the C-series.
3. They like the C-series wing. Not said,but Belfast should be happy.

Lightsaber

JoeCanuck · Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:34 pm

tofur 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

It is admirable to be a patriot. To be facetious is not.

According to the dictionary:
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Actually, he has a point. The only people or entities that were hurt in the whole debacle, were airlines, workers and consumers....not Boeing. If a foreign company wants to sell products at a loss, (and it doesn't hurt domestic industry), it's good for consumers.

crimsonchin · Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:54 pm

What does being "in denial" in this context even mean? Like are Boeing just going about their daily business pretending the partnership doesn't exist?

ytz · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:06 am

crimsonchin wrote:
What does being "in denial" in this context even mean? Like are Boeing just going about their daily business pretending the partnership doesn't exist?

As per the tweet, it would seem that Boeing staff don't seem to think this deal is actually going through. That's what I take away from it.

tofur · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:11 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
tofur 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

It is admirable to be a patriot. To be facetious is not.

According to the dictionary:
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Actually, he has a point. The only people or entities that were hurt in the whole debacle, were airlines, workers and consumers....not Boeing. If a foreign company wants to sell products at a loss, (and it doesn't hurt domestic industry), it's good for consumers.[/quote

I am seriously interested in answers to your retort.

How is it bad for airlines? They now have the added backing of Airbus for support.

Workers? Jobs secured for more than 2 decades.

Consumers? They now have a better chance of flying on state of the art, comfortable aircraft.

Boeing? How is it not bad for Boeing? Being left behind in technology and innovation on narrowbody aircraft is a serious consideration.

With respect, these are valid questions. Please explain your views.

LockheedBBD · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:23 am

aerolimani wrote:
Airbus doesn't own any of Bombardier. They only have a controlling interest in the CSeries program, specifically.

As part of the deal, Airbus is purchasing a small number of Bombardier stock, but they will probably sell their stake in Bombardier once they take control of the CSeries in seven years:

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... ement.html

Airbus, upon closing, of warrants exercisable to acquire up to 100,000,000 Class B Shares (subordinate voting) of Bombardier

Flexbird · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:25 am

washingtonflyer wrote:
BREECH wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:

They plan to produce the CSeries in Mobile.

I think I missed something here. Could someone please explain this "tariff" to me? US imposed a 220% tariff on imported airplanes!? When did that happen!?

Where have you been?

You'd be surprised how many people aren't aware of what's been going on. I have a work colleague who is also a bit of an aviation fanatic come to me today saying "Did you hear about the 220% tariff that Bombardier got hit with?" I looked at him and said "Well now that Airbus has taken 50.01% of the CSeries that may become moot."

His reply was "Airbus did what? When did this happen?"

keesje · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:28 am

crimsonchin wrote:
What does being "in denial" in this context even mean? Like are Boeing just going about their daily business pretending the partnership doesn't exist?

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/storyimage/CD/20110721/ARTICLE/307219982/AR/0/AR-307219982.jpg?MaxW=640

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:35 am

tofur 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

It is admirable to be a patriot. To be facetious is not.

According to the dictionary:
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Tour,

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.

GF

Aircellist · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:38 am

Something in the news this morning in Montreal: when the CSeries was separated from BBD proper, in the wake of Quebec's investment in CSALP, Quebec owned 50% of the combo. Now, Quebec is left with 19%, meaning its part came down from 50% to 38%, prior to AIB arriving in the portrait. However, it was made with the utter discretion: nobody heard about that, around here.

So, I suppose what clinched the deal at those conditions was that the Bombardier family did not want to lose their personal shirts.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:40 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
tofur 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

It is admirable to be a patriot. To be facetious is not.

According to the dictionary:
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Tour,

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. I’m referring to BBD selling the planes to DL at a very low price. Now, AI gets to handle this problem by bringing the production to the US. BBD, at one time, was considering the FAL in Kansas City, but Quebec objected.

GF

tofur · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:47 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
tofur 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

It is admirable to be a patriot. To be facetious is not.

According to the dictionary:
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Tour,

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.

GF

"Pity the taxpayer who is making my standard of living better."

I believe your reply says it all and sets the standard for the meaning of facetious.

727200 · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:48 am

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.

JetBuddy · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:51 am

keesje wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
According to Bloomberg article and interview with Patrrick de Castelbajak (Airbus Strategy & International Executive Vice President) and CEO Tom Enders

"Enders, speaking at the EU Aeronautics conference in Brussels, said Airbus plans to tap cutting-edge C Series technology in areas such as the cockpit, avionics and composite materials for future aircraft models."

“That has always been Airbus’s strategy, to look for as much commonality between the various aircraft as possible,” he said. “There’s a lot I think we can do. The C Series is a state-of-the-art aircraft in every aspect, one of the most modern generation aircraft in terms of cockpit, in terms of material.”

That's one sexy looking bird :bigthumbsup:

ytz · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:51 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
tofur 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

It is admirable to be a patriot. To be facetious is not.

According to the dictionary:
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Tour,

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.

GF

Exactly. This is actually fantastic for DL. Nobody will ever get CSeries planes at the price DL got them again. You almost wonder if Airbus will be tempted to renegotiate. DL is almost assuredly going to exercise every single option they have. And try to convert whatever they can to the larger CS300. Heck, if I was Ed Bastian, I'd try and add to the order before the Airbus takeover official firms next year.

And all that will be fantastic for DL's bottom line and for DL passengers.

clearskies1 · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:00 am

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.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:16 am

tofur wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
tofur wrote:

It is admirable to be a patriot. To be facetious is not.

According to the dictionary:
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Tour,

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.

GF

"Pity the taxpayer who is making my standard of living better."

I believe your reply says it all and sets the standard for the meaning of facetious.

The subsidy didn’t come out of thin air—Caisse representing QC pension funds or the Canadian taxpayer funded it. Simple. And, by allowing a deal at a lower price to DL, DL’s customers are marginally better off, including me. The lower capital cost means DL’s employees have better, more efficient planes to generate profits more cheaply than if they paid extra-subsidies. For the owners of DL, cheaper capital means more profits. All this from the Canadian taxpayer or QC pensioner. I’m not saying it’s good business or economically sound, just what happened.

What’s facetious about the economics here.

GF

BREECH · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:17 am

aerolimani wrote:
Airbus owns ATR so I think Q400 will be the first (and probably the only) victim of this joint-venture.

Airbus doesn't own any of Bombardier. They only have a controlling interest in the CSeries program, specifically. BBD is in complete control of all its other programs: Q400, CRJ, Global, Challenger, and Learjet. It's possible that Airbus have more influence over Bombardier now, but I highly doubt they could persuade BBD to outright cancel the Q400.[/quote]
When someone comes with a wad of cash to save your best shot at staying afloat, usually you don't retain much control. And Airbus are known for doing due diligence. I'm quite sure there are a few additional conditions of which we will hear in due time. And even if it's not in the contract YET, saving an old design at the cost of your best model would be VERY unwise of BBD. Especially now after they looked down the barrel of the bancruptcy.

aerolimani · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:21 am

LockheedBBD wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
Airbus doesn't own any of Bombardier. They only have a controlling interest in the CSeries program, specifically.

As part of the deal, Airbus is purchasing a small number of Bombardier stock, but they will probably sell their stake in Bombardier once they take control of the CSeries in seven years:

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... ement.html
Airbus, upon closing, of warrants exercisable to acquire up to 100,000,000 Class B Shares (subordinate voting) of Bombardier

Right! I forgot about that.

BREECH · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:27 am

ytz wrote:
Boeing's leadership are morons.

Welcome to our world! Enjoy your stay. :-D

BREECH · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:41 am

ikolkyo wrote:
I also think the E2 Program is gonna be in big trouble with this news.

Elaborate? E2 has been doing just fine and E-jets have been the leaders in that segment for... let's say, a long time, because I don't remember how long. What changes? If anything, Embraer have gone a MUCH harder way to success than Airbus. At least Airbus was formed by European companies who already had heaps of aviation experience. Embraer is VERY good at competing in the most crowded sectors. As an example, their FIRST business jet flew in 2000. In 2016, they delivered the 1000th (!) bizjet, and now hold 17% of the market successfully competing with the grandest grands. I don't think Embraer is a less formidable competitor than Airbus. And their problematic economy gives them the advantage of favorable currency conversion. I think their E2 program is safe and sound, whereas, after the champagne sparkles settle, Bombardier and Airbus are still to prove that C-series is a good seller.

BREECH · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:43 am

Clipper101 wrote:
I remember Bombardier approached Airbus previously for a stake in the C-Series, but negotiations broke down & no deal went through. Now the second time around things went well, I am wondering what is the difference in approach between the first time & this one !

BBD no longer asks for any money. :-D

BREECH · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:45 am

BirdBrain wrote:
In other news, Boeing has announced 737-MINI, which will be a shrunk MAX to compete with the C-Series.

737MIN... OR! 737SUX

JoeCanuck · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:52 am

tofur wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
tofur wrote:

It is admirable to be a patriot. To be facetious is not.

According to the dictionary:
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

Actually, he has a point. The only people or entities that were hurt in the whole debacle, were airlines, workers and consumers....not Boeing. If a foreign company wants to sell products at a loss, (and it doesn't hurt domestic industry), it's good for consumers.[/quote

I am seriously interested in answers to your retort.

How is it bad for airlines? They now have the added backing of Airbus for support.

Workers? Jobs secured for more than 2 decades.

Consumers? They now have a better chance of flying on state of the art, comfortable aircraft.

Boeing? How is it not bad for Boeing? Being left behind in technology and innovation on narrowbody aircraft is a serious consideration.

With respect, these are valid questions. Please explain your views.

I think you misunderstand. The debacle, of which I was referring, was the Boeing attack on BBD. If Boeing succeeded, it would be bad for consumers, workers and airlines. Now, the taxpayer funded "dumping", has a much better chance of going ahead and consumers, airlines and workers will benefit.

Boeing has only been hurt by Boeing.

As for the Airbus deal, as I mentioned earlier, it has its benefits but I think BBD jumped the gun. They could have easily survived a few more months until the US court of international trade made its ruling, especially considering that it couldn't have gotten much worse but it could have gotten much, much better. In fact, it could have all gone away.

Now, BBD has, literally, given away the CSeries program, and it's basically just another notch on the Airbus order book.

ikolkyo · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:53 am

BREECH wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
I also think the E2 Program is gonna be in big trouble with this news.

Elaborate? E2 has been doing just fine and E-jets have been the leaders in that segment for... let's say, a long time, because I don't remember how long. What changes? If anything, Embraer have gone a MUCH harder way to success than Airbus. At least Airbus was formed by European companies who already had heaps of aviation experience. Embraer is VERY good at competing in the most crowded sectors. As an example, their FIRST business jet flew in 2000. In 2016, they delivered the 1000th (!) bizjet, and now hold 17% of the market successfully competing with the grandest grands. I don't think Embraer is a less formidable competitor than Airbus. And their problematic economy gives them the advantage of favorable currency conversion. I think their E2 program is safe and sound, whereas, after the champagne sparkles settle, Bombardier and Airbus are still to prove that C-series is a good seller.

How the hell is the E2 doing just fine? If you take out the 100 E175-E2s on order which are in Limbo because of scope issues, that aircraft would have zero orders and the program would stand at just 128 aircraft while the CSeries is at 360 orders and will for sure now get many more orders. They have a problem on their hands and the issue is no one wants the aircraft.

BREECH · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:54 am

Revelation wrote:
If the product is a success in 7.5 years then Airbus can buy them out at market value, then BBD gets to start all over again with 31% of the market value as a nest egg.

Airbus can benefit even beyond that. BBD is the direct competitor of Alstom and Siemens. Airbus can open Airbus Transportation, and the next ICE and TGV will be made by Airbus. :-D

DeltaB717 · Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:11 am

lightsaber wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
My predictions. You can grade me when the future is known.

It would be interesting to see other people's predictions.

1) There will be a significant order for the C-series in the next 9 months. At least 40 planes, or 25 orders + 25 options.

...

1. Yes, an order. But who?

...

A few thoughts/possibilities:
* Qantas Group - known to be looking at an eventual replacement for the QF B738 fleet, and neither the B717 nor the F100 can remain in service forever; in addition, CS would give the group (QF and JQ) options for routes such as CBR-ADL/DRW/PER, HBA-ADL/PER, etc., which are not possible (read: feasible) with the current fleet mix in Australia (including VA/TT).
* IAG - early A320s and A321s will need replacing in the coming years, as will early A319s and possibly that one remaining A318; Airbus is now in a position to offer IAG a very strong deal covering all those needs. The CS could also be attractive to the likes of EI to be able to increase direct flying out of SNN and ORK.
* Lufthansa Group - LX already has both families operating alongside each other, SN has an oldish fleet of A320 family, as does OS, and LH has A319/A320/A321 of a range of ages operating alongside EJets.
* SAS - as someone else mentioned - their B736 and B737 fleet aren't getting any younger and are operating alongside leased CR9s.
* AA - again, a relatively ageing fleet of A320 family aircraft alongside an EJet fleet, could be a prime target for Airbus now with their ability to concurrently offer CSeries/A320.

klkla · Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:29 am

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.

In addition to that there will be a lengthy delay in deliveries to one of the biggest buyers. Delta was supposed to take delivery next year. But the deal isn't even expected to close for about a year from now. And then they have to build the assembly line in U.S. which will take a minimum of one year and probably close to two.

There is a reason Airbus is getting this for almost free.

tofur · Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:33 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
tofur wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Tour,

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.

GF

"Pity the taxpayer who is making my standard of living better."

I believe your reply says it all and sets the standard for the meaning of facetious.

The subsidy didn’t come out of thin air—Caisse representing QC pension funds or the Canadian taxpayer funded it. Simple. And, by allowing a deal at a lower price to DL, DL’s customers are marginally better off, including me. The lower capital cost means DL’s employees have better, more efficient planes to generate profits more cheaply than if they paid extra-subsidies. For the owners of DL, cheaper capital means more profits. All this from the Canadian taxpayer or QC pensioner. I’m not saying it’s good business or economically sound, just what happened.

What’s facetious about the economics here.

GF

I have no doubt about the economics and that Delta Air Lines is jubilant about the pricing it received on the C Series, company and passengers included. Very true, "more efficient planes to generate more profits". You have no qualms from me on this. The economics were not mentioned as being facetious.

PPVRA · Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:50 am

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.

Slug71 · Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:53 am

BREECH wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
Airbus owns ATR so I think Q400 will be the first (and probably the only) victim of this joint-venture.

Airbus doesn't own any of Bombardier. They only have a controlling interest in the CSeries program, specifically. BBD is in complete control of all its other programs: Q400, CRJ, Global, Challenger, and Learjet. It's possible that Airbus have more influence over Bombardier now, but I highly doubt they could persuade BBD to outright cancel the Q400.

When someone comes with a wad of cash to save your best shot at staying afloat, usually you don't retain much control. And Airbus are known for doing due diligence. I'm quite sure there are a few additional conditions of which we will hear in due time. And even if it's not in the contract YET, saving an old design at the cost of your best model would be VERY unwise of BBD. Especially now after they looked down the barrel of the bancruptcy.[/quote]

No cash was exchanged. Here's my take/possible scenario though,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1376415

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net