Excellent point. As the A220 is a completely different architecture than the Airbus planes, it is near impossible to bring fully "in house", so best to keep it as a JV like how Airbus & Leonardo have ATR. If a disaster strikes ATR the damage limit is basically the investment Airbus has made in ATR, not the whole Airbus entity.
You have noted previously that all of the BBD layoffs and staffing changes the certification 'files' might be difficult to pick up and run with today. I am not indicating the A220 design is other than excellent, it appears to be an excellent plane, but picking up all the loose ends in the documentation after certification with the initial production changes is really hard without the original design team involved.
As I discussed in the blog, at this point I am expecting a major reorganization at Airbus Canada and followed very shortly by a legal status change of the cooperation. It cannot continue this way because the risk is way too high for Airbus.
They need to find a legal status for the company that limits (or caps) the liability of all parties involved. It would also mean a whole change in the company structure including having president and CEO and so on. The CEO can come from Airbus, it does not matter much but the company has to be independent
. As you say, a structure like ATR ior Boeing Brasil would be the right one.
The company can be named Airbus Canada, that is not a problem and the C Series can still be called A220. The thing is that they will need to build a complete set of staff, from engineering to sales and marketing.
We need to follow this very closely.
You mean, after BBD has relinquished majority of CSALP for 1 Euro/dollar, in order for CSALP to be able to:
1) tap deeper and cheaper financing sources
2) take advantage of massive synergies in worldwide sales, marketing and support system
3) take advantage of shared logistics and lower costs through integration into one of two large civil aerospace industrial eco-systems of this world
that now priority is to carve out CSALP from all of these, and make CSALP an independent company
The only issue is that the current legal status of ACLP (or CSALP) is not bullet proof enough and thus presents a big risk to Airbus.
The status of "société en commandite" or limited partnership in Quebec says that the liability of the limited partnership is borne by the partners in the proportion of their stake. I am not sure there is any limit to the absolute value of the liability.
Basically if something bad happens, say there is an accident or two and the aircraft is grounded during one or two years until the investigation is closed and recommendations implemented, the liability is borne by Airbus at 50%. In other words, the one symbolic dollar suddenly becomes hundreds of millions of several billions of liability. You do not want that, especially if it is NOT your own product.
So yes, they need to change the status of the joint-venture such that the responsibility of each participant is limited to the capital they inject to it. It would be much easier to just close the endeavor if something bad happens.
As JayinKitap said, working out from documents and digging out information without the presence of the initial engineers is a tough work to do in a short time. Please remember a vast majority of those who worked in the C Series have been laid off, left to other companies or migrate to Mitsubishi engineering office in Montreal.
It is just a question of managing industrial risk.