NameOmitted wrote:

Aside from the type certificates, what all did Longview buy from BBD?

What is DHC without the Q? Parts and services?

Longview also owns Viking Air. Viking acquired the type certificates for the DHC-1 ==> DHC-7 many years ago; and has been very profitable doing parts and service as an awful lot of those aircraft are still in service - and the Beaver (DHC-2) is extremely in demand as an bush pilot float plane and other services that use crude short runways. A used junker frame will be rebuilt to a like new aircraft with (or without) a tubo conversion for between 1-2 $Million (and I understand that they always have at least one active rebuild or conversion to turbo in the shop). There is also at least one other company doing similar rebuilds (and gets a lot of parts from Viking). Then Viking decided to restart production in 2007 with an upgraded DHC-6 Twin Otter and have delivered over 150 Twin Otter-400's in the last decade.

In 2016 Longview/Viking acquired the type certificates from Canadair for the CL-215, CL-215T and CL-415 which are boat planes (can land on water without floats); and were designed up front so they could be used as a firefighting water bomber (or not if you had another use for a boat plane). These can land and fill up on a river or lake, and take off, and then drop the water, and return to refill at the nearest river or lake. Viking is currently in the middle of a huge upgrade/modernization program for some of those older firefighting aircraft (building on their success with rebuilding and upgrading other DHC aircraft).

Viking then designed an upgraded CL-515 modern water bomber (just like the Twin Otter 400 is an upgraded aircraft with modern avionics, controls, engines, and accessories over the classic models long out of production); and are currently in production and certification of the CL-515 (initial order was for 6 aircraft from Indonesia with 1st delivery in 2024).

So, I believe that Longview saw parts and service once all orders were produced - as they have made a lot of $$$ selling parts and service on the DHC 1-7, even if only 1 has had production restarted (they seriously looked at restarting the Buffalo DHC-5 some years ago as its a favorite with smaller 3rd world military use - they did not see enough hard interest).

My understanding is that they are currently discussing the restart of the Beaver (DHC-2) as the world is running out of old frames to be rebuilt/converted to turbo and the demand is high. They already often strip an old plane down to its base frame and only reuse the frame (and my understanding is that there is always a used Beaver in their shops being rebuilt at any time). Everything else is new (including wings, skin, controls, etc) - so building the base frame is the only item missing for a new aircraft. This may only be a few new Beavers a year... likely for decades. But, why not if the long term demand is there.

Have a great day,

I still find it amazing that the Beaver is in such a high demand, still the same way it was built in 1947. I'm sure there were minor changes over the years, but I think, largely, the design of the Beaver was mostly the same for all of it's production run (the biggest exception being the turbo beaver).

I'm happy to see it soldier on, and I hope Viking does build new ones, I've seen them flying as far away as Australia and it's instantly recognizable. I'm always proud to see them working and to know that they are sought-after worldwide.

Pilatus on the other hand has ended it's Turbo Porter production. It's cool to see Viking successfully continuing building the classics. Especially the Twin Otter.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I have to wonder if de Havilland would consider re-engining the Q300, as there is a market for turboprops in the 50-seat class and right now, ATR would be unchallenged there.

There are multiple current Dash 8 operators who have to change their fleet for ATR because only ATR can offer ATR42

2175301 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Paused production only restarts for military programs where the budgets allow such inefficiency.

Vendors are brutalized by pauses and their management have long memories.

Lightsaber

Not totally true; but mostly.

Pauses and restarts also occurs where an aircraft occupies a fairly unique niche. Hence Viking was able to start production of the Twin Otter with upgrades as the Twin Otter-400 some years ago.

Probably more true than not for larger suppliers. As a recently retired engineer for one of these, I've bid several spare builds for out of production items and would pretty much always include refreshes to test fixtures, procedures and BOMs. Depending on the length of the pause, there's every possibility that the fixtures have been written off and dumped for tax purposes unless contractually required and we're typically paid for this. There's a higher likelihood that the one person who knew how to really use the fixture retired/died and the hardware is in a cabinet that nobody can locate. Or the test procedure calls out equipment that is no longer available and the whole setup process must be rewritten for newer test hardware.

Larger companies are always updating quality procedures and drawing standards as well and, often, manufacturing will pitch a fit if we go forward with legacy drawings.

Also, it's startling how frequently simple components go obsolete. If you have a specific fastener in the BOM and it's NLA, you can't just use an equivalent but different P/N and, depending on the number of components to be sourced and qualified, it may not be worth the expense.

The Operations group also increases costs for start/stop operations. There's a factor (forget the name) that is commonly added that accounts for the fact that assemblers must come back up to speed to correctly produce and inspect the parts. You may have perfect drawings but it takes time to review and comprehend the process.

This is why I get a good laugh whenever I see the "bring back the 757" threads.

m1m2 wrote:

I still find it amazing that the Beaver is in such a high demand, still the same way it was built in 1947. I'm sure there were minor changes over the years, but I think, largely, the design of the Beaver was mostly the same for all of it's production run (the biggest exception being the turbo beaver).

I'm happy to see it soldier on, and I hope Viking does build new ones, I've seen them flying as far away as Australia and it's instantly recognizable. I'm always proud to see them working and to know that they are sought-after worldwide.

Same for the Twin Otter. There is also a rebuilder that zero times old frames. For certain environments, there is just no good replacement. And I had mentioned the DH8C, but there may also be demand for the DH8B, the 37-seat version.

m1m2 wrote:

I still find it amazing that the Beaver is in such a high demand, still the same way it was built in 1947. I'm sure there were minor changes over the years, but I think, largely, the design of the Beaver was mostly the same for all of it's production run (the biggest exception being the turbo beaver).

I'm happy to see it soldier on, and I hope Viking does build new ones, I've seen them flying as far away as Australia and it's instantly recognizable. I'm always proud to see them working and to know that they are sought-after worldwide.

There have been a ton of STC's developed for the Beaver: oversized doors for cargo loading, cabin extensions, seat mods, instrument panel mods, improved control cables, gross weight mods & so on. So a Beaver with a bunch of STC's is vastly improved over the original design.

Canuck600 wrote:

m1m2 wrote:

I still find it amazing that the Beaver is in such a high demand, still the same way it was built in 1947. I'm sure there were minor changes over the years, but I think, largely, the design of the Beaver was mostly the same for all of it's production run (the biggest exception being the turbo beaver).

I'm happy to see it soldier on, and I hope Viking does build new ones, I've seen them flying as far away as Australia and it's instantly recognizable. I'm always proud to see them working and to know that they are sought-after worldwide.

There have been a ton of STC's developed for the Beaver: oversized doors for cargo loading, cabin extensions, seat mods, instrument panel mods, improved control cables, gross weight mods & so on. So a Beaver with a bunch of STC's is vastly improved over the original design.

How true: Here is a somewhat recent video showing the restoration of a military Beaver to more modern features purchased from an Aviation Museum (for a good price I am sure) and the Beaver history and story.

It's 47 minutes well worth your time... It names the other company who also rebuilds/upgrades Beavers (which did Harrison Fords Beaver).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2hZe9ToaEI

If my economic fortunes were to change... and if I'm certifiable as a pilot (there is a health issue I'm not sure how it would be handled): I'd get my own Beaver as for my personal aircraft.

Have a great day,

I've always said if I could afford an airplane of my own (ie won the lottery), it would be a turbo Beaver on amphib floats. As an AME I could still do my own maintenance, just have to get someone to teach me to fly the thing!

lightsaber wrote:

I only have worked the big companies, so that is what I know. Small shops building BT-67 or or zero lifing a twin Otter are in niche markets.

Slow production Q400s must compete with ATR-72 at good economics of scale.

One reason I quote the 25 minimum batch size as it takes so much time for the people to order parts (25 or 200, same amount of paperwork time), the engineer and technician discuss the drawings (which is repeated at vendors, hence why one needs to cut part counts), and only then can you start building up the parts that make an aircraft.

For complex aircraft, an employee might only only work a few different jobs to accelerate production.

Lightsaber

I agree: The Twin Otter-400 and the CL-515 Firefighter are niche products. Total future production rate is likely not to exceed 10 per year combined, and it might just be 5 per year combined now that the first 150 Twin Otter-400's have been delivered and the orders slowed (I believe current market price is about $4.5 Million for a Twin Otter 400). The most active remanufcture/Zero Life market is for the Beaver and DC-3 (BT-67), with both models also having an active similar size overhaul/upgrade market short of Zero Hour rebuild. The rebuild market for the CL-215 & CL-415 firefighters is new, and will likely results in a steady market for a few aircraft per year for the next decade or so.

None of the above operates within a cost competitive market where there is a higher production aircraft available. Each of the above models have capabilities that are superior to their competitors for specific key markets - which is why they can be re-manufactured profitably or in 2 cases have new production aircraft available at this time.

Yet, it is heartening to see that this niche is an active niche and still ongoing.

I don't see Longview as being interested in really competing in the DHC-8 Commercial market long term - where there are other competitors with similar performance for most applications who are producing other viable aircraft in the commercial passenger market. I see Longview as interested in the parts and support - and perhaps rebuilds for the few cases where a DHC-8 has unique advantages (if there are any).

Have a great day,

"If you win the lottery and buy an aircraft, just recall the cost to own it and maintain, insure, and store it is about 30% of the purchase price per year."

While I wasn't aware of the exact numbers, I know maintaining an airplane isn't cheap, but being able to do the work myself (I have a Canadian M1 AME licence and a fair bit of time working on the PT-6 engine). I'm thinking that would help a lot. Anyway, it's unlikely to ever happen, but it's always a fun "what if".

The DH8 100, 200 and 300 have a lifetime extension program that can extend flight cycles from 80,000 to 120,000. Winderoe and Jazz are two operators that have taken advantage of the program.

9252fly wrote:

The DH8 100, 200 and 300 have a lifetime extension program that can extend flight cycles from 80,000 to 120,000. Winderoe and Jazz are two operators that have taken advantage of the program.

SB for Dash8-200 Life extension does not exist yet.No operators have requested it. Nacelle Frames on 200 are a 60,000 cycle item due to higher engine Torque. That is a pretty big expense in itself(over half a million).

I'm thinking it would be the same on the 300 as it has the same engines as the 200. Are you thinking longerons rather than frames? I've seen the longerons replaced on the 300 and it's easily done during a "C" check. It's a bit of surgery and a lot of rivets, I'll give you that.

Well if BBD had invested something into making the passenger experience a wee bit better, maybe the Q400 could have stood a chance. Instead the whole dash-8 line has remained basically the same through 3 decades of production, with the pax experience far down the ladder, in the pit of the lowest gradient.
I have flown the ATR back to back with the Q400, and the Q400 inevitably felt crude, basic, harsh, noisy, with hard seats and brittle vibrating paneling; while the ATR felt modern, swish, comfortable, soft, advanced, quiet and vibration free. A striking difference. Of course the Q400 has low passenger appeal - how could it not?
Add to this the higher operational costs, and added complexities for a type that is not loved by passengers (nor by bean counters), and the choice suddenly becomes obvious.

bourbon wrote:

Honestly,
If someone slapped a thin metal housing that went around the prop 99% (think.. eurocopter tail rotor but far far far less robust ) of the traveling public would have no idea it was a turbo prop. The exposed blade just does something with peoples brain.

The exposed blade makes aviation fans geek out and everyone else freak out.

NameOmitted wrote:

Aside from the type certificates, what all did Longview buy from BBD?

What is DHC without the Q? Parts and services?

Extracts from the purchase press release:

"- Longview Aviation Capital Corp., parent company to Viking Air Limited, a
leading Canadian aircraft manufacturer, today agreed to acquire, through an affiliate, the
entire Dash 8 program including the 100, 200 and 300 series and the in-production Q400
program from Bombardier Inc. Also included as part of the transaction are rights to the de
Havilland name and trademark in an all-Canadian transaction."

"As part of the agreement, Longview will receive all assets and intellectual property and Type
Certificates associated with the Dash 8 program. Upon the closing of the transaction,
Longview will also assume responsibility for the worldwide product support business –
covering more than 1,000 aircraft either currently in service or slated for production."

And separately:

"In January 2019, parent company Longview announced that it would establish a new company in Ontario, under the de Havilland Aircraft Company of Canada name, to continue production of the Bombardier Dash 8 line."

NameOmitted wrote:

Aside from the type certificates, what all did Longview buy from BBD?

What is DHC without the Q? Parts and services?

The tooling and the workforce, not the facility, is what I gather. And I'd also *assume* that this workforce is all in Ontario and Quebec and not on the other side of the continent in BC.

Has Longview looked into allowing airlines to increase cabin seating in their standard -400 from 78 seats to 82 seats by adding one row of seats and reduce pitch from 31-30 inches to 29-28 inches?

SpiceJet and "new" FlyBe and maybe Widerøe are potential clients here as they compete with larger low-fare airlines that pack in passengers in seats spaced at 28 inches. One 82-seat aircraft flying 8 flights a day will then have an extra 32 seats available compared to a 78-seater.

It will be cheaper for airlines already flying the standard -400 than buying brand new high-density -400, and Longview/deHavilland can make some revenue in admin fees for updating certificates/manuals/weights etc...

Ahh, the Q400, we hardly knew ye....

A cautionary tale about airframers' allocation of engineering resources. The Q and C-series will always be inextricably linked but for reasons most may never realize. Strange how things unfold.

CRJ900 wrote:

Has Longview looked into allowing airlines to increase cabin seating in their standard -400 from 78 seats to 82 seats by adding one row of seats and reduce pitch from 31-30 inches to 29-28 inches?

SpiceJet and "new" FlyBe and maybe Widerøe are potential clients here as they compete with larger low-fare airlines that pack in passengers in seats spaced at 28 inches. One 82-seat aircraft flying 8 flights a day will then have an extra 32 seats available compared to a 78-seater.

It will be cheaper for airlines already flying the standard -400 than buying brand new high-density -400, and Longview/deHavilland can make some revenue in admin fees for updating certificates/manuals/weights etc...

Pity that the new cabin configuration that can fill up To 90 seats at 28 Inches can't be applied on the majority of the Q400 already delivered to airlines

Actually in a way it's a good thing that the 90 seat can't be retrofitted. If a carrier wants a 90 passenger they have to go new.

So, this leave ATR as the sole major player in the market. Huh, Airbus really did their homework.

28 inch seats for Wideroe? Don't think they would order them.
You can't squeeze x-large Norwegians into 28 inch seats for sure. And by doing this you are certainly not improving the reputation of turboprops on the consumer's side.

slider wrote:

Ahh, the Q400, we hardly knew ye....

A cautionary tale about airframers' allocation of engineering resources. The Q and C-series will always be inextricably linked but for reasons most may never realize. Strange how things unfold.

Also a business case study. BBD played the same game on the rail side and look how that worked out.

So what exactly was "that game" please? What key mistakes did they make?

rampbro wrote:

slider wrote:

Ahh, the Q400, we hardly knew ye....

A cautionary tale about airframers' allocation of engineering resources. The Q and C-series will always be inextricably linked but for reasons most may never realize. Strange how things unfold.

Also a business case study. BBD played the same game on the rail side and look how that worked out.

The saga of BBD railcars continues even today. For BART, BBD has delivered 286 cars by end of 2020, was supposed to have delivered 600. BART has stopped receiving cars until major glitches are fixed. Right now several times a day cars freeze up requiring a reboot of the system.

Trains will stop and refuse to move until their operators reboot the system, creating delays of 5 to 10 minutes, and often the glitch repeats several times in a day.

https://www.govtech.com/fs/BART-Fleet-o ... block.html

The Q400 is like the Boeing 757 of the turboprop world.

With almost twice the power, it is much more physically capable than the ATR-72. But .... like the 757, that capability comes at a price. The most obvious is fuel burn. So it really comes down to when, or how often, is that capability needed. If not, then the ATR is the better choice.

It’s not a coincidence (nor national pride) that the three major airlines in Canada needing a 76 passenger turboprop chose the Q400 over the ATR-72. For example, in moist/icing conditions, following manufacturer direction, the ATR baffs out at about 12,000’ to 13,000’ .... stuck in the very icing conditions best avoided. The Q400 with much, much more power blows right through the lower altitudes all the way to FL250 for better conditions.

But, if you don’t need that power ....

Check this out:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4a2b3fc0&opt=0

CrewBunk wrote:

The Q400 is like the Boeing 757 of the turboprop world.

With almost twice the power, it is much more physically capable than the ATR-72. But .... like the 757, that capability comes at a price. The most obvious is fuel burn. So it really comes down to when, or how often, is that capability needed. If not, then the ATR is the better choice.

It’s not a coincidence (nor national pride) that the three major airlines in Canada needing a 76 passenger turboprop chose the Q400 over the ATR-72. For example, in moist/icing conditions, following manufacturer direction, the ATR baffs out at about 12,000’ to 13,000’ .... stuck in the very icing conditions best avoided. The Q400 with much, much more power blows right through the lower altitudes all the way to FL250 for better conditions.

But, if you don’t need that power ....

Check this out:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4a2b3fc0&opt=0

A lot of people here are saying the Q400 is not well suited for competition etc

Anyone here can list the advantages and where the Q400 has a real advantage between competition? On what type or routes the Q400 can make the difference against competition.

A380MSN004 wrote:

A lot of people here are saying the Q400 is not well suited for competition etc

Anyone here can list the advantages and where the Q400 has a real advantage between competition? On what type or routes the Q400 can make the difference against competition.

Longer ranges that use the Q's greater speed, or situations that require a better climb-out (such as obstructions near runways).

The Q is more able to directly compete with regional jets, but that also means the Q *is* competing with regional jets (see in Alaska where QX retired the Q-400 and is now trying again with the EMB).

De Havilland Aircraft of Canada says 500 employees will be affected by the indefinite production pause.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/de-havillan ... -1.1564906

From the article:
"De Havilland Canada has begun preparing to leave the site over the latter part of the year and says there are a number of options in Canada. The Dash 8 program's site lease expires in 2021".

The Ontario gouvernmemt better brace to help ($$$$) Longview moving the Q400s FAL in the reserved YYZ site.

With the bunch of used Q400 on the market (Flybe etc), the considerable cost of moving the FAL and the high wages in Toronto, I'm not overly optimistic.

I Believe I read that the YYZ site stayed with BBD in the sale... Probably will be the fit our center for the Challenger/Globals that are currently done at Downsview.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

It will be interesting to see if they can justify the cost of new assembly plant with almost dead order book, and also what type of order size would be required to help justify reopening production once a facility is built and ready to start.
Also what happens with the 500 employees and their knowledge in the mean time? They obviously must move onto other jobs/careers.

mercure1 wrote:

It will be interesting to see if they can justify the cost of new assembly plant with almost dead order book, and also what type of order size would be required to help justify reopening production once a facility is built and ready to start.
Also what happens with the 500 employees and their knowledge in the mean time? They obviously must move onto other jobs/careers.

Some people here are saying there is a market but on the DHC 8 -200 & DHC 8 - 300.
Not sure it's enough to create a new assembly plant.

It is looking bleak for a future Q-400 production facility I'm afraid.

How far along is the construction of the new facility at YYZ?
If BBD is on the hook for financing the new facility at YYZ it was never intended for the Q-400 right (only bizjets)?

What the heck was Longview going to do when Downsview closes down (soon I believe) in the first place?

https://simpleflying.com/flybe-collapse ... perations/

Now the real issue become clear.

Nean1 wrote:

https://simpleflying.com/flybe-collapse-dash-8-operations/

Now the real issue become clear.

Well that's not exactly new information; everyone on a.net is aware that Flybe shut down, and that LGW/Austrian/Baltic parked theirs.
That this created a glut of unwanted aircraft is self-evident.
I think the big issue now is a kind of circular death spiral- no one wants the aircraft, so there's a large number of used birds available for anyone who wants one, but no one wants the aircraft, so.......

AA737-823 wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

https://simpleflying.com/flybe-collapse-dash-8-operations/

Now the real issue become clear.

Well that's not exactly new information; everyone on a.net is aware that Flybe shut down, and that LGW/Austrian/Baltic parked theirs.
That this created a glut of unwanted aircraft is self-evident.
I think the big issue now is a kind of circular death spiral- no one wants the aircraft, so there's a large number of used birds available for anyone who wants one, but no one wants the aircraft, so.......

It is clear to me that in the lower segment of regional air transport the aspects of performance, aircraft age and passenger comfort are secondary. This creates strong competition represented by pre-owned aircraft.

Embraer with the E3 is prospecting a turboprop aircraft with performance, systems and comfort comparable to the current E175. If this were to succeed, it would allow her to find a higher value niche, running away from the spartan proposal represented by the ATR-72.

Nean1 wrote:

Embraer with the E3 is prospecting a turboprop aircraft with performance, systems and comfort comparable to the current E175. If this were to succeed, it would allow her to find a higher value niche, running away from the spartan proposal represented by the ATR-72.

I would not call the ATR spartan. Its been extremely well received in the market. If it was so spartan, the Q series should have done much better and ATR not have a 221 aircraft backlog today.

The Q400 biggest problem is its selling price.

While it goes faster, has a better rate of climb and can maintain a higher altitude on one engine (usefull in northern India and our Rockies...) - it doesn't justify its higher costs for most airlines.

janders wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

Embraer with the E3 is prospecting a turboprop aircraft with performance, systems and comfort comparable to the current E175. If this were to succeed, it would allow her to find a higher value niche, running away from the spartan proposal represented by the ATR-72.

I would not call the ATR spartan. Its been extremely well received in the market. If it was so spartan, the Q series should have done much better and ATR not have a 221 aircraft backlog today.

ATR airplanes are slow, relatively under-powered and easy to maintain. They are a good answer for the European Continent where the average distances are small and there is a good airport infrastructure. By spartan I tried to make it clear that when passengers have the option of flying a modern regional jet at equivalent cost, this type of aircraft is marginalized.

In the lower segment, where requirements are lower and cost control is a priority, ATR will continue to dominate, with little opposition.

The open question is whether there is a sufficiently large and profitable niche for a superlative performance turboprop aircraft (SAAB 2000, Q400, E3) to establish itself as the market leader.

Quite a catch-22

Will DHC be able to justify all the cost with a new FAL with an empty order book, while which customer will really step up and order from a program that is paused and faces uncertain future with the operational and financial risk that entails?

UPlog wrote:

Quite a catch-22

Will DHC be able to justify all the cost with a new FAL with an empty order book, while which customer will really step up and order from a program that is paused and faces uncertain future with the operational and financial risk that entails?

Better DHC team up with Embarer for their new Turboprop project. There's some expertise at DHC that would helpful for Embraer.

Risk is high for everyone. De Havilland to lease, build and staff a new FAL upfront and customers to take a risk ordering a plane with an uncertain market future.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

The Q400 biggest problem is its selling price.

While it goes faster, has a better rate of climb and can maintain a higher altitude on one engine (usefull in northern India and our Rockies...) - it doesn't justify its higher costs for most airlines.

And yet, northern India and Nepal are two places where the ATR is really popular.

The only way the Longview FAL gets built in my opinion is big time Ontario government subsidies. Maybe Federal too?
I wonder where it will end up being built?

BBD got routinely trashed for feeding at the government pig trough. It should be interesting to see the response if Longview partakes as well. Judging by how the car industry routinely gobbles up billions in Ontario/Federal aid without a peep I predict it'll be just fine for Longview.