Bombardier CS Family

SR380 · Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:48 pm

Hi,

With the program CSeries going ahead, and soon the first deliveries, I am asking myself if Bombardier might come in the future with new variant to complete the CS family.

This might give you an idea:

Then Airbus with their A320/321NEO or Boeing with their B737MAX/757MAX might loose it after all...

MIflyer12 · Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:28 pm

It's evidently much easier to master Photoshop than to master aircraft design and fly-by-wire electronics.

Quantos · Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:32 pm

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 1):
It's evidently much easier to master Photoshop than to master aircraft design and fly-by-wire electronics.

Pretty much. Right now BBD have their hands very much full with CS100 and CS300. From what I've read, rumors were indicating that at least a CS500 could be viable (read that with the world's biggest grain of salt), but BBD have not indicated in any way that they have plans to develop it.

lhcvg · Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:35 pm

Each airframe is "centered" around an optimal size, with shrinks having higher CASM but better performance due lower structural weight, and stretches getting a better CASM with range and payload penalties*. The question is at what point they can do it with the basic CS airframe vs. when they really need to go with a new frame centered around a higher capacity and thus better optimized for that niche.

*You can of course go the 77W/321NEOLR route where you introduce various modifications that reduce commonality in exchange for much better performance, but this only goes so far.

planemaker · Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:58 pm

Quoting Quantos (Reply 2):
Right now BBD have their hands very much full with CS100 and CS300.

Quoting Quantos (Reply 2):
but BBD have not indicated in any way that they have plans to develop it.

They don't have the resources to do any stretch.

jalarner · Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:54 pm

I would have disagreed to this a while ago saying that Bombardier did in fact have plans for a CS500 in the future. I say this with confidence because they had the trademark name taken.

That said, it has since expired and not been renewed! If someone was smart they would jump at this in hopes Bombardier needs it and wants to pay them out!

CS100
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-ci...on=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=1

CS300
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-ci...on=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=1

CS500
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-ci...on=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=1

CS700
never trademarked

CS900
never trademarked

lhcvg · Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:59 pm

Quoting jalarner (Reply 5):
That said, it has since expired and not been renewed! If someone was smart they would jump at this in hopes Bombardier needs it and wants to pay them out!

I wonder though (and certainly no expert on Canadian P&T law), wouldn't BBD have a fairly strong case there in that it clearly is part of a family and the attempt just a try to cash in? If you had a product or service using that mark I'd buy it, but someone just laying claim to the "CS700" title would be a blatant patent troll I'd think.

planemaker · Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:43 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 6):
I wonder though (and certainly no expert on Canadian P&T law), wouldn't BBD have a fairly strong case there in that it clearly is part of a family and the attempt just a try to cash in? If you had a product or service using that mark I'd buy it, but someone just laying claim to the "CS700" title would be a blatant patent troll I'd think.

Only for aircraft... otherwise, no...

'

CS700 handheld radio

CS700 remote car starter

CS700 rain gauge

CS700 intercooler solution

CS700 home theatre system

CS700 gravity counter shake

CS700 signal generator

lhcvg · Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:16 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 7):

I see what you did there...but yeah that's what I meant, if someone were to make some claim with BBD I just don't see that happening.

YYZYYT · Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:42 pm

I would say that this is question of semantics.

Does BBD have plans to offer / develop (or at least consider offering) the CS500 at some point in the future? Almost certainly. BBD has clearly had the thought that the CSeries (once successfully established) could potentially grow into a larger market segment.

Are they working on it actively (or could they) at this moment? Not so much.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 6):
I wonder though (and certainly no expert on Canadian P&T law), wouldn't BBD have a fairly strong case there in that it clearly is part of a family and the attempt just a try to cash in? If you had a product or service using that mark I'd buy it, but someone just laying claim to the "CS700" title would be a blatant patent troll I'd think.

I'm not an IP law specialist, but my understanding is that BBD would still have an opportunity to oppose any attempt by a "trademark squatter" to trademark CS500 for aviation - and that they should succeed if they can show that they used the term prior to the date of first application (for the particular industry in Canada).... as long as the applicant didn't have a prior use in the same industry.

As long as they (or their counsel) are paying attention to published trademark applications, they should be safe enough.

planemaker · Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:53 pm

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 9):
Are they working on it actively (or could they) at this moment? Not so much.

From Leeham: Last week, before today’s CAE announcement, UBS issued an update on its BBD coverage, in which it wrote in part:

Quote:
We continue to see BBD’s equity as over-valued, even after sell-off, given significant off-balance-sheet liabilities on top of also significant on-balance-sheet debt, pension deficit, and supplier/government advances. In all, we estimate BBD’s net debt to be greater than 8x EBITDA, problematic given our forecast for another three years of free cash outflows and big upcoming debt maturity in 2016.

CRJ900 · Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:22 pm

The CS500 might just work as a five-abreast aircraft if they only add 4-5 rows, but the CS700 and CS900 must be six-abreast or they will become too long and yet with too few seats. I think the CS500 will benefit as a six-abreast seat aircraft too, really.

TWA772LR · Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:09 pm

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 11):
The CS500 might just work as a five-abreast aircraft if they only add 4-5 rows, but the CS700 and CS900 must be six-abreast or they will become too long and yet with too few seats. I think the CS500 will benefit as a six-abreast seat aircraft too, really.

By making it 6-abreast from 5-abreast, you would have to significantly widen the fuselage, strengthen the wingbox, and add new wings, effectively making a whole new aircraft.

2008matt · Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:23 am

Surely Bombardier would not take the risk on encroaching on Airbus/Boeing territory? It would require huge investment, and would compete against already very popular aircraft A320neo family and the 737max - which are of course already on sale. It just wouldn't make sense? Always stick to what you know - and that is not it for Bombardier?

drgmobile · Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:17 pm

Quoting SR380 (Thread starter):
With the program CSeries going ahead, and soon the first deliveries, I am asking myself if Bombardier might come in the future with new variant to complete the CS family.

Context is everything. The current program at this point has to prove itself. The delays may not be all that odd compared to other new aircraft programs but this is a brand new aircraft program in a product category that Bombardier hasn't been in and against two formidable competitors. It may be the best in class but there are other factors at play. My sense is there is wait and see thinking on this program at the moment. Let's get it into service, proving its numbers on fuel consumption, reliability and noise and see if this stirs up some dust on sales.

Polot · Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:31 pm

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 12):
By making it 6-abreast from 5-abreast, you would have to significantly widen the fuselage, strengthen the wingbox, and add new wings, effectively making a whole new aircraft.

Exactly, which is why any CS700/CS900 is unlikely. The CS300 is already longer than an A320. To match the capacity of the A321 Bombardier would probably have to stretch the thing to be close to the length of the 753, which is not going to happen.

Flighty · Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:41 pm

The cs500 would be in a far larger volume market than the cs100 or cs300, which are a niche size with troubling pilot economics. Even if the plane did work, which apparently is a sore point as well. Their marketing was a large part of what is increasingly looking like a fiasco.

deltadawg · Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:18 pm

I believe you can figure the maximum stretch of the C Series being a CS500. In comparison just look back to the 5 abreast MD80's and 90. The MD90 was the last stretched version of the original DC9's and DL currently has theirs configured at 160 passengers in an essentially 2 class cabin. This is about the maximum we will ever see a C Series. A 700 and 900 are a pipe dream by some and will never happen but once the 100 & 300 are in service we more than likely will see a 500 come to fruition once BBD has some engineering freed up.

JetBuddy · Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:38 pm

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 17):
I believe you can figure the maximum stretch of the C Series being a CS500. In comparison just look back to the 5 abreast MD80's and 90. The MD90 was the last stretched version of the original DC9's and DL currently has theirs configured at 160 passengers in an essentially 2 class cabin.

Yes, but McDonnell Douglas had plans for further stretches.

I'm a bit worried about Bombardier and their economy. They refuse to build new Dash-8-100 to -300 even though there's a lot of demand for short field aircraft, they have the tooling and everything they need... and no competition. They refuse to sell the license to Viking. They write off a billion dollar business jet program. They struggle with their CS100/CS300 development.

I really hope they can pull through.. without being bought by one of the big two. Targeting the 737-600/700 and Airbus A318/A319 size could be a clever decision, because the Boeing and Airbus versions aren't very efficient. At least not the smallest variants.

YYZYYT · Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:10 pm

Quoting 2008matt (Reply 13):
Surely Bombardier would not take the risk on encroaching on Airbus/Boeing territory? It would require huge investment, and would compete against already very popular aircraft A320neo family and the 737max - which are of course already on sale. It just wouldn't make sense? Always stick to what you know - and that is not it for Bombardier?

Which is why they didn't lead with the CS500. Going to head to head with A & B on their turf would have ben pointless.

Instead, they chose to concentrate on the smaller, "niche" aircraft... let them get the darn things certified and into service. Once they have a proven track record, known economics, better sales and customers who might benefit from commonality, THEN it may make sense to stretch into a CS500.

YYZYYT

Quoting planemaker (Reply 10):

PS: Yes, planemaker, I know you disagree.

United787 · Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:22 pm

Is there a current CSeries production & testing thread? The last one seems to have timed out a month ago...

CSeries Flight Testing Production Thread (part6) (by American 767 Sep 28 2014 in Civil Aviation)

I am curious to the current status of the program...

[Edited 2015-01-28 08:31:33]

Beatyair · Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:24 pm

Once you get over the CS500 they should come up with a new plane. We have talked about if Boeing could take the 787 to shrink it in scale and make it the 757 replacement, but taking a wide body and shrinking it would be difficult. I think it would be easier to take an existing narrow body and scaling it up. Have Bombardier fill the gap left by the 717 and the 757.

Quantos · Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:37 pm

Quoting United787 (Reply 20):
Is there a current CSeries production & testing thread? The last one seems to have timed out a month ago...

Yes, there it is: CSeries Flight Testing Production Thread (part7) (by Paolo92 Jan 8 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Current state is that the flight test program has definitely picked up speed in the past few months. All four active FTVs have been logging a good number of hours coming back from the engine troubles. The first CS300, FTV7, has started its engines as of last friday, and is scheduled to go through the pre-flight ground testing phase (engine runs, vibration testing, taxi tests, etc.)

Flight hours in December were about 150. BBD stated at the beginning of January that the FTVs had ~750 flight hours. An update last week stated they were now at 850. By the end of January they would probably be at around 150 flights hours for this month as well. Now they just need to keep the pace...

planemaker · Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:09 pm

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 19):
PS: Yes, planemaker, I know you disagree.

Hey, I have just always been realistic... and my analysis and prognostications have so far been spot on. I have to admit that it is nice to see analysts (other than 'Richard' who always cautioned about the viability of the program) finally starting to catch on.

sf260 · Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:19 pm

I don't really think the idea of a 6 abreast CSeries is that far fetched. A quick search shows:

External fuselage width's:
737: 12,33 feet
BAe146/Avro RJ : 11,68 feet
CSeries: 12,166 feet

737 external fuselage width is only 2 inches more than CSeries.

Max internal width:
737: 11,58 feet
BAe146/Avro RJ : 11,25 feet
CSeries: 10,75 feet

It seems the CSeries has some serious thick walls, in it's current design 6 abreast doesn't really appeal. But I think with some extensive internal modifications (777X-style) 6 abreast would eventually be feasible. Cabin floor width difference between Bae146 and CSeries is only 6 inches. What are your thoughts?

It will be far from comfortable for normal sized adult, but airlines don't really seem to care. Maybe they can offer an extra inch or 2 in pitch to compensate...

Boeing778X · Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:21 pm

Beyond "CS500", you'll probably need bigger engines, stronger gear, bigger wings, etc.

Hey, but that CS900 could be a good 757!

Okie · Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:36 pm

Quoting sf260 (Reply 24):
I don't really think the idea of a 6 abreast CSeries is that far fetched. A quick search shows:

External fuselage width's:
737: 12,33 feet
BAe146/Avro RJ : 11,68 feet
CSeries: 12,166 feet

737 external fuselage width is only 2 inches more than CSeries.

Max internal width:
737: 11,58 feet
BAe146/Avro RJ : 11,25 feet
CSeries: 10,75 feet

It seems the CSeries has some serious thick walls, in it's current design 6 abreast doesn't really appeal. But I think with some extensive internal modifications (777X-style) 6 abreast would eventually be feasible. Cabin floor width difference between Bae146 and CSeries is only 6 inches. What are your thoughts?

The DC9/MD80 has an interior width of 10.3 ft I believe.
You are going to have to do some work some there to get 6 abreast.

Okie

Bombardier CS Family

Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

RE: Bombardier CS Family

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net