Quoting Neromancer (Reply 43): Do you have any hard figures on the articles claims? Because based on the numbers quoted in the article C Series is the least expensive of the comparable aircraft and the most advanced.

As AviationAware has stated, list prices are irrelevant when it comes down to negotiations. As the aviation press has reported (it isn't "inside information") Airbus has undercut the CS300 with the A320.

The reality is that AviationAware wrote a solid article with only a few minor inaccuracies. However, overall, the points made in the article are still valid today.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 46): But it's sad that the most customer friendly airplane in recent memory draws such contempt on a.net.

No one... absolutely no one has ever shown contempt for the aircraft, let alone it "drawing such contempt".

Quoting YTZ (Reply 49): But the seats still won't be as wide as the CS100.

There are no middle seats on the E-Jets. No sane pax will choose a middle seat over an aisle or window seat... even when the middle seat is 0.7" wider. As for the window and aisle seat width difference, the CSeries is a whopping 0.2"... yes, 0 point 2 inches wider than the E2.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 49): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 47): The E190/195 means 100% chance of window or aisle, and wider seats and aisle than the 737. Indeed. But the seats still won't be as wide as the CS100. The luggage bins won't be as large, which is extremely important in this day and age where airlines are pushing more and more for passengers to go with carry-ons. And the windows won't be as large either.

The overhead bins on the new Embraer 175/190/195 E2 models now under development are 30% larger than the bins on current models, reference following recent ad.
http://www.embraercommercialaviation...arketInfo/VPC_ad_crystal_cabin.pdf

Quoting planemaker (Reply 50): As AviationAware has stated, list prices are irrelevant when it comes down to negotiations. As the aviation press has reported (it isn't "inside information") Airbus has undercut the CS300 with the A320.

A320neo list is $106.2 million CS300 List is $71 million.

While I certainly believe that Airbus / Boeing have more discount power over Bombardier I have a hard time believing they would dive to nearly half their list price on a plane just starting production. I wouldn't have though the margins on aircraft to be that good. Or is Airbus/Boeing intentionally losing money on the neo / max to beat out the C Series?

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 52): I have a hard time believing

From Airinsight:

Quote: “In terms of discounts to counter Bombardier, Airbus is the most aggressive. We’ve heard reports of low $30 million prices for an A320, which lists at $97 million, to counter potential CSeries replacements of A319s on more than one occasion,” it said. “Airbus has a wide range of aircraft over which to spread losses from very deep (65 percent plus) discounts. Bombardier does not have that luxury and thus, cannot win a price war.”

From Leeham:

Quote: "Accordingly, we are told that Airbus offers the larger A320ceo at a hugely discounted price to customers ready to order the CS300, a price that Bombardier can’t match; and that Airbus is also offering to arrange acquisition of cheap, used A319ceos (lease rates below $100,000/mo) as an alternative to the $300,000/mo for a new CSeries. The tactics have worked in several campaigns."

There are many other public sources. In addition, there have been several CSeries threads where this has all been laid out. The first thread was when Airbus/CFM/GE Aviation/GECAS scored the Frontier order (Republic) and showed the arsenal that Airbus was prepared to deploy. John Leahy has been quoted many times saying that Airbus would not make the same mistake that Boeing did.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 46): But it's sad that the most customer friendly airplane in recent memory draws such contempt on a.net.

You misunderstood. The plane draws no contempt. I think all here would agree that it's an awesome plane from a passengers perspective at the very least. It's just that it's not the ideal aircraft for numbers crunchers, despite its efficiency.

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 52): A320neo list is $106.2 million CS300 List is $71 million.

Right. Now Airbus can take half off to 50 million (this is just an example, don't get hung up on the numbers). Bombardier can impossibly take half off their list price - they don't put out the volume and reap the associated unit cost savings necessary to do that. So to get to 50 million, BBD would discount 30%.

Still they arrive at the same price point. Just that with the A320neo, an airline has a larger plane with similar operating CASM - with more revenue potential (as in seats) and full commonality with an even larger aircraft (321), which is important as the sweet spot of the narrow body market has shifted (as I displayed in my article).

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 52): Or is Airbus/Boeing intentionally losing money on the neo / max to beat out the C Series?

You seem to be viewing pricing as an output item on a spreadsheet that calculates the price as a function of costs. In reality though, a price is always an input item on a spreadsheet. Just because Airbus has such a high list price does not mean they need to sell anywhere near that price point to be profitable. Chances are an A320neo costs Airbus just as much or even less to build than a CS300 does for BBD.

I wonder if the Bombardier analysts saw airlines ordering more frames in the larger end of the A320 and 737 families, and thought that there would be a vacuum in the 100-150 seat market. But I keep thinking Bombardier should have started with a 3+3 size frame, and CS300 as the absolute smallest size. It wouldn't require that much more R&D costs, and the result could have been an A320 and 737 killer.

I think the way for Bombardier to get more orders now, is if they committed to the CS500. The CS300 is a 130-160 seat aircraft, and a CS500 most likely could be a 150-180 seat aircraft. It would probably be about the same length as an MD-90.

I wish Swiss and Bombardier the best of luck. The C Series is an amazing aircraft.

Quoting AviationAware (Reply 54): You seem to be viewing pricing as an output item on a spreadsheet that calculates the price as a function of costs. In reality though, a price is always an input item on a spreadsheet. Just because Airbus has such a high list price does not mean they need to sell anywhere near that price point to be profitable. Chances are an A320neo costs Airbus just as much or even less to build than a CS300 does for BBD.

I don't work in the aerospace industry. But every place I have ever worked has made their list price to have some function of cost. It's true that cost is an independent input the ratio to cost needs to be in a zone for big wigs to sign off. While the rules varry typically a healthy buisness lists their product for around 50% above product cost. Automotive margines for example are typcially ~20% of dealer invoice (which varries a lot based on type of product [small cars are closer to 5% to 10% while luxuary cars and trucks are closer to 30%).

But even as a rough estmate with a $106.2 million dollar list for the A320neo that would put cost at arround $70million. I wouldn't think the margins in aerospace would be bigger than 50%.

As the A320neo is an updated airplane some of the tooling will already be paid for. Hence why I agree Airbuses ability to discount will be higher than Bombardier's. And Bombardier needed to make a sizable capitol invesment for the C Series. But I would imagine the overhead at Airbus is much higher than Bombardier's. So I really doubt that the "A320neo costs Airbus just as much or even less to build than a CS300".

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 56): As the A320neo is an updated airplane some of the tooling will already be paid for. Hence why I agree Airbuses ability to discount will be higher than Bombardier's.

It's not just tooling, Airbus has scale benefits across the entire value chain. Bombardier's production rate for the CSeries will be one sixth of the A320s.

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 56): But I would imagine the overhead at Airbus is much higher than Bombardier's.

It is, but is it on a per plane basis? That's the question we have to ask.

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 56): So I really doubt that the "A320neo costs Airbus just as much or even less to build than a CS300".

Maybe, but the costs won't differ much.

The thing is, Airbus doesn't lose money when selling the A320neo at the same price BBD has to sell the CS300 for. That's all it boils down to.

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 56): But even as a rough estmate with a $106.2 million dollar list for the A320neo that would put cost at arround $70million. I wouldn't think the margins in aerospace would be bigger than 50%.

They aren't but nobody buys at list price. If anyone would do that, the margins would be significantly larger than 50%. Airbus has sold A320s for less than half of what you put the price to build an A320 at. The list prices are not a function of production cost. Not in aviation and not in any other well managed organization. Pricing to cost will always leave money on the table. This is why no two customers get the same discount from Airbus, they will always try to squeeze the maximum that will them allow to still win the order. Whether that be 35 or 70 million - it's completely unrelated to production costs. They are only a soft floor to pricing.

How many E2s have been ordered?

Not conditional orders or Start-ups. (All North American orders were admitted to be contingent on scope clause relaxation.)

ILFC and Azul? Anyone else?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 53): John Leahy has been quoted many times saying that Airbus would not make the same mistake that Boeing did.

Given that the previous post implied Airbus is abusing its duopoly position and expects Boeing to do the same in taking a loss on sales to prevent a new entrant in the market, I'd hope John Leahy has not been stupid enough to go on the record for *that*. If it's true, both Europe and US regulators should cut them down a few pegs. It would be real chutzpah for both companies to whine to the WTO with regularity that the playing field is not level, and then make it plain that they're happy to kneecap Bombardier.

Quoting AviationAware (Reply 57): The thing is, Airbus doesn't lose money when selling the A320neo at the same price BBD has to sell the CS300 for. That's all it boils down to.

If their order book is full, there is an opportunity cost to using a slot with a low-margin sale when it could have been used to sell an a321neo at a much higher margin. And very quickly *every* customer would go to BBD for a bid, and Airbus would have to decide whether pinching margins even farther for a period would be worthwhile.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 58): How many E2s have been ordered? Not conditional orders or Start-ups.

Embraer website showsd 210 E2 firm orders and 220 options as of March 31, but they announced firm orders for another 32 (plus 32 options) at the Paris airshow, so firm orders should at least now be 242. If Embraer says they're "firm" they're presumably not conditional.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 59): Given that the previous post implied Airbus is abusing its duopoly position

Airbus is not "abusing" its duopoly position. Airbus is taking advantage of its market heft and is being a "bully".  

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 59): John Leahy has not been stupid

That is correct, he's not stupid.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 59): make it plain that they're happy to kneecap Bombardier.

That is what competitors try to do to each other.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 60): If their order book is full

It is more complex as there are many factors involved.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 61): Embraer website showsd 210 E2 firm orders and 220 options as of March 31, but they announced firm orders for another 32 (plus 32 options) at the Paris airshow, so firm orders should at least now be 242. If Embraer says they're "firm" they're presumably not conditional.

Yes, they are conditional in the US, although they have positioned the contracts in such a way they can be publicly shown as firm while they are in fact, entirely conditional. It's a PR move into which the public seems to have bought. Skywest and Trans States have stated as much, and Embraer has admitted scope will have to move in order for those aircraft to be delivered. That accounts for 150 of your 210.

The simple math is that Skywest and Trans States could never take 300 aircraft (150 "firm" E2s and 150 "firm" MRJs) without any place to fly them. They would be bankrupt in months. But these two airlines are not stupid enough to do that. They signed conditional orders that get counted as "firm" for public purposes but can be canceled as necessary with little or no penalties. Embraer has admitted they are ready to switch back to the classic if scope clauses don't move. See quote below:

Embraer's Curado Upbeat Ahead of E2 Phase-In

Quote: To what extent does the 175-E2’s success depend on relaxation of U.S. scope clauses? It currently exceeds the weight limit for regional feeding. The current limitation is a maximum takeoff weight of 86,000 lb. Our E175 is compliant and is selling in large numbers. Its competition is still the (Bombardier) CRJ900. The E175-E2 is a larger and heavier aircraft; it has a bigger engine, bigger wings. The E2 will therefore not be compatible. But the potential competition, the Mitsubishi MRJ90, is also heavier than 86,000 lb. If the limit goes away the market will go toward the aircraft with the new engines – the Mitsubishi and the E175-E2. If it doesn’t, we have the E175 which is a very competitive aircraft. And again, with the way we have designed our industrial footprint, we can (produce) both aircraft at the same time. Not coincidentally we decided to make the E175-E2 the last member of the family to be certified in 2020. If the weight limit moves higher, the E2 will be there. If not, we can keep the E1 going.

Delta just negotiated a new scope clause that would not allow the E2. The MRJ is in the exact same situation.

Delta pilots agreement precludes regional E2 or MRJ fleets

Embraer has admitted 150 of the E2 orders may not even be E2s (or anything at all).

Quoting planemaker (Reply 62): Quoting SSTeve (Reply 59): make it plain that they're happy to kneecap Bombardier. That is what competitors try to do to each other.

Here's the complete sentence:

Quote: It would be real chutzpah for both companies to whine to the WTO with regularity that the playing field is not level, and then make it plain that they're happy to kneecap Bombardier.

There's a difference between competing and being anticompetitive-- that is stifling competition, not embracing it, and it's exactly what they are consistently crying to regulators about each other.

And I'm cynical enough to understand that *of course* they don't want BBD to succeed here-- the chutzpah would be making that too plain.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 63): Delta just negotiated a new scope clause that would not allow the E2. The MRJ is in the exact same situation.

I wonder if a paper de-rate would satisfy the scope clause and still allow the 175-E2 to be beneficial.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 64): It would be real chutzpah for both companies to whine to the WTO with regularity that the playing field is not level

No chutzpah involved. Thus far, no complaints to the WTO on the CSeries (let alone with any regularity). Furthermore,WTO complaints are over Government provided financing at non-market rates... not the selling price nor "package deals" offered.  

Quoting miller22 (Reply 63): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 61): Embraer website showsd 210 E2 firm orders and 220 options as of March 31, but they announced firm orders for another 32 (plus 32 options) at the Paris airshow, so firm orders should at least now be 242. If Embraer says they're "firm" they're presumably not conditional. Yes, they are conditional in the US, although they have positioned the contracts in such a way they can be publicly shown as firm while they are in fact, entirely conditional. It's a PR move into which the public seems to have bought. Skywest and Trans States have stated as much, and Embraer has admitted scope will have to move in order for those aircraft to be delivered. That accounts for 150 of your 210.

Wikipedia is showing 325 firm E2 orders which appears to include the latest 32 from the Paris Airshow. So if you deduct the 150 Skywest and Trans States aircraft, that leaves 175, not that much less than 210.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 65): I wonder if a paper de-rate would satisfy the scope clause and still allow the 175-E2 to be beneficial.

Range is less than 1,000 miles if you do that. Same with the MRJ. Last I heard from Delta and American it was around 700 miles.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 25): it sounds like a waste to use such long-legged aircraft only for 60-90-minute hops around Europe. Do their A319 fly both short and long flights now?

One has to think about cost. B6 is quite happy to send A320s on short hops. For one, each hop uses less fuel, which reduces fuel costs - and costs overall. For another, the aircraft can then be used for more hops. Each time the aircraft is used, that's more revenue the aircraft is earning. This is why many LCCs favor quick turn times. Famous quote from somewhere: "An aircraft on the ground is an aircraft not making money". It's one of the reasons B6 reduced certain transcon flights for a while; the costs for operating them were overcoming the revenue earned - where it could be earned elsewhere on shorter routes.

I won't say that LX is a LCC by any stretch, but the idea is that many European companies are all about efficiency   . Why not squeeze more work out of your machine, yes?

The C-Series seems to be able to cater to a certain niche; it can perform short hops relatively cheaply (perhaps even cheaper than its Airbus competitor), and still operate long/thin routes more efficiently. If anything, it may be (depending on how an airline sees it) a nail in the coffin for the A319/737-700 - though we know that the -700 will be phased out with the -MAX.

As far as Embraer is concerned, yes, it's a giant hurdle for Bombardier to overcome. However, with competitive pricing/incentives, I'm sure they can make decent inroads with the C-Series.

Quoting nasbwi (Reply 69): One has to think about cost.

This is often overlooked or is referenced in the abstract or even incorrectly. On any route CASM is stable whereas RASM fluctuates not only seasonally but also with time of day, day of week, competition, etc.

Quoting nasbwi (Reply 69): For one, each hop uses less fuel, which reduces fuel costs - and costs overall.

Short hops have higher CASM. CASM drops as stage length increases. Airlines, ideally, would prefer not to have shorter hops from a cost perspective.

Quoting nasbwi (Reply 69): Famous quote from somewhere: "An aircraft on the ground is an aircraft not making money".

Aside from the "quote" being Airline Economics 101, any asset (in any industry) that is not being utilized is not making money (obviously).

Quoting nasbwi (Reply 69): Why not squeeze more work out of your machine, yes?

The way to "squeeze more work out of your machines" is by putting them on long routes... however, that doesn't necessarily translates into higher profit.

Quoting nasbwi (Reply 69): (perhaps even cheaper than its Airbus competitor)

From a "narrow" operation cost perspective, 1 v 1, it will always be cheaper to operate than the A319NEO or 7Max. When "all" costs (and inducements) are taken into account, not necessarily.

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 32): Republic is about to pull the plug. Though now 13 months later Republic seems more committed than ever.

News to me.

Unfortunately I think it's quite the contrary. In fact, I think they are only hol

Quoting nasbwi (Reply 69): though we know that the -700 will be phased out with the -MAX.

Again, news to me. Perhaps I missed it along the way? Unless you are saying only "some" -700's will be produced?

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 71): News to me. Unfortunately I think it's quite the contrary. In fact, I think they are only hol

Bryan Bedford (CEO of Republic) seemed excited about the C Series in the video below when Bombardier visited with FTV 4 last October:

http://youtu.be/RzYUzCxgBLo?t=3m40s

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 72): Bryan Bedford (CEO of Republic) seemed excited about the C Series in the video below when Bombardier visited with FTV 4 last October:

I'm sure he was. He has 40 of them that he'd like to unload to someone. You are going to play it up in that scenario. Also, they have no place to fly them. The original order was for Frontier, but the spin-off didn't include the CSeries orders or options so now they are orphaned in the Republic fleet.

Here's an article from May 2014 (about six months before the video you referred to) that gives a very general insight:

http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/co...-win-buyers-for-cseries-54275.html

"Shares of Bombardier (TSE:BBD.B) tumbled Thursday after the company's biggest customer for the CSeries jet is reportedly considering whether to buy the planes.

Republic Airways Holdings' CEO Bryan Bedford said the 40 CS300 aircraft on order by the Indianapolis-based company are no longer a top prority, as it changes its airline strategy and returns to its roots as a provider of regional flights for larger carriers. The chief executive also said that Republic hasn't yet made any decisions on the CSeries, the debut of which Bombardier has had to postpone several times.

According to reports in the Financial Post, Bedford said Republic will be focused on its core fixed-fee business, and "there is no place to operate the CSeries in that model", with the chief planning to assess whether the aircraft purchase agreement with Bombardier still has value.

The comments by Bedford spark doubt over whether Bombardier will be able to complete the $3.06 billion deal announced in 2010, coming just days after Air Canada (TSE:AC.B) said it decided to keep its older jets instead of replacing them."

I continue to think that Republic keeps hoping that someone will want their early slots/pricing but unfortunately with the order book still anemic, nobody needs the Republic order. I think that Republic is waiting until the last possible moment to cancel before they would owe any penalties OR they are hoping to leverage any deposits into future CRJ orders of some sort.

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 73): 'm sure he was. He has 40 of them that he'd like to unload to someone. You are going to play it up in that scenario. Also, they have no place to fly them. The original order was for Frontier, but the spin-off didn't include the CSeries orders or options so now they are orphaned in the Republic fleet. Here's an article from May 2014 (about six months before the video you referred to) that gives a very general insight:

Well if he is so keen to offload them then why is he excited to have his employees engage the aircraft?

As you state that article is six months before the video. The C Series was facing delays at that time and priorities change. So on the other foot it makes sense for him to down play it. Also the article you reference is quoting another article which is interpreting the CEO's words.

Personally I think there are too many people shorting Bombardier stock writing aviation articles. And I think a more recent video with words directly from the horses mouth carries more weight.

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 74): Well if he is so keen to offload them

One can't be "keen to offload" when delivery hasn't taken place.

Quoting Neromancer (Reply 74): Also the article you reference is quoting another article which is interpreting the CEO's words.

The article quotes Bedford directly: "there is no place to operate the CSeries in that model". It can't be any clearer than that.