United Still Considering A CSeries Or E2 Order

LPSHobby · Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:27 am

United still considering a CSeries or E2 order

21 JANUARY, 2016 BY: EDWARD RUSSELL WASHINGTON DC
United Airlines is still out shopping for a new 100-seat mainline aircraft, following its order for 40 new Boeing 737-700s today.

source: Flightglobal

as a good nationalist brazilian, I am hope for the Embraer ones!

AA737-823 · Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:49 am

Good.
Revive the C-series hopes!

Quoting LPSHobby (Thread starter):
as a good nationalist brazilian, I am hope for the Embraer ones!

I fully understand and empathize with your feelings. But this time, I'm rooting for C-series. Your Embraer has done incredibly well already, and doesn't need further hoo-rahs!!

Paolo92 · Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:17 pm

I'm more of a CSeries fan, so I'll say go Bombardier!

I think that whoever wins the order, UA will be waiting for the CS to be in service before placing an order, so to have some solid figures to decide on. the EMB has already proven itself with the E1 and UA has enough data at hand for that option.

United787 · Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:59 pm

I hope UA throws Bombardier a bone for the sake of the aviation industry. I am worried if the order doesn't goto UA, it will be another major nail in the coffin for Bombardier. I think the manufacturing side of the aviation industry needs more competition and can't afford to lose a major manufacturer. The narrowbody field should be plenty large to support them.

rnav2dlrey · Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:15 pm

his 'report' is just clickbait. he has no new information other than the fleet plan and what was discussed in the earnings call last week.

all of this is already being discussed in prior threads.

MavyWavyATR · Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:27 pm

I'm hoping Bombardier will prevail in the end with their CSeries; it's a fantastic product despite none of the US3 CEO's (Okay save for DL's) realizing it.

Quoting LPSHobby (Thread starter):
as a good nationalist brazilian, I am hope for the Embraer ones!

No offense or anything, but the Ejets have basically become cliche's at this point with them being at pretty much every US major carrier these days. Don't get me wrong, The Ejets are a good product (Flew with them a bunch of times on B6) and are top notch for most of the time. However, It's clearly time for the US Airspace to see some more variety instead of just Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer EJets all the time.

UA444 · Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:57 pm

While I want the C-series to win, I'm at least glad that PW wins either way. Hopefully UA brings in GTF overhauls in house since they're the largest PW airline and mx provider.

LPSHobby · Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:58 pm

Quoting MavyWavyATR (Reply 5):
No offense or anything, but the Ejets have basically become cliche's at this point with them being at pretty much every US major carrier these days. Don't get me wrong, The Ejets are a good product (Flew with them a bunch of times on B6) and are top notch for most of the time. However, It's clearly time for the US Airspace to see some more variety instead of just Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer EJets all the time.

of course, more competition is the best for everyone, but I will keep hoping that the E-Jets win this order.

B737900ER · Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:02 pm

Quoting MavyWavyATR (Reply 5):
it's a fantastic product despite none of the US3 CEO's (Okay save for DL's) realizing it.

If it's so fantastic why doesn't anyone want it

lostsound · Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:06 pm

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 8):
If it's so fantastic why doesn't anyone want it

1) Low fuel costs no longer push airlines to buy more fuel efficient aircraft.

2) The cost is high and Bombardier doesn't want to budge.

Every airline has said again and again it's a great aircraft. It's all about where it would fit in their network, and how much it costs to acquire them.

neutronstar73 · Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:18 pm

I'm on the C-series bandwagon! Let's go, United! C-Series all the way!

INFINITI329 · Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:58 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 10):
I'm on the C-series bandwagon! Let's go, United! C-Series all the way!

So am I

UA should have no problem getting performance data from the Lufthansa Group ( Assuming they have a good relationship). I have faith that BBD Cseries numbers are correct and they will not disappoint

Confuscius · Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:38 pm

Quoting lostsound (Reply 9):
Every airline has said again and again it's a great aircraft. It's all about where it would fit in their network, and how much it costs to acquire them.

There's another airliner with the same problem. So, it's not only about size, huh?

andrefranca · Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:52 pm

Quoting LPSHobby (Thread starter):
as a good nationalist brazilian, I am hope for the Embraer ones!

Quoting lostsound (Reply 9):
Every airline has said again and again it's a great aircraft. It's all about where it would fit in their network, and how much it costs to acquire them.

With the brazilian Real (BRL) falling from grace due to economy problems here down under, I'm pretty sure: Bye byeeeeeeee Bombardierrrrr

but we'll see!

YYZatcboy · Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:01 am

Quoting andrefranca (Reply 13):
With the brazilian Real (BRL) falling from grace due to economy problems here down under, I'm pretty sure: Bye byeeeeeeee Bombardierrrrr but we'll see!

The CAD is also falling in comparison to the USD, so that would negate any currency advantage for either party.

Flaps · Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:02 am

The E2 would make much more sense. Its a developed version of an existing highly successful product with a proven track record. There is already an established relationship with Embraer. The currently weak Brazilian currency makes it an opportunistic time to buy Embraer. The C-series can claim none of the above and to say Bombardier has a tarnished reputation at the moment is an understatement. There really isn't an operational or financial incentive to gamble on the C-series.

Boeing778X · Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:15 am

Out of personal preference, I totally want the C-Series to get the order! It's a very promising type and would serve UA well. The CS100 would obviously be the aircraft ordered, but the CS300 would certainly be a great plane for them too.

Now, from a business standpoint, the E190 E2 seems like a greater possibility due to the already large number of E-Jets within UAs regional fleet. Simulators wouldn't be needed and the commonality negates maintenance and crew training.

DualQual · Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:19 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 16):

Simulators would be needed as either an E-jet (190/195/E2) or C-Series order would be a mainline airplane flown by mainline pilots. So simulators would have to be placed at DENTK for training. So in either case a new fleet would be placed at mainline for pilots, FAs, and maintenance. So all required training would have to be administered.

lightsaber · Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:02 am

I hope for a C-series win to give the type a boost. But if it is an E2-190/195, I will be happy.
As a Pratt fan that would be great either way!

Now watch them If they buy a GE engined E-jet and ruin my whole evening...

Lightsaber

strfyr51 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:15 am

As with any new fleet? Training would be a forgone conclusion. Training and provisioning would be factors of course.
But!! What REAL need is there for the BBD or EMB in the mainline fleet? They're BOTH nice airplanes for Sure. But what are we doing or planning to do, that we Can't do with our Boeing's or Airbus Airplanes??

einsteinboricua · Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:09 am

Honest question here: why would the A318 be out of consideration? Considering fleet commonality with the A319 and A320, wouldn't it fit the requirements of a 100-seat mainline while reducing training costs? Not rooting for it; just genuinely curious.

StrandedAtMKG · Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:25 am

Quoting MavyWavyATR (Reply 5):
However, It's clearly time for the US Airspace to see some more variety instead of just Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer EJets all the time.

Yeah, I mean, there's certainly a dearth of Canadair regional jets in the skies these days. /s

Anyway, I'll echo what others have said in this thread. This is do or die for Bombardier. If they win this order they breathe some much-needed life into the CSeries program. The winds are against them with Embraer and Airbus in the mix (I'm assuming the 40 737s was it for Boeing this time around).

DualQual · Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:25 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 20):

The A318 is not named as a 100 seat NSNB that would allow the company to raise the 76 seat cap. Not to mention that the 318s economics, like the 736, are pretty lousy. Especially when compared to either the E-jets or the C-series.

INFINITI329 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:38 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 16):

Quoting DualQual (Reply 17):

To piggy back of what DualQual said, either aircraft would require all the legwork to add a new type to the fleet. Even though UA legally owns some E175s it not on their certificate. I think one way Embraer can undercut BBD is offer a package deal to include 190e2 and 175e2 or 175. BBD can of course counter with a package deal to include the CR9.

I think the C-Series is superior to 190e2, but 175e2 & e175 I think are/will be superior to the CR9. Im pulling for the C-series

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 20):

Honest question here: why would the A318 be out of consideration? Considering fleet commonality with the A319 and A320, wouldn't it fit the requirements of a 100-seat mainline while reducing training costs? Not rooting for it; just genuinely curious.

To expensive to operate as a 100 seater. Doesn't allow for UA to add more 76 seaters.

TWA772LR · Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:12 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
Now watch them If they buy a GE engined E-jet and ruin my whole evening...

Or a Superjet...

I hope this happens. UA needs to start taking calculated risks. I understand the whole fuel thing, but it will go back up eventually. Airlines are too reactive, when they need to be proactive.

OT, but when are the 40 73Gs supposed to be delivered?

Viscount724 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:29 am

Quoting DualQual (Reply 22):
The A318 is not named as a 100 seat NSNB that would allow the company to raise the 76 seat cap. Not to mention that the 318s economics, like the 736, are pretty lousy.

And zero demand on the used market which is why quite a few A318s have already been scrapped, some only 3 years old.

United1 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:30 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 24):
OT, but when are the 40 73Gs supposed to be delivered?

2017....they are taking 6 738s and 7 additional 73Es this year.

VC10er · Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:32 am

For me it comes down to the passenger. If I was the decision maker at United, I'd select an aircraft that is a better flying experience- yet I don't know if either the E2 or a C series has any new technology as the 787 has eg: greater air pressure, air filtration and lighting.

Emotionally, I know the aircraft designers and marketing team (even the CEO) and I root for them because they are the among the smartest and certainly nicest people I've ever worked with. Also, Brazil needs as much positive energy right now as possible. I love that country!

INFINITI329 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:54 am

Quoting VC10er (Reply 27):
For me it comes down to the passenger. If I was the decision maker at United, I'd select an aircraft that is a better flying experience- yet I don't know if either the E2 or a C series has any new technology as the 787 has eg: greater air pressure, air filtration and lighting.

The Cseries may be superior in technology to the 787

jetblastdubai · Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:00 am

There is still a big, unanswered question out there.

Does United need a 100-seater because they really do have a need for a plane that size or are they simply trying to justify acquiring a new aircraft type, and all the logistical headaches that go along with it, just to satisfy the scope clause so they can add more cost-effective 76-seat flying with the regional partners?

dbo861 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:08 am

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 29):
just to satisfy the scope clause so they can add more cost-effective 76-seat flying with the regional partners?

People keep bringing this up, but wasn't this left out of the final agreement that was just voted on?

I think it's worth noting that UA's 73Gs have 118 seats, which is a 42 seat gap between their biggest RJ. Is 42 seats a big enough gap to justify adding a new aircraft type? That's up to United to decide. The only other factor here is if they think they'll eventually want to get the bigger C300 to replace A319/73Gs, which might help justify getting a new type. But that seems less likely now with their recent order of more 73Gs.

Boeing778X · Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:54 am

Quoting United1 (Reply 26):
2017....they are taking 6 738s

What will the 6 737-800s be registered? And they will be new builds?

United1 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:59 am

Quoting dbo861 (Reply 30):
Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 29):
just to satisfy the scope clause so they can add more cost-effective 76-seat flying with the regional partners?

People keep bringing this up, but wasn't this left out of the final agreement that was just voted on?

The scope clause is still intact....what ALPA asked be left out of the final agreement was a provision saying in essence if you vote for this we WILL order a new small aircraft. If UA wants to have UAX operate more than x number of 76 seat jets they still need to order a new small aircraft.

Quoting dbo861 (Reply 30):
think it's worth noting that UA's 73Gs have 118 seats, which is a 42 seat gap between their biggest RJ. Is 42 seats a big enough gap to justify adding a new aircraft type?

Just as a FYI all non GUM based aircraft will be reconfigured to carry 124 seats..12/40/72.

[Edited 2016-01-25 21:58:01]

B737900ER · Tue Jan 26, 2016 5:21 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 28):
The Cseries may be superior in technology to the 787

787 design and technology is radical when compared to other aircraft. I have yet to see how the technology of the C series deviates from conventional design

iahcsr · Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:45 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 31):

Quoting United1 (Reply 26):
2017....they are taking 6 738s

What will the 6 737-800s be registered

They will be Nxx532-537

opethfan · Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:24 am

Quoting Flaps (Reply 15):
The currently weak Brazilian currency makes it an opportunistic time to buy Embraer.

Quoting Flaps (Reply 15):
The C-series can claim none of the above

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=C..."2y","allowChartStacking":true}

I'm not sure you're familiar enough with the world economic market to be able to make such claims.

bjorn14 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:15 am

Quoting VC10er (Reply 27):

Ultimately it will be the bean counters who decide and they have no use for creature comforts if its not a value added proposition.

AviationAddict · Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:19 pm

Quoting lostsound (Reply 9):

1) Low fuel costs no longer push airlines to buy more fuel efficient aircraft.

I see this argument over and over again on A.net and I just don't understand it. Fuel costs will rise again, they always do and just because it is cheap at the moment doesn't mean an airline still wouldn't want to find the most efficient aircraft they could. Now obviously an airline might get a killer deal on a less efficient frame which offsets any fuel savings on the more efficient type but, I really doubt any airlines (except maybe Allegiant

) are actively looking for gas guzzlers.

PATristar · Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:39 pm

Quoting lostsound (Reply 9):
Every airline has said again and again it's a great aircraft. It's all about where it would fit in their network, and how much it costs to acquire them.

I think C-Series will be the Betamax of the aircrafts, better but expensive and the E2 are de VHS.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 14):
The CAD is also falling in comparison to the USD, so that would negate any currency advantage for either party.

CAD did not fall 50% against USD like BRL did.

jalarner · Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:33 pm

1.00 CAD = 0.707070 USD
Canadian Dollar ↔ US Dollar
1 CAD = 0.707070 USD 1 USD = 1.41429 CAD

Not exactly 50%....but close enough.

PDPsol · Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:01 pm

Quoting jalarner (Reply 39):

1.00 CAD = 0.707070 USD
Canadian Dollar ↔ US Dollar
1 CAD = 0.707070 USD 1 USD = 1.41429 CAD

Not exactly 50%....but close enough.

It is absolutely true both the BRL and CAD have depreciated substantially vis-a-vis the USD over the past two years:

- Both Canada and Brazil are significant and important commodity exporters
- Both Canada and Brazil are tightly linked to international trade markets
- Both Canada and Brazil have large and diversified industrial sectors

However, Brazil's BRL has depreciated more than the CAD, relative to the USD. The USD:BRL has appreciated from 2.4151 BRL two years ago, to 4.0851 BRL, representing a 41% depreciation of the BRL relative to the USD. The CAD, however, has only depreciated 23%, from 1.1132 CAD, to 1.4360 CAD, over the last two years. One could argue the BRL was already well overvalued against the USD two years ago, and that its depreciation represents stabilization of both nations' relative strengths and weaknesses.

Regardless, BOTH nations, and their aviation sector OEMs, MROs, and suppliers will benefit from their depreciated currencies. Of course, domestic content for either the C-series or the E2 is around 20-30%, so the effect of a depreciated currency only goes so far. Primary systems, including propulsion, landing gear, avionics, interior fittings, etc. are typically acquired under USD denominated supply agreements. The costs for these systems should not change dramatically.

However, there is one area where both Embraer and Bombardier have a major difference: corporate governance. Bombardier's corporate governance has been anything but exemplary, while Embraer has been focused on investment returns for its shareholders. Bombardier remains controlled by the Beaudoin family, which has insisted on continuing investments for the C-series program, despite the devastating effect on the company's valuation. Also, commercial marketing for the C-series has been very lackluster.

jalarner · Tue Jan 26, 2016 5:43 pm

Great reply! That said, my next question is labour. Does your 20-30% domestic content include labour? Or where would that factor in? My company build fire trucks, and an 1100 hour build in Cdn vs our competition in USD makes a huge difference. That said....give or take, how many hours would a 'typical' build be for different planes? Thanks, Jamie

PDPsol · Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:26 pm

Quoting jalarner (Reply 41):
Great reply! That said, my next question is labour. Does your 20-30% domestic content include labour? Or where would that factor in? My company build fire trucks, and an 1100 hour build in Cdn vs our competition in USD makes a huge difference. That said....give or take, how many hours would a 'typical' build be for different planes? Thanks, Jamie

No clue about 'typical' hours required to build a C-series or E2, likely thousands-upon-thousands, LOL! But, yes, absolutely, likely the biggest potential cost benefit would be direct labor, paid of course in CAD or BRL! Again, this affects any component fabricated with Canadian or Brazilian labor, unless OEM suppliers were smart enough to set agreements in USD!

In summary, while both Embraer and Bombardier will benefit from their nations' depreciated currencies, the cost benefit will only go so far. UA will assess both programs and determine which model makes most sense. Acquisition costs are certainly a big part of the decision, but not the ONLY variable affecting an order decision.

BlueSky1976 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:47 pm

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
I'm rooting for C-series.

Quoting Paolo92 (Reply 2):
I'm more of a CSeries fan, so I'll say go Bombardier!

Quoting UA444 (Reply 6):
While I want the C-series to win, I'm at least glad that PW wins either way.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 10):
I'm on the C-series bandwagon!

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 11):
So am I

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
I hope for a C-series win to give the type a boost.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 23):
Im pulling for the C-series

Gentlemen, you can add my vote to CSeries as well.
It will be a better, more capable aircraft than E2. Eventually, orders will pick up. And United's might be one of them.

mrocktor · Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:50 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 20):
why would the A318 be out of consideration?

The A318 is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is bereft of life, it rests in peace. It is pushing up the daisies. It's aeronautical processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket, It has shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-airplane.

a380787 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:01 pm

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 44):

The A318 is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is bereft of life, it rests in peace. It is pushing up the daisies. It's aeronautical processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket, It has shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-airplane.

That's one harsh eulogy =)

Wayfarer515 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:27 pm

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 24):
Or a Superjet...

I hope this happens. UA needs to start taking calculated risks. I understand the whole fuel thing, but it will go back up eventually. Airlines are too reactive, when they need to be proactive.

OT, but when are the 40 73Gs supposed to be delivered?

I second that motion, the SSJ100 is much cheaper, you can buy almost 2 Sukhois for anything the competition has to offer, and even 3 with a discount. The SSJ100 has also a proven track record and shows great reliability and ease of maintenance (one of Red Wings SSJ's just broke the 400hrs/month barrier last November), it is not a hangar queen like the E-jet, and is certified for extreme altitude, extreme temperatures, etc. Just flew in one of Interjet's SSJ100 a few days ago, and I'd got to say it is second to none in terms of comfort and amazing cabin baggage space, even much better than some widebodies.

TWA772LR · Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:35 pm

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 46):

I was talking more about the CSeries...

But I agree a Superjet would be awesome for UA. However, I think the the stretched variant Sukhoi is working on would better fit UAs scope clause and still allow them to have an F product. Whereas the current model is at 100 seats in all Y.

INFINITI329 · Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:42 pm

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 43):

Welcome to the Cseries bandwagon

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 44):
The A318 is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is bereft of life, it rests in peace. It is pushing up the daisies. It's aeronautical processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket, It has shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-airplane.

My she continue to rest in peace and hope no airline is dumb enough to attempt to disturb her slumber

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 46):
I second that motion, the SSJ100 is much cheaper, you can buy almost 2 Sukhois for anything the competition has to offer, and even 3 with a discount. The SSJ100 has also a proven track record and shows great reliability and ease of maintenance (one of Red Wings SSJ's just broke the 400hrs/month barrier last November), it is not a hangar queen like the E-jet, and is certified for extreme altitude, extreme temperatures, etc. Just flew in one of Interjet's SSJ100 a few days ago, and I'd got to say it is second to none in terms of comfort and amazing cabin baggage space, even much better than some widebodies.

I think it would be a PR nightmare for an american airline to order a russian built aircraft. granted it is a perfectly safe airplane I just dont see any american airline taking the leap

AAlaxfan · Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:46 pm

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 44):
The A318 is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is bereft of life, it rests in peace. It is pushing up the daisies. It's aeronautical processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket, It has shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-airplane.

So the A318 is still a possibility?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net