Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
http://www.glgroup.com/News/Lack-Of-CSeries-Orders-Due-To-Range--49701.html
Lack Of CSeries Orders Due To Range?
July 28, 2010
PrintSend to a FriendTweet this Analysis
Summary
Having been horribly humiliated at the worlds biggest air show last week in Farnborough, the CSeries technical development hides another big problem with its so-called efficiencies - range.
Analysis
Bombardier (and by association Pratt & Whitney) are routinely quick to point out the alleged 20% fuel burn savings of the CSeries family. What they don’t make clear is that is based on a 500nm stage length that is wholly unrepresentative of airlines that operate longer routes using A320s and 737s.
Both CSeries models, the CS100 and CS300 are advertised with a range of just 2,200nm (according to Bombardier's website), it is starting to emerge that the point at which the airplane/engine combination derive most fuel efficiency tapers off dramatically as flight stage lengths increase. Factor in the fewer cycle-capable GTF engine into the mix and it becomes clear why operators are seeing the CSeries as something that cannot truly be considered as a like-for-like replacement for the A320 or 737 families.
As airlines scale up seating capacity, a higher density configuration CSeries further trades passengers for range and the fuel burn delta advantage it has drops sharply into single figures.
Can airlines really afford to jettison range and passengers for a jet whose optimum flight envelope performance is less than that obtained through their mix of short/medium operations in the A320 and 737?
Assuming Airbus and Boeing both re-engine, the viability for the CSeries is extinguished. While the A320 and 737 may be heavier and indeed burn more fuel over shorter flights, they are both higher capacity jets – that translates into higher revenue. This is part of the reason why Qatar Airways elected to hold back from placing an order and instead listen to the offer tabled by Airbus.
Did they really want a range restricted jet just because it may “fill” a capacity gap in the 100-135 seat market?
Does anyone?
After six desperate years and a paltry 90 orders later, the answer couldn’t be clearer unless Bombardier starts giving them away.
Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
Lack Of CSeries Orders Due To Range?
July 28, 2010
PrintSend to a FriendTweet this Analysis
- Analysis by: GLG Expert Contributor
- Analysis of: Pratt & Whitney Gears Up for First PurePower(R) Engine to Test for Bombardier CSeries Aircraft
- Published at: www.pw.utc.com
Summary
Having been horribly humiliated at the worlds biggest air show last week in Farnborough, the CSeries technical development hides another big problem with its so-called efficiencies - range.
Analysis
Bombardier (and by association Pratt & Whitney) are routinely quick to point out the alleged 20% fuel burn savings of the CSeries family. What they don’t make clear is that is based on a 500nm stage length that is wholly unrepresentative of airlines that operate longer routes using A320s and 737s.
Both CSeries models, the CS100 and CS300 are advertised with a range of just 2,200nm (according to Bombardier's website), it is starting to emerge that the point at which the airplane/engine combination derive most fuel efficiency tapers off dramatically as flight stage lengths increase. Factor in the fewer cycle-capable GTF engine into the mix and it becomes clear why operators are seeing the CSeries as something that cannot truly be considered as a like-for-like replacement for the A320 or 737 families.
As airlines scale up seating capacity, a higher density configuration CSeries further trades passengers for range and the fuel burn delta advantage it has drops sharply into single figures.
Can airlines really afford to jettison range and passengers for a jet whose optimum flight envelope performance is less than that obtained through their mix of short/medium operations in the A320 and 737?
Assuming Airbus and Boeing both re-engine, the viability for the CSeries is extinguished. While the A320 and 737 may be heavier and indeed burn more fuel over shorter flights, they are both higher capacity jets – that translates into higher revenue. This is part of the reason why Qatar Airways elected to hold back from placing an order and instead listen to the offer tabled by Airbus.
Did they really want a range restricted jet just because it may “fill” a capacity gap in the 100-135 seat market?
Does anyone?
After six desperate years and a paltry 90 orders later, the answer couldn’t be clearer unless Bombardier starts giving them away.
Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
