Bombardier Wins

obx said:
The irony is that Boeing lost this dumping case AND the Super Hornet deal with Canada. Not well played at all.
Click to expand...

The Boeing “deal” was a press release by Canada’s current Liberal government trying to take flack of its self for cancelling the F-35 and try to avoid a lot of penalties. As it stands Canadian Aerospace companies are set to lose a couple billion in contracts to help produce the 35 that Canada was given as part of its participation in the program.

Still waiting for that “competition” to replace their ragged out CF-18 fleet they kept saying they want to have.
 
Last edited:
Ecl!pse said:
Boeing can be rightfully criticized for many things, but this is not one of them. The sales for the CSeries and E2 in general show how much the airlines “want/need” the type - very little demand, especially in the context of what is in store for the global fleet in the next 20-years. Outside of Delta’s order and the latest acquisition by Airbus, I’m not sure if CSeries would have lived long. Until the current regional/mainline dynamic changes, the economics of 100-seaters will be challenging, unless they are acquired at absolute rock-bottom prices - i.e the 717 and the CS100.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Airbus sales team can do with CSeries and if they could integrate any commonality with future A320-family models. That could be really interesting.
Click to expand...

This is also the result of the continuing skirmishes in scope wars and the inability of airline management and labor to work together more effectively. If you assume that there is a reasonable amount of demand for airframes in this size bracket, priced appropriately (which Delta seems to have proven with their 717 fleet, and a number of foreign carriers know), then (a.) Airframe manufacturers gotta build 'em, and (b.) Airlines gotta acquire 'em, and (c.) Somebody's gotta fly 'em. We can't wait for un-manned cockpits to solve (c.). Grow up and figure it out, folks. Most of the rest of the world doesn't have this problem (or at least, to this extent). There are also three other manufacturers in Japan, China and Russia making aircraft that overlap these size criteria.

Eclipse's comment about Airbus sales does need to take into account John Leahy's impending retirement. Leahy has been able to sell ice boxes to Eskimos (if not to Alaska Airlines), and no heir seems to be immediately in sight.
 
FloridaLarry said:
This is also the result of the continuing skirmishes in scope wars and the inability of airline management and labor to work together more effectively. If you assume that there is a reasonable amount of demand for airframes in this size bracket, priced appropriately (which Delta seems to have proven with their 717 fleet, and a number of foreign carriers know), then (a.) Airframe manufacturers gotta build 'em, and (b.) Airlines gotta acquire 'em, and (c.) Somebody's gotta fly 'em. We can't wait for un-manned cockpits to solve (c.). Grow up and figure it out, folks. Most of the rest of the world doesn't have this problem (or at least, to this extent).
Click to expand...

Ummmm, no, thanks anyhow.
 
gotWXdagain said:
I can find lots of faults in the CRJ-900. Specifically in runway pavement, after you land one, because it triggers seismographs statewide.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with announcing your arrival, so long as you remember to replace your divots in the runway.
 
FloridaLarry said:
This is also the result of the continuing skirmishes in scope wars and the inability of airline management and labor to work together more effectively. If you assume that there is a reasonable amount of demand for airframes in this size bracket, priced appropriately (which Delta seems to have proven with their 717 fleet, and a number of foreign carriers know), then (a.) Airframe manufacturers gotta build 'em, and (b.) Airlines gotta acquire 'em, and (c.) Somebody's gotta fly 'em. We can't wait for un-manned cockpits to solve (c.). Grow up and figure it out, folks. Most of the rest of the world doesn't have this problem (or at least, to this extent). There are also three other manufacturers in Japan, China and Russia making aircraft that overlap these size criteria.

Eclipse's comment about Airbus sales does need to take into account John Leahy's impending retirement. Leahy has been able to sell ice boxes to Eskimos (if not to Alaska Airlines), and no heir seems to be immediately in sight.
Click to expand...
So you're saying there's a demand for technologically advanced aircraft that sell for half their manufacturing costs or are acquired on the used market for next to nothing?

And you wonder why Boeing and Airbus aren't rushing to build them?

LOL

A 319 is priced at $5m under a 321 and has 50 less passengers. It's a no brainer why they aren't selling.
 
Last edited:
wheelsup said:
So you're saying there's a demand for technology advanced aircraft that sell for half their manufacturing costs or are acquired on the used market for next to nothing?

And you wonder why Boeing and Airbus aren't rushing to build them?

LOL

A 319 is priced at $5m under a 321 and has 50 less passengers. It's a no brainer why they aren't selling.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.

- When something is sold below cost, there will be a market for it.

- R/D costs aren't significantly dependent on seat count or aircraft size. A good parallel for this is the death of the small sport motorcycle. It doesn't cost less to make a 600cc engine, but you do have to charge less than you do for the 1000. What do we see? Manufacturers abandoning their 600-class machines.

But hey! If anyone has one for sale for half of blue book value, I'll be listening!
 
pete2800 said:
The C series is an anomaly. Anyone who has flown a Q400 knows what Bombardier actually does, and that's suck. They suck long and hard. In a few years after the C series boom, Bombardier will fade back to the obscurity of making snowmobiles and automated airport trains.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about the airline side of bombadier, but the challenger 300 and 350 are great planes. The global does well also. It has great short field performance!
 
KLB said:
pete2800 said:
The C series is an anomaly. Anyone who has flown a Q400 knows what Bombardier actually does, and that's suck. They suck long and hard. In a few years after the C series boom, Bombardier will fade back to the obscurity of making snowmobiles and automated airport trains.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about the airline side of bombadier, but the challenger 300 and 350 are great planes. The global does well also. It has great short field performance!
Click to expand...

There is much to be said though for having firm entrenchment in an aircraft segment and a brain trust of engineers well familiar with the process for that segment. Bombardier no matter how good it’s product is will have an uphill battle.

Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin both build phenomenal fighters and Stealth Aircraft... that said how often have you heard people pine for the L-1011.

Boeing had to do a similar thing with fighter and rotary wing segments with military aircraft where it simply bought McDonell Douglas and with it a seat very close to the head of the table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pete2800 said:
The C series is an anomaly. Anyone who has flown a Q400 knows what Bombardier actually does, and that's suck. They suck long and hard. In a few years after the C series boom, Bombardier will fade back to the obscurity of making snowmobiles and automated airport trains.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t the Q400 really a stretched DeHavilland product that Bombardier wanted to keep the type the same?
 
Louie1975 said:
Wasn’t the Q400 really a stretched DeHavilland product that Bombardier wanted to keep the type the same?
Click to expand...
No...the original Q400 was a clean sheet design...think no condition levers, no Caution/Warning panel with EICAS....and more of a D-328 style cockpit.

The airlines, Horizon being one of them, wanted the Q400 to be a Dash 8...so, we now have the Q400 being a hodgepodge of parts that don't interact very well together and the greatest of 1970's technology, TODAY! (The Air Conditioning Panel comes to mind...nothing like trying to teach that on OE)
 
bike21 said:
Those trains & snowmobiles tho' :p
Click to expand...
Mmmmmmmm
1517038253279.png
 
wheelsup said:
So you're saying there's a demand for technologically advanced aircraft that sell for half their manufacturing costs or are acquired on the used market for next to nothing? ...
A 319 is priced at $5m under a 321 and has 50 less passengers. It's a no brainer why they aren't selling.
Click to expand...
Not quite. There's a demand for aircraft of that size, which happens to be between present lines of business for different manufacturers. Nobody pays list price for a transport aircraft. I certainly understand that Bombardier needed a significant sale of the C100 series to keep the program active, and that led them to discount significantly to keep Delta at the table. Plus, Bombardier had evidently already lost out on a sale to United. Damn few legacy buyers these days.

They may take a loss, but it would be far less than to cancel the program and eat the entire cost of development. Look at what Boeing went through on the early 787s with massive cost overruns and delays. But they stuck with it, and are about to start using black ink on the series now.

There's a different problem for both Airbus and Boeing when they try to bring a new smallest version of an existing aircraft to market. Their good design engineers have sized everything for the larger weight - wings, engines, and all the rest. You can't just throw it in the Xerox machine and push the 'reduce' button. That leaves the new smallest version with more weight and cost, not optimized for the payload or number of passengers, and that in turn makes the smallest version less economical to operate. True for both the A-319 and 737-Max 7. (The reverse is less true - up-sizing often requires just strengthening or adapting where needed. Think landing gear heights on 737s with bigger engines.) A clean-sheet design is virtually always more efficient when everything can be optimized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top