I think Boeing is going to poop itself (Airbus buys 51% of C Series Production)

jynxyjoe said:
No my point is Boeing did what airbus wouldn't or couldn't and designed and manufactured the first part 25 composite aircraft while hiding in the shadows waiting to buy the Boeing engineers after completion rather than entering the race. The 787 innovaton went on to sell great.

Boeing gets crapped on in this thread because they didn't innovate. The proof? Not shutting down an existing line of jets which still sell today, the 737. Nor did they go after a market whichhad no buyers for the amount it would cost (and that should make intrinsic sense).

Bombardier jumps up to a larger narrow body to challenge an Embraer product that was never made because the sales people for the brazilian manufacturer said even if you made it you can't get enough people to buy one to support themselves, never mind embraer AND bombarier. Simply put, "the sales arent there" (a lesson aircraft manufacturers learned in the 70s and 80s). You can't build something and hope "they will come".

Bombardier bet that Republic launch customer would be enough to tide over the manufacturer until everyone realized the C series was some sort of game changer. Bombardier "innovated" in the blind and without orders should have been tits up and sold off in pieces until the canadian taxpayer bailed them out. Boeing has been gearing up for this fight the moment bombarier was bailed out, in case the lowered price would attract serious customers finally (i suppose you can debate bankrupt republic as serious, but i seriously think anyone making that argument isn't concerned with facts).

Anyway, the taxpayers bailed out the candian manufacturer with billions which Bombarier turned into a giant discount for the jet. Thats an illegal subsidy. American taxpayers could have given billions of dollars to Boeing so that delta could "afford" a small 737. We shouldnt and neither should the candians, but that's canadas choice to make, and theyre a sovereign state. Subsides are illegal for international trade in this nation and we fought this battle on the a380 more than a decade ago and won. It was fought in the states and appealed in the wto. Boeing has always litigated this stuff, and had contingency plans if the lawsuit failed (787 in japan).

Airbus saves the day and buys the C series a couple days ago.

So now Delta can purchase a jet designed by canadians, subsidized by candians, which wouldnt sell otherise, so a bunch of Americans can build them.

There was no market for this jet unless it was billions less expensive. The candians artifically lowered the cost of their jet so it was priced to move, but they did it illegally it allegedly (no duh).

Soooooooooo, the majority of the comments bounce around Boeing not innovating?

It seems like the real point here is rah-rah Delta. Delta got a great deal and it'll help investors and employees alike. I think delta guys on here and everyone that wants to go there should be excited by the deal and angry at anything interrupting it. The Canadian taxpayers did Delta a solid, and even air Canada will benefit.

To mascreade this as a Boeing failure is absurd. Lets have American taxpayers dump a couple billion on the project, that's a little more apples to apples than this farce.
Click to expand...

I think this post is pretty spot-on, and I think I've inadvertently helped fuel some of the anti-innovation sarcasm here. Not my intent.

Innovation, in all things, is key. All businesses must innovate or else face being crushed into oblivion. And I think we have made significant innovative strides in the aerospace industry - carbon fiber/composite structures, more efficient high-bypass engines, additive manufacturing - these are all coming together to drive significant improvements in aircraft performance.

I do think, however, that we've missed the mark on what the right target market is for these innovative projects and have therefore traded some of that innovative efficiency back. A few examples:

- the 787 has the range to nearly touch any two points on the globe, while being the size of a 767. How many airlines asked for, and actually utilize this full range capability? Not many. If Boeing designed the airplane to be more reflective of what the market would use in range, it would be even more efficient - and would truly warrant the price premium is has on A330neo's.

- the CSeries - again, the CS100 and CS300 have the range to do anything domestically in the US. How often are/will they be used for this capability? I suspect rarely, if ever, and the Delta deal seems to confirm this - according to some sources they paid to paper the CS100 down to 1,000mi range, and will pay Bombardier a fee for any trips that do utilize it over 1,000mi. If Bombardier had focused the design of the aircraft to match the market's preferred range, it would be even more efficient vs. 737 MAX 7's and A319neos. Instead, they have excess range, which eats into some of that efficiency benefit and closes the gap enough that Boeing/Airbus can compete on price for their products. The CS500 would alleviate some of this issue, but without Airbus' support, I doubt this program would have ever seen the light of day. Possibly even Bombardier as a whole.

- the 777X. Again, it utilizes beautiful technology and innovation, but it's a high-capacity airplane with ultra-long haul range that really only 3 carriers in the world asked for - the ME3. This dynamic will probably change in the future as 777-300ER's eventually retire, but Airbus has made a very formidable competitor in the A350, another great innovation, that currently seems to more appropriately address the broader markets requirement for capacity/range.

We're getting better at this, but need to get many variables right for innovation to succeed. Until yesterday's announcement, it looked like Bombardier hadn't gotten it right. It remains to be seen how Airbus chooses to integrate it into their product lineup.
 
Ecl!pse said:
I think this post is pretty spot-on, and I think I've inadvertently helped fuel some of the anti-innovation sarcasm here. Not my intent.

Innovation, in all things, is key. All businesses must innovate or else face being crushed into oblivion. And I think we have made significant innovative strides in the aerospace industry - carbon fiber/composite structures, more efficient high-bypass engines, additive manufacturing - these are all coming together to drive significant improvements in aircraft performance.

I do think, however, that we've missed the mark on what the right target market is for these innovative projects and have therefore traded some of that innovative efficiency back. A few examples:

- the 787 has the range to nearly touch any two points on the globe, while being the size of a 767. How many airlines asked for, and actually utilize this full range capability? Not many. If Boeing designed the airplane to be more reflective of what the market would use in range, it would be even more efficient - and would truly warrant the price premium is has on A330neo's.

- the CSeries - again, the CS100 and CS300 have the range to do anything domestically in the US. How often are/will they be used for this capability? I suspect rarely, if ever, and the Delta deal seems to confirm this - according to some sources they paid to paper the CS100 down to 1,000mi range, and will pay Bombardier a fee for any trips that do utilize it over 1,000mi. If Bombardier had focused the design of the aircraft to match the market's preferred range, it would be even more efficient vs. 737 MAX 7's and A319neos. Instead, they have excess range, which eats into some of that efficiency benefit and closes the gap enough that Boeing/Airbus can compete on price for their products. The CS500 would alleviate some of this issue, but without Airbus' support, I doubt this program would have ever seen the light of day. Possibly even Bombardier as a whole.

- the 777X. Again, it utilizes beautiful technology and innovation, but it's a high-capacity airplane with ultra-long haul range that really only 3 carriers in the world asked for - the ME3. This dynamic will probably change in the future as 777-300ER's eventually retire, but Airbus has made a very formidable competitor in the A350, another great innovation, that currently seems to more appropriately address the broader markets requirement for capacity/range.

We're getting better at this, but need to get many variables right for innovation to succeed. Until yesterday's announcement, it looked like Bombardier hadn't gotten it right. It remains to be seen how Airbus chooses to integrate it into their product lineup.
Click to expand...
Excellent points.

Excellent direction for the thread.
 
Derg said:
I know, what is up with that?

Like I caught some crap when I bought a BMW X5 several years ago and some yokel said, "Too good for a Murkin' made SUV?" which is probably built in Mexico or Canada whereas the BMW was built in South Carolina.

Note: Do not purchase a South Carolina assembled BMW.
Click to expand...

Eh. I've got 2 BMWs. A 98 Z3 built in SC, and a 09 335i built in der fatherland.

The Z3 has 10x the build quality of the 335
 
Richman said:
Eh. I've got 2 BMWs. A 98 Z3 built in SC, and a 09 335i built in der fatherland.

The Z3 has 10x the build quality of the 335
Click to expand...
The difference is probably the time frame more than location. My '95 car is exceptional with the first non-headlight light bulb finally burning out last year, a 21 year life and that is with them on 100% of the time (DRLs had tail lights on too). When I took it out it had the COO on it..."Made in France".

After 9/11 there was a serious cut back in quality during the recession and China really started gearing up with their entry into the WTO. It was further accelerated after 2008-2009.

The saying is true, they don’t make them like they used too.
 
alaskadrifter said:
Are they truly a candidate to replace RJs at the mainline level?
Click to expand...
The CS100 has similar seat mile direct operating costs as the 319NEO and costs roughly the same (before illegal discounts) yet hauls what, 25 people less? So you pay the same for a plane that brings in ~25% less revenue. Hmm.

Another point of contention is not only operating costs but support and crewing. To bring a new fleet time in at a relatively small number isn’t feasible which is why AA was specifically looking at the 319NEO to upgauge the commuter flights.

But then of course you have the negotiable difference in cost between a 319/320/321 and then it starts to make sense to just buy the 321.

The only reason AA even has new 737’s is because Airbus couldn’t accommodate their whole order to replace all their narrowbody jets.

The MD-80 is a very expensive aircraft to run on a CASM basis but dirt cheap on an indirect cost, which as fuel has remained low has made them collectively cheaper to operate than the efficient aircraft that are replacing them.
 
Ecl!pse said:
Given the recent history and strained relationship, this may well be what plays out. However, knowing some of the very smart folks in Atlanta that do this for a living, they will make their assessment objectively based on what is best for Delta, period. If Boeing came to the table and presented an offer that was too good to refuse, I don't think Delta would have a problem accepting it and moving forward in as matter-of-fact way as possible.
Click to expand...

When officially announced, Delta will buy the NMA/797.
 
H46Bubba said:
Not part of the RFP.
Click to expand...

I know. The NMA/797 hasn't even officially been announced by Boeing. But when it is expect the American three to be fully on board. United already has a huge hard-on for it. The NMA/797, will be a 757 replacement, and then some. For sure an RFP will be issued.
 
H46Bubba said:
Not part of the RFP.
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to several years down the road, when/if the NMA is announced.

It will be interesting to see if this shifts Boeing's strategy/ideology away from the NMA to focus on the 100-150 seat segment of the market. I would guess not, since this market hasn't yet proven to be sustainable yet, but I also would have guessed Boeing foresaw this as part of their lawsuit and that doesn't seem likely.

SeanD said:
I really don't see Delta buying any more Boeings. I think that A350 fills that 777 LR gap.
Click to expand...

I don't fully agree with this. The relationship is strained, sure, but that shouldn't get in the way of what's best for the company. These are some of the smartest guys in the industry and I think a large part of that has to do with taking emotion out of the equation, in as much as they can. Delta will do what is best for Delta shareholders, employees, and customers. If that means buying Boeing airplanes at some point, they will do it.
 
SeanD said:
I really don't see Delta buying any more Boeings. I think that A350 fills that 777 LR gap.
Click to expand...

The NMA is a true 757 replacement jet. The A350 is too much plane for that mission. Nothing in the current market can do what the 757 or the future NMA will do. Not the 739 or the A321. It will own the market, much like the 757 before it. First of it's name. The only thing Airbus is offering up to combat the NMA, is a rewinged A321neo.
 
From what I understand is that the 739 has not lived up to Delta's expectations and the A321 and A330s have exceeded them. If Delta had faith in a Boeing narrowbody I doubt they would have purchased 75 C-Series.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
The NMA is a true 757 replacement jet. The A350 is too much plane for that mission. Nothing in the current market can do what the 757 or the future NMA will do. Not the 739 or the A321. It will own the market, much like the 757 before it. First of it's name. The only thing Airbus is offering up to combat the NMA, is a rewinged A321neo.
Click to expand...
The actual need for a 757 is pretty low. Very few markets utilize their unique characteristics where another aircraft wouldn’t do just as well and be a more economical choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top