Polot wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

If U2 wanted a 319 sized plane, wouldn't they have ordered it at the same time as the A320neo's ?

If U2 wanted a A321 sized plane, why didn't they order it at the same time as the A320neos?

FelixINX wrote:

Apparently, Bombardier may have a order but the client want delivery before the end of the year. Check at the end of the article : http://www.lesailesduquebec.com/?p=2892

I think it is JetLines because they plan to start operations before end of the year. Also, according to La Presse, the government approuved exterior share (or something like that) but they have to buy some CSeries.

Jetsouth wrote:

Fliegerfaust is speculating that there will be a large order of CSeries soon from SaudiGulf or Saudi.

Jetsouth wrote:

Fliegerfaust is speculating that there will be a large order of CSeries soon from SaudiGulf or Saudi.

Aerospace analyst expects #CSeries order at @Bombardier investors day Thursday, today official tamps this down--but doesn't rule out by YE

KarelXWB wrote:

Aerospace analyst expects #CSeries order at @Bombardier investors day Thursday, today official tamps this down--but doesn't rule out by YE

https://twitter.com/LeehamNews/status/9 ... 2291515392

golfradio wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Aerospace analyst expects #CSeries order at @Bombardier investors day Thursday, today official tamps this down--but doesn't rule out by YE

https://twitter.com/LeehamNews/status/9 ... 2291515392

YE, had to look that one up. I had never heard of Hahn Air before. Their current fleet seems to be 3 Citations. I personally doubt this.

Edit: Never mind seems to be Yan Air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanair

heavymetal wrote:

golfradio wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

https://twitter.com/LeehamNews/status/9 ... 2291515392

YE, had to look that one up. I had never heard of Hahn Air before. Their current fleet seems to be 3 Citations. I personally doubt this.

Edit: Never mind seems to be Yan Air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanair

I suspect by "YE" means "Year End", as in they will get the orders by year-end, not Yan Air.

Planemaker Bombardier Inc aims to close deals with Chinese airlines in upcoming months and is in talks with the country’s three biggest airlines, a senior Bombardier executive said on Tuesday.

Marc Meloche, Bombardier Commercial Aircraft’s head of structured finance, said in an interview the planemaker was also in discussions with leasing businesses on purchasing its C-Series plane. He spoke to Reuters while in China.

“Prime Minister Trudeau is coming to China next month so there is optimism that Bombardier will be among those able to announce deals on that trip,” he said.

JetBlue Airways Corp. is urging U.S. regulators to reject Boeing Co.’s fair-trade complaints against Bombardier Inc. as the New York-based airline considers adding new planes to its fleet.

...

JetBlue plans to decide by the end of the year on changes to its fleet, including whether to replace its Embraer SA E190s, possibly with the C Series. The airline has held talks off-and-on with Bombardier, Bloomberg reported last year.

...

The C Series is the only aircraft offering five seats abreast, aligning it with JetBlue’s “history of product differentiation,” he said, and has potential to reduce operating costs in line with JetBlue’s low-cost model. Boeing makes no comparable aircraft, the letter said.

Planemaker Bombardier Inc aims to close deals with Chinese airlines in upcoming months and is in talks with the country’s three biggest airlines, a senior Bombardier executive said on Tuesday.

KarelXWB wrote:

JetBlue comes into picture again:

JetBlue Airways Corp. is urging U.S. regulators to reject Boeing Co.’s fair-trade complaints against Bombardier Inc. as the New York-based airline considers adding new planes to its fleet.

...

JetBlue plans to decide by the end of the year on changes to its fleet, including whether to replace its Embraer SA E190s, possibly with the C Series. The airline has held talks off-and-on with Bombardier, Bloomberg reported last year.

...

The C Series is the only aircraft offering five seats abreast, aligning it with JetBlue’s “history of product differentiation,” he said, and has potential to reduce operating costs in line with JetBlue’s low-cost model. Boeing makes no comparable aircraft, the letter said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... de-dispute

Jetsouth wrote:

Are there any topics on Airliners.net that talk about why so many airlines are getting rid of their E190's?

Jetsouth wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

JetBlue comes into picture again:

JetBlue Airways Corp. is urging U.S. regulators to reject Boeing Co.’s fair-trade complaints against Bombardier Inc. as the New York-based airline considers adding new planes to its fleet.

...

JetBlue plans to decide by the end of the year on changes to its fleet, including whether to replace its Embraer SA E190s, possibly with the C Series. The airline has held talks off-and-on with Bombardier, Bloomberg reported last year.

...

The C Series is the only aircraft offering five seats abreast, aligning it with JetBlue’s “history of product differentiation,” he said, and has potential to reduce operating costs in line with JetBlue’s low-cost model. Boeing makes no comparable aircraft, the letter said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... de-dispute

The duties will probably kill any chance of a CSeries order

CRJ900 wrote:

If a 150-seat CS300 is 20% more economical/efficient than a 156-seat A319, why not give it a try. Not every route needs 186-235 seats.

YVRLTN wrote:

I also think they would be good for some of the smaller national carriers in Europe, Africa & Mid East - Croatian, Adria, Bulgaria, Tarom, CSA, Air Nostrum, Finnair, Austrian, Aegean, Royal Jordanian, Saudia, Oman, Kuwait, Iran carriers, Egyptair, RAM, Tunisair, Kenya, Sudan, Arik, TAAG, Starbow (if they have any money)

Skywatcher wrote:

There's another article in English from the Egypt Daily News.....let's hope it's true. If so, it came out of nowhere.

Martin Gauss, CEO of Air Baltic, launch customer for Bombardier’s C Series 300 narrowbody twinjet, said at the 2017 Dubai Airshow the airline has “taken the decision to negotiate for at least another 14 aircraft” on top of its firm order for 20 CS300s. "But that is only to fulfill the current business plan,” he added, hinting additional orders are possible.

RJMAZ wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

If a 150-seat CS300 is 20% more economical/efficient than a 156-seat A319, why not give it a try. Not every route needs 186-235 seats.

Comparing to the A319 is wrong.

If an Airline needs to move 2000 passengers per week between destinations they can achieve that by various sized aircraft.

Compare the C series with the MAX8 using 28inch pitch full economy. CASM is loosely connected to aircraft structure weight per seat.

737-8 - 200 seats - 82T max takeoff
CS100 - 133 seats - 60T max takeoff
CS300 - 160 seats - 68T max takeoff

The 737-8 wins with only 410kg per seat. The CS300 comes second with 425kg per seat. The CS100 comes third with 450kg per seat. All three have near equal range.

So when moving 2000 passengers each week the cheapest option is to use ten 737 flights. Second is to use 13 CS300 flights. The most expensive is to operate 15 CS100 flights.

The only advantage operating a smaller aircraft would be when they are struggling to fill a daily 737 flight. But the vast majority of routes operate multiple daily. Airlines like increased frequency but to a certain limit.

RJMAZ wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

If a 150-seat CS300 is 20% more economical/efficient than a 156-seat A319, why not give it a try. Not every route needs 186-235 seats.

Comparing to the A319 is wrong.

If an Airline needs to move 2000 passengers per week between destinations they can achieve that by various sized aircraft.

Compare the C series with the MAX8 using 28inch pitch full economy. CASM is loosely connected to aircraft structure weight per seat.

737-8 - 200 seats - 82T max takeoff
CS100 - 133 seats - 60T max takeoff
CS300 - 160 seats - 68T max takeoff

The 737-8 wins with only 410kg per seat. The CS300 comes second with 425kg per seat. The CS100 comes third with 450kg per seat. All three have near equal range.

So when moving 2000 passengers each week the cheapest option is to use ten 737 flights. Second is to use 13 CS300 flights. The most expensive is to operate 15 CS100 flights.

The only advantage operating a smaller aircraft would be when they are struggling to fill a daily 737 flight. But the vast majority of routes operate multiple daily. Airlines like increased frequency but to a certain limit.

RJMAZ wrote:

Comparing to the A319 is wrong.

If an Airline needs to move 2000 passengers per week between destinations they can achieve that by various sized aircraft.

Compare the C series with the MAX8 using 28inch pitch full economy. CASM is loosely connected to aircraft structure weight per seat.

737-8 - 200 seats - 82T max takeoff
CS100 - 133 seats - 60T max takeoff
CS300 - 160 seats - 68T max takeoff

The 737-8 wins with only 410kg per seat. The CS300 comes second with 425kg per seat. The CS100 comes third with 450kg per seat. All three have near equal range.

So when moving 2000 passengers each week the cheapest option is to use ten 737 flights. Second is to use 13 CS300 flights. The most expensive is to operate 15 CS100 flights.

The only advantage operating a smaller aircraft would be when they are struggling to fill a daily 737 flight. But the vast majority of routes operate multiple daily. Airlines like increased frequency but to a certain limit.

Amiga500 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Comparing to the A319 is wrong.

If an Airline needs to move 2000 passengers per week between destinations they can achieve that by various sized aircraft.

Compare the C series with the MAX8 using 28inch pitch full economy. CASM is loosely connected to aircraft structure weight per seat.

737-8 - 200 seats - 82T max takeoff
CS100 - 133 seats - 60T max takeoff
CS300 - 160 seats - 68T max takeoff

The 737-8 wins with only 410kg per seat. The CS300 comes second with 425kg per seat. The CS100 comes third with 450kg per seat. All three have near equal range.

So when moving 2000 passengers each week the cheapest option is to use ten 737 flights. Second is to use 13 CS300 flights. The most expensive is to operate 15 CS100 flights.

The only advantage operating a smaller aircraft would be when they are struggling to fill a daily 737 flight. But the vast majority of routes operate multiple daily. Airlines like increased frequency but to a certain limit.

What rubbish is this? Sure why not operate 4x A380s a week? Or 5x 777-9s?


There are 7 days in a week. By and by large, that will mean you'll need to have a morning and evening flight otherwise prospective passengers will look elsewhere, 14x flights.
So, unless you are willing to operate your -8max with an average loadfactor of 71% (compared to your CS300 @ 89%) then the CS300 makes more sense.

wrongwayup wrote:

Right, but at 2000 PDEWs / week you're better off in terms of seat cost on a daily high-density 767, but when the entire premise of air travel is convenience (at least for the time sensitive business traveler that butters the bread of network carriers worldwide), a single daily flight won't cut it. Needs to be more like 3x. So in your 2000 PDEW/wk example that works really well on a 3x daily dual-class CS100 at an 85% load factor. I'm afraid you just disproved your own point...

RJMAZ wrote:

If the minimum frequency goal is one morning and one evening flight then the 737 can handle any route with up to 400 daily passengers. However under 250 passengers per day even the CS100 is too big for two daily flights. So the C series has a fairly small niche being perfectly suited for routes with 250 to 400 passengers. Thats a small amount of potential routes so its not worth purchasing. Below 250 you need to use a prop or drop to one jet flight per day and above 400 the 737 and A320 start to make sense if you already have them in your fleet.

Amiga500 wrote:

I think now the CSeries has a real chance at becoming very widespread in the market, both in terms of (i) enabling new routes and (ii) reducing risk for airlines on thin routes.

With respect to Air Baltic and Swiss, neither are the kind of airline that can shape the market. Delta might have been the keystone, but Boeing have delayed that. If (for Europeans) the likes of Easyjet were to buy some CS300, they would have a real possibility of outflanking both Ryanair and Wizz Air. They could profitably serve routes that the other two couldn't begin to approach without changing airframes (even with Easyjets relatively higher operations costs).

But, BBD/AI really need to find money anywhere for a CS500 (even if its initially swapping range for cabin area with constant MTOW). Going back to example above, if Easyjet were able to operate a mixed fleet of CS300/CS500 (maybe even a few CS100 for some routes) they'd have the benefits of commonality, ~ equivalent CASM to the A320/-8max with a CS300, yet in a few years the possibility of superior CASM of CS500 to all others without a new type introduction.

tacobell101 wrote:

EgyptAir deal is expected to happen. A firm order for 12 CS300 jets are expected to be announced. Could be announced as early as Tuesday at the Dubai Airshow

source: http://business.financialpost.com/trans ... h-egyptair

uta999 wrote:

How many Cseries could Montreal build per month? If orders continue to trickle in, who will make the decision about a second production line, and where will it be?

I presume the US (Airbus), is not an option under this administration. Perhaps Northern Ireland backed by the UK Government?

uta999 wrote:

How many Cseries could Montreal build per month? If orders continue to trickle in, who will make the decision about a second production line, and where will it be?

I presume the US (Airbus), is not an option under this administration. Perhaps Northern Ireland backed by the UK Government?

Amiga500 wrote:

[6x CS100 @ 130 seats = 780 seats, 4x -8max @ 200 seats = 800 seats. So more or less equal seats.]

incitatus wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

[6x CS100 @ 130 seats = 780 seats, 4x -8max @ 200 seats = 800 seats. So more or less equal seats.]

8 x EMB-190 E2 = 800 seats and more departures with even better yield. In addition to that, the airline only has to use 2 flight attendants on the E190 instead of 3.

Amiga500 wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

[6x CS100 @ 130 seats = 780 seats, 4x -8max @ 200 seats = 800 seats. So more or less equal seats.]

8 x EMB-190 E2 = 800 seats and more departures with even better yield. In addition to that, the airline only has to use 2 flight attendants on the E190 instead of 3.

Sticking with our 3 hrs sector time, that would mean running flights at midnight and 3am. You might get sufficient passengers for these flights (and no airport night operating restrictions), so the numbers *may* add up, in which case, yes, 190E2 is the way to go.

Or if you are wanting to fit more flights in during conventional short-haul "hours", you need another airframe.

Amiga500 wrote:

Sticking with our 3 hrs sector time, that would mean running flights at midnight and 3am. You might get sufficient passengers for these flights (and no airport night operating restrictions), so the numbers *may* add up, in which case, yes, 190E2 is the way to go.

Or if you are wanting to fit more flights in during conventional short-haul "hours", you need another airframe.

wrongwayup wrote:

uta999 wrote:

How many Cseries could Montreal build per month? If orders continue to trickle in, who will make the decision about a second production line, and where will it be?

I presume the US (Airbus), is not an option under this administration. Perhaps Northern Ireland backed by the UK Government?

The Mirabel facility was built with 10/mo in mind.