At the Boyd Group, the UA's President stated they were not looking at the CS and knows of no one at the company discussing it.
n the
http://crankyflier.com/2017/09/14/rando ... onference/

That's sad to hear. The CS is a very nice and sexy jet.

AA might possibly be interested. They still have old McDonnell Douglas jets as well as some Embraer E190s, and both of those fleets are going to be retired soon. Plus AA operate a big number of A319s... the CS300 would be a great replacement for A319s (I know AA's A319s are pretty newish so obviously this is a long term thing). And if Bombardier ever stretch the CS300 into a CS500 that's about the size of the A320, that would be compelling for AA too.

And there are rumors about JetBlue looking at it but they're relatively small... however they may want the CS100 to replace the Embraers.

I have to admit I'm a little sad for the C Series. Great jet. But it deserves more sales-love than its received so far.

Well (IIRC) UA's still talking about more larger narrowbodies for domestic ops, so not too surprising (I think 738/320 category may be a better fit). But personally I would love to see UA being one of the CSeries customers.

Michael

StudiodeKadent wrote:

That's sad to hear. The CS is a very nice and sexy jet.

AA might possibly be interested. They still have old McDonnell Douglas jets as well as some Embraer E190s, and both of those fleets are going to be retired soon. Plus AA operate a big number of A319s... the CS300 would be a great replacement for A319s (I know AA's A319s are pretty newish so obviously this is a long term thing). And if Bombardier ever stretch the CS300 into a CS500 that's about the size of the A320, that would be compelling for AA too.

And there are rumors about JetBlue looking at it but they're relatively small... however they may want the CS100 to replace the Embraers.

I have to admit I'm a little sad for the C Series. Great jet. But it deserves more sales-love than its received so far.

Planes are not sexy. It is a question of whether the plane fits and is a better money maker than other aircraft.

Sad if true. But I also recall denials by DL and AC in the months before their orders (one can always hope)

Bald1983 wrote:

...Planes are not sexy. ...

huh??
isn't there something in the a.net rules that prohibits that statement*?


* Apart from the 380, of course (open season on the Whalejet, apparently).

Bald1983 wrote:

Planes are not sexy. It is a question of whether the plane fits and is a better money maker than other aircraft.

"Sexy" was a figure of speech. And yes, I know the plane needs to be economical. The CSeries has very impressive operating economics too (particularly relative to the jets its meant to replace... and United certainly has quite a few jets in the CS300 size category).

No offense but your comment seemed to take an excessively literal reading of my words and then decided to patronize. Yes, I know businesses make decisions which they believe to be the best, and airlines have more hard data than we do. That doesn't mean I cannot wish the C Series well, or asses its characteristics (or use metaphorical terms to summarize said assessment).

The C Series is not really an a/c UA needs to consider in the near term. They are in the midst of inducting a bunch of used 319s from China at this point and have no plans to retire any small narrow body aircraft.

They would likely start taking a look at this a/c a few years from now and will have a lot more data on which to base its decision.

I suspect that the Boeing unfair trade allegations against Bombardier are having the intended effect in the U.S.
It's really too bad that BBD can't go after Boeing for the subsidized Boeing sales to Air Canada and WestJet.

Skywatcher wrote:

I suspect that the Boeing unfair trade allegations against Bombardier are having the intended effect in the U.S.

I dunno, UA saying they're sooo disinterested that they're not even thinking about the C-Series is a great way to get Bombardier to revise any outstanding price quotes lower.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

The C Series is not really an a/c UA needs to consider in the near term. They are in the midst of inducting a bunch of used 319s from China at this point and have no plans to retire any small narrow body aircraft.

They would likely start taking a look at this a/c a few years from now and will have a lot more data on which to base its decision.

Agreed. I still struggle to see the economic rationale - at least at this point - for United (and AA for that matter) with the CSeries. Down the road, maybe. But today, United (and AA) has such large fleets of 125-seat mainline aircraft and 75-seat regional aircraft that the combination of the two seems "good enough" to handle mid-size markets. The 75-/125-seat mix may arguably be competitively and commercially "suboptimal" in isolation, but when considering the acquisition cost and diseconomies of scale of introducing another fleet type just to slot in a 100-seat jet, I'm just not sure it's worth it.

With major corporations they always deny everything up until the point that it is a done deal. I wouldn't put much thought into whatever an exec says in the public domain outside of investor events and official documents.

jetmatt777 wrote:

With major corporations they always deny everything up until the point that it is a done deal. I wouldn't put much thought into whatever an exec says in the public domain outside of investor events and official documents.

Exactly!

Air Canada even published a business case against the CSeries less than a week before the order was announced.

longhauler wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

With major corporations they always deny everything up until the point that it is a done deal. I wouldn't put much thought into whatever an exec says in the public domain outside of investor events and official documents.

Exactly!

Air Canada even published a business case against the CSeries less than a week before the order was announced.

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

Seriously though, it was even reported that Air Canada was about to confirm an order for the A320neo family merely a few days before they confirmed the 737MAX order.

Nothing is a done deal until all the T's are crossed and the I's dotted.

william wrote:

At the Boyd Group, the UA's President stated they were not looking at the CS and knows of no one at the company discussing it.
n the
http://crankyflier.com/2017/09/14/rando ... onference/

That's fine, but they need to still address the fact that their domestic narrowbody mainline fleet is much smaller than their main rivals,

Main line narrow body aircraft:

AA: 797
WN: 735
DL: 618
UA: 564

UA has made great strides in replacing smaller 50 seat regionals with 70 / 75 seaters. However they're now coming to the limit of their scope agreement with pilots, so either they add a 100 seater or that's the end of larger regional jets. However they need to continue to add domestic mainline to their hubs, EWR, DEN, ORD, IAH and LAX/SFO can all use more narrowbody mainline. There's a gap of 233 aircraft between AA and UA's narrowbody fleet. The ex CZ A319s help, but that's going to probably equal a quarter of the amount of frames UA needs. That cancelled 73G order would have helped tremendously.

The 737-Max9s will start coming in at the end of 2018, there are 10 scheduled for delivery in 2018. Each time there are one of these investor calls UA states they're looking at more opportunities for narrobodies on the second hand market. The question is can UA acquire between 50 and 60 used aircraft (A319s, A320s, 73Gs, 738s etc..) with the right engines to add to their fleet?

jetmatt777 wrote:

With major corporations they always deny everything up until the point that it is a done deal. I wouldn't put much thought into whatever an exec says in the public domain outside of investor events and official documents.

Agreed. UA has to have people evaluating and maintaining a point of view on most available aircraft all the time.

Noise wrote:

longhauler wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

With major corporations they always deny everything up until the point that it is a done deal. I wouldn't put much thought into whatever an exec says in the public domain outside of investor events and official documents.

Exactly!

Air Canada even published a business case against the CSeries less than a week before the order was announced.

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

Seriously though, it was even reported that Air Canada was about to confirm an order for the A320neo family merely a few days before they confirmed the 737MAX order.

Nothing is a done deal until all the T's are crossed and the I's dotted.

Straying off topic, but with the Airbuses not scheduled to leave the AC/RV fleet any time soon, even with the 737MAX order, I wonder if any possibility exists of a future A321LR order given its range advantage?

STT757 wrote:

william wrote:

At the Boyd Group, the UA's President stated they were not looking at the CS and knows of no one at the company discussing it.
n the
http://crankyflier.com/2017/09/14/rando ... onference/

That's fine, but they need to still address the fact that their domestic narrowbody mainline fleet is much smaller than their main rivals,

Main line narrow body aircraft:

AA: 797
WN: 735
DL: 618
UA: 564

UA has made great strides in replacing smaller 50 seat regionals with 70 / 75 seaters. However they're now coming to the limit of their scope agreement with pilots, so either they add a 100 seater or that's the end of larger regional jets. However they need to continue to add domestic mainline to their hubs, EWR, DEN, ORD, IAH and LAX/SFO can all use more narrowbody mainline. There's a gap of 233 aircraft between AA and UA's narrowbody fleet.

Plane count is a gross oversimplification of fleet needs. UA runs a much larger international (and intercontinental) operation than does AA (more too, than DL). Narrowbodies don't help much with those ASMs. Now, if UA wants to reserve its international/domestic split of traffic, that's a whole lot bigger than just buying some C-Series. As for UA adding 200 narrowbodies and taking domestic share - not gonna happen.

I'll point out that Delta flew more RPMs last month systemwide (or mainline only, if you prefer) than AA - with about 75 fewer mainline planes.

scbriml wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

Would like to see AA go for the 737-7.5MAX or whatever the designation is for the stretch 737-700. It would match the seating of the MD-80's which by the way, I hate to see go.

Hasn't the A319 already replaced most of the Mad Dogs at AA?

Along with A321s and 738s (AA hasn't received a A319 in 2 years).

I'm sure UA is evaluating their aircraft needs and will order whichever aircraft best meets said need. That said, the C Series seems like an excellent aircraft for a small narrowbody subfleet.

with UA being in used airplane mode, they may be looking at the pending flood of used A320 and 737NG planes as a more cost effective way to build up their narrow body fleet instead of buying new CS's. Perhaps they are also wary of the P&W engines. Maybe Embraer is willing to cut a helluva deal on E190/E195s, either E1 or E2.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Plane count is a gross oversimplification of fleet needs. UA runs a much larger international (and intercontinental) operation than does AA (more too, than DL). Narrowbodies don't help much with those ASMs. Now, if UA wants to reserve its international/domestic split of traffic, that's a whole lot bigger than just buying some C-Series. As for UA adding 200 narrowbodies and taking domestic share - not gonna happen.

I'm sorry, what?

If it were not for scope relief and expanded 76-seat flying granted by a new small narrow body like the CS100, I don't think the C-Series would even be a serious consideration.

While I would love to see a CS100 or E2-190/195, I don't think it's in the cards. It's not just pilots, but also FAs, maintenance labor, underwing and overwing crews that drive costs up significantly and probably make it uneconomical.

I'm also not convinced the CS 300 operating cost is better enough over a 737-8 to warrant the risk, segregation, introduction cost, spares, maintenance, training not to mention capability loss at max range.

For 10-Billion+ investment, it probably makes sense to focus on the core narrowbody market of 737-8/9/10 and displace the aging but still current-gen Boeing and Airbus aircraft to shorter haul regional routes to displace some of the regional jet capacity rather than introduce a new small narrowbody but leave yourself exposed where most of your ASM's are coming from.

UA's average mainline stage length is significantly longer than DL/AA which means efficiency of aircraft has a larger affect on their bottom line compared to peers.

longhauler wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

With major corporations they always deny everything up until the point that it is a done deal. I wouldn't put much thought into whatever an exec says in the public domain outside of investor events and official documents.

Exactly!

Air Canada even published a business case against the CSeries less than a week before the order was announced.

Canadian government doesn't have a way to force UA to order the plane though.....

MIflyer12 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

william wrote:

At the Boyd Group, the UA's President stated they were not looking at the CS and knows of no one at the company discussing it.
n the
http://crankyflier.com/2017/09/14/rando ... onference/

That's fine, but they need to still address the fact that their domestic narrowbody mainline fleet is much smaller than their main rivals,

Main line narrow body aircraft:

AA: 797
WN: 735
DL: 618
UA: 564

UA has made great strides in replacing smaller 50 seat regionals with 70 / 75 seaters. However they're now coming to the limit of their scope agreement with pilots, so either they add a 100 seater or that's the end of larger regional jets. However they need to continue to add domestic mainline to their hubs, EWR, DEN, ORD, IAH and LAX/SFO can all use more narrowbody mainline. There's a gap of 233 aircraft between AA and UA's narrowbody fleet.

Plane count is a gross oversimplification of fleet needs. UA runs a much larger international (and intercontinental) operation than does AA (more too, than DL). Narrowbodies don't help much with those ASMs. Now, if UA wants to reserve its international/domestic split of traffic, that's a whole lot bigger than just buying some C-Series. As for UA adding 200 narrowbodies and taking domestic share - not gonna happen.

I'll point out that Delta flew more RPMs last month systemwide (or mainline only, if you prefer) than AA - with about 75 fewer mainline planes.

DL is running much much higher utilization than AA or UA.

deltal1011man wrote:

longhauler wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

With major corporations they always deny everything up until the point that it is a done deal. I wouldn't put much thought into whatever an exec says in the public domain outside of investor events and official documents.

Exactly!

Air Canada even published a business case against the CSeries less than a week before the order was announced.

Canadian government doesn't have a way to force UA to order the plane though.....

Nor do they have a way to force Air Canada to buy it.

Well, they do have the power to drop suits related to AC privatization that was a nice incentive.

GF

Okcflyer wrote:

I'm also not convinced the CS 300 operating cost is better enough over a 737-8 to warrant the risk, segregation, introduction cost, spares, maintenance, training not to mention capability loss at max range.

Spot on.

You need a big CASM advantage to break into an existing market. Airlines won't risk adding a new aircraft type unless there is a big financial gain.

The C series was built with too much capability. The CS100 and CS300 have similar CASM to the Max 7 and 8. When an airline is operating multiple flights a day on any given route there is no disadvantage of operating a larger aircraft. So the Max 8 will win.

Considering most the the 737 flights are below 1000nm sector lengths the C series could have been built lighter with less range while carrying the same number of passengers. This would have given the C series the CASM advantage to break into the market.

Bit of a shame really. A CS500 simple stretch with no thrust bump or MTO increase would provide the CASM advantage needed. But ideally the CS300 fuselage length should have been the stretch model.

I can't help but think the delays played a role in this decision. But now what will they choose for their 100-seater? Or is that off the table? You know what is a 100-seater? THE SSJ!!! (dont bash me one can dream)

Or .... Air Canada simply bought the best aircraft for the mission they had stated. If they got a few perks on the way, so be it, I would expect nothing less.

The last aircraft that Air Canada purchased as a result of governmental pressure that was less than optimum for the airline was the Canadair DC-4M North Star ... and that was more than 70 years ago!

This thread is about United Airlines and prospects of Bombardier C-Series aircraft.

Please discuss Air Canada or other airlines and their buying decisions in other threads appropriate to the parties. This is not the thread.

United isn't looking at the C-series.

Until they start looking at the C-series.

Once BBD gets everything running smoothly and DL starts taking jets and is happy with them, UA will look at the C-series. Where they are in their replacement cycle at that point may drive where they go with it, but assuming that BBD gets its act together, everyone will at least look at the C-series.

In my experience, when someone volunteers information that they are not doing something, the opposite is usually true.

VCEflyboy wrote:

Air Canada and Bombardier are both headquartered in Quebec. The Quebec gov has bailed out Bombardier when it was on the brink of bankruptcy. Air Canada enjoys special fiscal treatment in Quebec. Air Canada has stated times and again the C series had "no place" in their fleet.
These are all FACTS. Whether you like them or not you can't deny what happened.

Sorry for contributing to this off-topic discussion, but AC never said the CSeries has "no place" in their fleet. Rather, they said they couldn't find a "proper business case" for the CSeries. That's code for we want a better deal, and has nothing to do with whether or not the plane fits the fleet or not. Get your "FACTS" straight.

STT757 wrote:

UA has made great strides in replacing smaller 50 seat regionals with 70 / 75 seaters. However they're now coming to the limit of their scope agreement with pilots, so either they add a 100 seater or that's the end of larger regional jets.

Or, UA management could offer ALPA management (much different that the typical line pilot at UA) a change to the scope language when the contract is up for re-negotiation. The 76-seaters are very much needed to upgrade the regional fleets. If a 100-seater was actually needed, UA would have acquired them a long time ago.

Being forced by Union management to buy a plane you don't necessarily need for the sole purpose of being able to acquire a plane you actually do need is not the way to run a business. There should be an agreeable way to increase the 76-seat flying by linking ANY increase in mainline aircraft or mainline seats within the existing mainline fleet. I never understood why ALPA wanted their members to fly smaller planes, at lower wages thus paying lower ALPA dues. Additionally, scope is forcing UAL to shed 2-class, 70-seaters and operate more 1-class, 50-seaters just to maximize the ability to fly more 76-seaters. Playing this shell game instead of being able to simply acquire the best aircraft for the mission makes no sense.

So, what are they looking at for 100-seater? CRJ1000/E190\195E2/SSJ100\130/ARJ21/ATR92/DHC-9/DHC-8-Q500/B717neo/MRJ90/MA700?

SonomaFlyer wrote:

The C Series is not really an a/c UA needs to consider in the near term. They are in the midst of inducting a bunch of used 319s from China at this point and have no plans to retire any small narrow body aircraft.

They would likely start taking a look at this a/c a few years from now and will have a lot more data on which to base its decision.

Once the A320 and A319 fleet start winding down?? Then there might be a chance. I say ,might because it depends on the boatload of B737's we have and the performance
ot the B737 MAX airplanes to come.. I strongly suspect the narrow body fleet lineup will be B737=700/800/ 900/900ER's / Max 7 /Max 8 / and Max 9's..
8

jetblastdubai wrote:

STT757 wrote:

UA has made great strides in replacing smaller 50 seat regionals with 70 / 75 seaters. However they're now coming to the limit of their scope agreement with pilots, so either they add a 100 seater or that's the end of larger regional jets.

Or, UA management could offer ALPA management (much different that the typical line pilot at UA) a change to the scope language when the contract is up for re-negotiation. The 76-seaters are very much needed to upgrade the regional fleets. If a 100-seater was actually needed, UA would have acquired them a long time ago.

Being forced by Union management to buy a plane you don't necessarily need for the sole purpose of being able to acquire a plane you actually do need is not the way to run a business. There should be an agreeable way to increase the 76-seat flying by linking ANY increase in mainline aircraft or mainline seats within the existing mainline fleet. I never understood why ALPA wanted their members to fly smaller planes, at lower wages thus paying lower ALPA dues. Additionally, scope is forcing UAL to shed 2-class, 70-seaters and operate more 1-class, 50-seaters just to maximize the ability to fly more 76-seaters. Playing this shell game instead of being able to simply acquire the best aircraft for the mission makes no sense.

ALPA leadership might be more flexible because they generally don't fly much, the rank and file will not agree to ANY decrease in the scope language. Plus, who cares what ALPA management wants, the pilots have to vote in the change anyways. Every contract has 2 sides and the company agreed to the current language so it's not ALPA's "fault". The rank and file want MORE jobs at mainline and there are plenty of RJ pilots who would be happy to fly 100 seats while working for and sitting on a mainline seniority list.

strfyr51 wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

The C Series is not really an a/c UA needs to consider in the near term. They are in the midst of inducting a bunch of used 319s from China at this point and have no plans to retire any small narrow body aircraft.

They would likely start taking a look at this a/c a few years from now and will have a lot more data on which to base its decision.

Once the A320 and A319 fleet start winding down?? Then there might be a chance. I say ,might because it depends on the boatload of B737's we have and the performance
ot the B737 MAX airplanes to come.. I strongly suspect the narrow body fleet lineup will be B737=700/800/ 900/900ER's / Max 7 /Max 8 / and Max 9's..
8

Considering the life extension packages that UA spent big money on for the Airbus fleet, this won't be anytime soon especially when they are actively trying to buy more on the used market.

jetblastdubai wrote:

STT757 wrote:

UA has made great strides in replacing smaller 50 seat regionals with 70 / 75 seaters. However they're now coming to the limit of their scope agreement with pilots, so either they add a 100 seater or that's the end of larger regional jets.

Or, UA management could offer ALPA management (much different that the typical line pilot at UA) a change to the scope language when the contract is up for re-negotiation. The 76-seaters are very much needed to upgrade the regional fleets. If a 100-seater was actually needed, UA would have acquired them a long time ago.

Being forced by Union management to buy a plane you don't necessarily need for the sole purpose of being able to acquire a plane you actually do need is not the way to run a business. There should be an agreeable way to increase the 76-seat flying by linking ANY increase in mainline aircraft or mainline seats within the existing mainline fleet. I never understood why ALPA wanted their members to fly smaller planes, at lower wages thus paying lower ALPA dues. Additionally, scope is forcing UAL to shed 2-class, 70-seaters and operate more 1-class, 50-seaters just to maximize the ability to fly more 76-seaters. Playing this shell game instead of being able to simply acquire the best aircraft for the mission makes no sense.

My thoughts on the discussions re the scope clause, and the deal to permit more large RJs if United buys 100-seat aircraft:

Does anyone know how the "100 seat" compromise came about? Who proposed it?

The way I see it, union negotiators would be pressing for more mainline jobs - period. They have no reason to insist that the RJ jobs be in exchange for aircraft in a specific class, and particularly not the smallest possible mainline class. Which is to say, if management agreed to the "100 seat " scope deal, then management must have had thought that an aircraft in that size category might work. Otherwise, why would it not propose "add mainline NB aircraft" in exchange for more large RJs? The Union would not have objected to that...

Any insight floating around out there?

RJMAZ wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

I'm also not convinced the CS 300 operating cost is better enough over a 737-8 to warrant the risk, segregation, introduction cost, spares, maintenance, training not to mention capability loss at max range.

Spot on.

You need a big CASM advantage to break into an existing market. Airlines won't risk adding a new aircraft type unless there is a big financial gain.

The C series was built with too much capability. The CS100 and CS300 have similar CASM to the Max 7 and 8. When an airline is operating multiple flights a day on any given route there is no disadvantage of operating a larger aircraft. So the Max 8 will win.

Considering most the the 737 flights are below 1000nm sector lengths the C series could have been built lighter with less range while carrying the same number of passengers. This would have given the C series the CASM advantage to break into the market.

Bit of a shame really. A CS500 simple stretch with no thrust bump or MTO increase would provide the CASM advantage needed. But ideally the CS300 fuselage length should have been the stretch model.

I don't see your CASM guess on the CS100 and CS300 being quite right. There is no way the CS100 is that bad. The shrink 737-7 is a 1960s tube with 1960s tech, a 1990s wing, and 2010s engines. The "shrink" CS100 is a 2010s design with 2010s tech, 2010s CFRP wing, and 2010s geared engines and as a side note it is acutallly lighter empty than the E195 E2 so the CASM can't be as bad as you suggest. The 737 should weigh more for how much it carries than the CSeries, it's just that much older. And there being no disadvantage to the larger version is something that isn't necessarily true when a plane is only a year old, that advantage often comes with PIPs and other improvements not yet done in the CSeries.

I get that united seems to not be interested now, but what happens when their combined fleet of over 100 737-700s and A319s need replaced? Surely the 737-8 won't be the smallest plane in their fleet as there must be some routes out there that regional jets are to small/undercapable for and the 737-8 is too much plane for. United isn't a LCC, adding new fleet types shouldn't be much of a concern with the volumes of aircraft they like to have in each subfleet especially when the 737 can be the answer to many problems, but not all of them.

If UA were to order the C Series - what would it replace - the 737-700?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines#Fleet

Don't see any other aircraft that's close in type (seat count) to C-Series.

Most of the A319s are quite new and don't need replacing (As far as I know). There are 17 coming from China Southern Airlines.

bmacleod wrote:

If UA were to order the C Series - what would it replace - the 737-700?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines#Fleet

Don't see any other aircraft that's close in type (seat count) to C-Series.

Most of the A319s are quite new and don't need replacing (As far as I know). There are 17 coming from China Southern Airlines.

More likely it would be a new size class. Apparently UAs contract with Ty's Union requires them to add a 100 seat mainline aircraft if they want to add any more 76 seat RJs. The CS100 would allow them to do that. Based on the comments from UA management, I guess they don't feel the extra RJ flying is worth adding the CS to get.

YYZYYT wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

STT757 wrote:

UA has made great strides in replacing smaller 50 seat regionals with 70 / 75 seaters. However they're now coming to the limit of their scope agreement with pilots, so either they add a 100 seater or that's the end of larger regional jets.

Or, UA management could offer ALPA management (much different that the typical line pilot at UA) a change to the scope language when the contract is up for re-negotiation. The 76-seaters are very much needed to upgrade the regional fleets. If a 100-seater was actually needed, UA would have acquired them a long time ago.

Being forced by Union management to buy a plane you don't necessarily need for the sole purpose of being able to acquire a plane you actually do need is not the way to run a business. There should be an agreeable way to increase the 76-seat flying by linking ANY increase in mainline aircraft or mainline seats within the existing mainline fleet. I never understood why ALPA wanted their members to fly smaller planes, at lower wages thus paying lower ALPA dues. Additionally, scope is forcing UAL to shed 2-class, 70-seaters and operate more 1-class, 50-seaters just to maximize the ability to fly more 76-seaters. Playing this shell game instead of being able to simply acquire the best aircraft for the mission makes no sense.

My thoughts on the discussions re the scope clause, and the deal to permit more large RJs if United buys 100-seat aircraft:

Does anyone know how the "100 seat" compromise came about? Who proposed it?

The way I see it, union negotiators would be pressing for more mainline jobs - period. They have no reason to insist that the RJ jobs be in exchange for aircraft in a specific class, and particularly not the smallest possible mainline class. Which is to say, if management agreed to the "100 seat " scope deal, then management must have had thought that an aircraft in that size category might work. Otherwise, why would it not propose "add mainline NB aircraft" in exchange for more large RJs? The Union would not have objected to that...

Any insight floating around out there?

My guess is this: they figure they will get mainline jobs anyway, especially with UA being on a used aircraft buying spree. Why let the company grow RJ operations in exchange for mainline flying if mainline is growing already? It's not like a used A319 pays them less than a new one, whereas a new CS100 would. It's better for the union to see used A319s and 73Gs added than new CS100s.

The C Series has a CASM advantage over the 737 series and 320 series given the weight differences alone. Bombardier had a ton of data at their fingertips to enable them to do a clean sheet design to take on both A and B. If fuel costs had remained at historic highs, its likely they would have had an easier time selling the planes but cest la vie!

As for SCOPE, the pilots are very unlikely to concede on SCOPE to allow more regional jet flying. They know their leverage is peaking now its almost inconceivable that they would cave on this issue. Given the current staffing challenges, the regionals are struggling to staff their planes as it is.

767333ER wrote:

I don't see your CASM guess on the CS100 and CS300 being quite right. There is no way the CS100 is that bad. The shrink 737-7 is a 1960s tube with 1960s tech, a 1990s wing, and 2010s engines. The "shrink" CS100 is a 2010s design with 2010s tech, 2010s CFRP wing, and 2010s geared engines

I never said the C series had worse CASM, but comparible CASM to the best selling aircraft of all time.

The 737 being based on a 1960's tube is actually an advantage. Due to grandfather rules it would be built to a lower crash G rating thus could be lighter.

The aircraft with the most seats on average usually has better CASM. So for the smaller C series to have comparible CASM to the 737 shows it has done a great job. Clearly the improvement in materials and wing design has made this possible.

However to operate an extra aircraft type costs money. More logistics, training for maintenance staff, new type rating for pilots and the risk Bombardier can't provide long term support. Why would an airline pay for all that for an aircraft with similar CASM?

The C series would need a big CASM advantage to warrant all that effort, otherwise airlines will just order additional 737 and A320's.

Some may calculate the C series to have slightly better CASM, but most likely compared against an A319 or the like.

There aren't many routes that the majors operate that wont allow for a 737-8. Thats explains the huge sales for that one model. It is the yardstick in terms of narrowbody CASM that one should measure against.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

The C Series has a CASM advantage over the 737 series and 320 series given the weight differences alone.

Wrong.

Trip cost advantage only.

Let's compare all three aircraft with 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.

737-7 - 465kg per seat.
A321NEO - 405kg per seat.
737-9 - 400kg per seat.

So you can see the C series doesnt have an advantage.

The 787-10 has 577kg per seat but flies twice as far. When filled with enough fuel to travel the same distance as the narrowbody aircraft it is only 450kg per seat. By far the most flexible aircraft on the market. Don't be surprised when you see the 787-10 doing short thick routes from major hubs.

RJMAZ wrote:

You need a big CASM advantage to break into an existing market. Airlines won't risk adding a new aircraft type unless there is a big financial gain.

The C series was built with too much capability. The CS100 and CS300 have similar CASM to the Max 7 and 8. When an airline is operating multiple flights a day on any given route there is no disadvantage of operating a larger aircraft. So the Max 8 will win.

Considering most the the 737 flights are below 1000nm sector lengths the C series could have been built lighter with less range while carrying the same number of passengers. This would have given the C series the CASM advantage to break into the market.

Bit of a shame really. A CS500 simple stretch with no thrust bump or MTO increase would provide the CASM advantage needed. But ideally the CS300 fuselage length should have been the stretch model.

That's my thoughts as well. The CSeries is a great airplane, and it's a shame it hasn't risen to become a challenging third option to the A/B duopoly, but I do think some mistakes were made in its size and capability. It should have based around a smaller size and left with stretches that reduce CASM/performance. The range it has now is overkill for the vast majority of missions. It's tailored for a route (long and thin) that's harder to justify no matter the CASM.

If you're UA or every other airline that hasn't ordered the CSeries, there's just too much risk and not enough reward. There's little reason to add a new plane type without large cost improvements that has the risk of flaming out and being a big mistake down the road. UA also has an opportunity to make a long-term switch to all-Boeing if they wish. I'd be be nervous if I was DL, AC, and the others that have ordered the CSeries. It runs the risk of being an expensive orphan later in its life if sales don't improve.

If Bombardier opened an assembly location in Witchita for their American CSeries orders, could they avoid tariffs for the units assembled in America?

StudiodeKadent wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

Would like to see AA go for the 737-7.5MAX or whatever the designation is for the stretch 737-700.

The 737 MAX 7 is actually more of a shrink of the 737 MAX 8 rather than a stretch of the original 737-700. Just from an engineering perspective.

Ha.. Interesting. I didn't know. Would you mind explaining this a bit?
Thanks!

oldannyboy wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

Would like to see AA go for the 737-7.5MAX or whatever the designation is for the stretch 737-700.

The 737 MAX 7 is actually more of a shrink of the 737 MAX 8 rather than a stretch of the original 737-700. Just from an engineering perspective.

Ha.. Interesting. I didn't know. Would you mind explaining this a bit?
Thanks!

The – 700 was not a straight shrink of the -800. It has some structural and component differences that accounted for its lighter weight. It was more optimized. The problem is this limited its capabilities and limited its commonality with its bigger brothers. The new – 7 will not be based on the old -700, but in fact will be a straight shrink of the -8. That all being said, I think the main driver for the change on the -7 max was WN, who wanted it to be a 150 seat plane, allowing them to maximize the number of passengers for 3 flight attendants.

LockheedBBD wrote:

If Bombardier opened an assembly location in Witchita for their American CSeries orders, could they avoid tariffs for the units assembled in America?

The CSeries is already more then 50% made in America. I doubt a few more percentage points of 'USA Inside', would make much of a difference to the commerce dept.