astuteman wrote:

Taking what is printed in the Grauniad as representative of the thinking of "the people of Britain" is fraught with hazard IMO
I'd suggest a fairly widespread bit of research is in order before taking what the Grauniad says as in any way a "fact".
Rgds

Yes, indeed, but in defence of Mr Lockheed, he wasn't to know that.
Just as many outside the USA might not know how much Fox News is regarded as something of a joke.
Meanwhile back with Mr L, I'll try and set him straight in my next post.

LockheedBBD wrote:

I've been reading some of the articles and comments about this partnership on the UK Guardian news site, and it seems like most people there are convinced that Bombardier is a British company. "Canada" or "Canadian" is seldom or sometimes never mentioned in any of the articles or reader comments, and many of the commentators are amusingly blaming the UK government and BREXIT for the tariffs on the CSeries.

I believe the problem here is that you have been reading a Brexit article, that incidentally mentions some trivial aircraft nonsense, involving some stupid foreign countries.

LockheedBBD wrote:

One of the articles on the Guardian website referred to Bombardier as a "British airplane manufacturer".

If you can truly come up with directions to that statement from the Grauniad, I will offer a humble apology; until then, I'm sceptical.

LockheedBBD wrote:

Quite an interesting/amusing but detached (from reality) perspective in the UK.
Now I can pity what the British government has been dealing with regards to Bombardier's UK operations

You over-estimate how much the British Gov't is bothered by the whole Bombardier/Boeing/Airbus situation. Apart from a handful of DUP's, it really has very little genuine interest. Brexit dwarfs it 1000-to-1. (FYI I count myself as the exceptional "1"; I'm thoroughly bored by the whole event)

LockheedBBD wrote:

Go ahead and read the comment section yourself for some good laughs and amusement, it's like living in an alternate reality/universe : https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -swoops-in
It isn't so much what the Guardian writes, but the beliefs of the British public in the 350 long comment section.

I only read the first 64 posts in the comments section, and then only found ONE that came close to your claim;
Andrew Whitely posted “an EU company rescued a UK company from a certain bankruptcy caused entirely by the actions of the USA”
If you believe he is saying that Bombardier is a UK company, then that is your interpretation. I see that both you & he are looking down a narrow telescope, but in different directions.
I believe he is suggesting that Short Brothers were facing certain bankruptcy due to the actions of the USA. And when I last looked, Short’s were a UK company.
Have you got anything that contradicts that?

To be fair, another poster thought the same as you, and rushed to correct Mr Whiteley with “Bombardier are a Canadian company”, so you can take comfort that you were not the only one to make that mistake. But then you also need to accept that for every individual that may erroneously believe BBD is UK owned, there is another individual that that posts a correction. And that still leaves your original comment incorrect.

Revelation wrote:

anfromme wrote:

BREECH wrote:

It was built for MRTT assembly which didn't happen thanks to Boeing bribery. The A330F which is also built there (am I right?) is not the best-seller either. So yes, it is underutilized.

Mobile wasn't in fact built for MRTT. It was originally proposed for it - but in the end it was built as an A32x FAL. There is no A330F assembly in Mobile, either - this was only proposed to be located in Mobile in case Airbus/Northrop-Grumman had won the KC competition.

Revelation wrote:

The program would be far better off if the tariff issue could be solved without needing a 2nd FAL, especially since it needs to happen in the same time frame as their first FAL is ramping up and drawing large sums of money out of the program.

Boeing did the same thing with the 787 - that programme was still ramping up and draining money when the second FAL was built and opened. They knew they needed that line to satisfy demand, though.

Yes, and of course the 787 program over-shot the budget tremendously.

I think the genesis of CHS is multi-faceted. I think if Boeing had adopted the 'stop and fix' mindset then the original FALs would probably been sufficient. Of course the first frame would have been even more delayed, but we wouldn't be seeing the final 'terrible teens' having their first flights in 2017. Also CHS was kind of forced on them by the failure of Alenia and Vought with regard to meeting the standards of the commercial airliner business. Once they had to buy out Vought and the Alenia joint venture, it was not a big leap to just put a FAL there. Then it fell in line with the Boeing corporate urge to set up shop in a non-union state and everything converged, budgets be damned.

We've seen here that the original plan was to put a 2nd CS FAL at YMX, and I still feel that will be more efficient than putting it at BFM, but the tariff issue might make it necessary. As others have written above, it might not come to that, the tariffs might be eliminated or dropped to so low a level that they might not be a factor. However now it seems offering up a FAL in the USA is reducing political backlash and improving the optics, so it might just stay after all. In the long run Airbus might find it helpful to have the USA FAL as a useful counter-balance to the power that BBD and Quebec will still have over the program once Airbus buys them out.

IMHO there is alot riding on the ITC decision and NAFTA. If the US isolates itself things could change quite drastically. I hope cooler heads prevail at this time.

thumper76 wrote:

I agree. Canada could also use two engines in their future aircraft, hard to detect with passive systems would be nice as well. Is it possible to integrate west and European? That would be great
The 35 only partially covers one of the three items on the wish list. Even though Canada was involved in the 35 program I do not believe Canada had much say in the design. That being said the 35 is the only current option for the future.

Not entirely. There is also Eurofighter Typhoon, there is Rafale, there is Su-35, all VERY capable and, in case of Su-35 and compared to F-35, a VERY cheap option. F-35 meanwhile remains a VERY uncertain aircraft. In order to make it a "universal platform", way too many things were sacrificed. The price has gone up tremendously, which is not a very popular bullet point in European countries where both the people and the leaders are expressing the evergrowing doubt over the viability and necessity of the NATO. As for Canada itself, the whole F-35 contract cost the conservatives the PM seat, and the new PM Justin Trudeau has already said they won't be buying F-35. Personally, I think the best way for Canada would be Su-35 with its rugged design and ability to land anywhere approximately flat. Russia has some experience with supplying NATO countries, so why not? But of course politically the European designs are more likely. OR EVEN, this new cooperation within CETA may lead to Canada once again developing their own fighter. With Airbus's help, they can do it.

Revelation wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

IMHO there is alot riding on the ITC decision and NAFTA. If the US isolates itself things could change quite drastically. I hope cooler heads prevail at this time.

Personally I don't think there's a lot riding on the ITC decision. If it's a high tariff then the FAL at BFM is used to bypass it and life goes on. Someone in the administration has to realize this by now and is probably telling people to back off. I really do hope cooler heads prevail. The Airbus/BBD deal won't close till end of 2018 so there's time for everyone to digest what its impact is. However the US administration is capable of almost anything. Last week the bug in their bonnet was NFL players choosing to kneel for the anthem. Hopefully they find some other bright and shiny object to focus on and don't make this BBD issue an ideological centerpiece.

True that! NAFTA is a separate story even though the Boeing BBD issue is political, I am also hoping this does not become an ideological centerpiece. I am thinking IMHO that the response from the DOC might show the ideology being used in the NAFTA negotiations. The NAFTA negotiations are seemingly following the direction of the Boeing BBD dispute thus far. I 100% hope cooler heads prevail. Canada does not want the US to isolate themselves...or at least I don't.

Revelation wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

IMHO there is alot riding on the ITC decision and NAFTA. If the US isolates itself things could change quite drastically. I hope cooler heads prevail at this time.

Personally I don't think there's a lot riding on the ITC decision. If it's a high tariff then the FAL at BFM is used to bypass it and life goes on. Someone in the administration has to realize this by now and is probably telling people to back off. I really do hope cooler heads prevail.

Have you seen many "cool heads" in the current administration? Have you seen any heads at all? All I've seen so far is an incredible collection of APU exhausts.

As for the ITC, I not only think any outcome can be circumvented by airbbd (please everyone remember to mentions me in your memoirs as a person who coined in this clever abbreviation), but I also think that if ITC rules against Boeing, the current administration will declare (in Twitter of course) that they won't execute the ITC decision. Someone in the administration HAS TO realize all those things you mentioned, but the problem with the cooler head prevailing, in this particular case, is absolute lack thereof.

Revelation wrote:

Reuters: Airbus turmoil overshadows bid to rescue CSeries says:

Airbus’s (AIR.PA) coup in buying a $6 billion Canadian jetliner project for a dollar stunned investors and took the spotlight off a growing ethics row last week, but internal disarray has raised questions over how smoothly it can implement the deal.

And:

Chief Executive Tom Enders has urged staff to keep calm in the face of French reports describing payments to intermediaries and growing concern over fallout from the investigations.

But the mood at the group’s Toulouse offices remains grim.

“Bombardier asked for an ambulance and Airbus sent a hearse,” said one person with close ties to the company.

Pretty dark, no?

A source close to Bombardier acknowledged disruption at Airbus but predicted things would settle down by the time the deal for Airbus to sell the CSeries closes next year.

At that point Airbus will face a second challenge in marketing the CSeries, which for years it dismissed as a weak upstart. Now it must offer the aircraft side by side with the older A320.

Airbus plans to refresh the A320 further after adding new engines and this will bring it closer to the smaller CSeries in performance, two people close to the plans said. It may also make some CSeries features more compatible with its own A320s.

That comes on top of plans to enhance the larger A321neo in response to Boeing’s launch of a new mid-market plane, which industry sources expect to happen next year.

Interesting article. Lots of sizzle, not much bacon. Interesting enumeration of the challenges, but not much insight on how/why Airbus will not be able to deal with the challenges, other than the nebulous dark influence of the corruption scandal.

I am only hoping that that all this is not happening because of issues that seem to be impossible to sort out between Canada /US relations. If that were so we would be dealing with far darker times.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

LockheedBBD wrote:

I've been reading some of the articles and comments about this partnership on the UK Guardian news site, and it seems like most people there are convinced that Bombardier is a British company. "Canada" or "Canadian" is seldom or sometimes never mentioned in any of the articles or reader comments, and many of the commentators are amusingly blaming the UK government and BREXIT for the tariffs on the CSeries.

I believe the problem here is that you have been reading a Brexit article, that incidentally mentions some trivial aircraft nonsense, involving some stupid foreign countries.

LockheedBBD wrote:

One of the articles on the Guardian website referred to Bombardier as a "British airplane manufacturer".

If you can truly come up with directions to that statement from the Grauniad, I will offer a humble apology; until then, I'm sceptical.

LockheedBBD wrote:

Quite an interesting/amusing but detached (from reality) perspective in the UK.
Now I can pity what the British government has been dealing with regards to Bombardier's UK operations

You over-estimate how much the British Gov't is bothered by the whole Bombardier/Boeing/Airbus situation. Apart from a handful of DUP's, it really has very little genuine interest. Brexit dwarfs it 1000-to-1. (FYI I count myself as the exceptional "1"; I'm thoroughly bored by the whole event)

LockheedBBD wrote:

Go ahead and read the comment section yourself for some good laughs and amusement, it's like living in an alternate reality/universe : https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -swoops-in
It isn't so much what the Guardian writes, but the beliefs of the British public in the 350 long comment section.

I only read the first 64 posts in the comments section, and then only found ONE that came close to your claim;
Andrew Whitely posted “an EU company rescued a UK company from a certain bankruptcy caused entirely by the actions of the USA”
If you believe he is saying that Bombardier is a UK company, then that is your interpretation. I see that both you & he are looking down a narrow telescope, but in different directions.
I believe he is suggesting that Short Brothers were facing certain bankruptcy due to the actions of the USA. And when I last looked, Short’s were a UK company.
Have you got anything that contradicts that?

To be fair, another poster thought the same as you, and rushed to correct Mr Whiteley with “Bombardier are a Canadian company”, so you can take comfort that you were not the only one to make that mistake. But then you also need to accept that for every individual that may erroneously believe BBD is UK owned, there is another individual that that posts a correction. And that still leaves your original comment incorrect.

Good post. And thank you.

I was surprised enough by that little bit of a sideshow mud-sling to spend (waste) over 2 hours on the Guardian website reading about 1000 responses to several related articles (on a website I would never otherwise visit). Yes, I know - I should know better at my age. Some use of my precious Sunday morning that was

The bulk of the posts were squarely in the "Brexit vs Remain" debate and didn't even reference the c-Series.
Of those posts that referred to the C-Series and US sanctions, virtually all recognised, rightly, that BBD is a Canadian company, and that the sanctions are aimed at Canada. Some did rightly point out, as you did, that Shorts is indeed a UK company (because it is), and will suffer harm if the C-Series were ever cancelled.

LockheedBBD wrote:

This isn't completely related to the partnership itself, but more of a surprising/amusing perspective people in Britain seem to have about this deal:

I've been reading some of the articles and comments about this partnership on the UK Guardian news site, and it seems like most people there are convinced that Bombardier is a British company. "Canada" or "Canadian" is seldom or sometimes never mentioned in any of the articles or reader comments, and many of the commentators are amusingly blaming the UK government and BREXIT for the tariffs on the CSeries. One of the articles on the Guardian website referred to Bombardier as a "British airplane manufacturer".

A lot of the commenters seem to be up in arms and unhappy that an EU company is supposedly "taking over a UK company", claiming that Airbus will open a CSeries FAL in the EU and will shut down all Bombardier operations in the UK. Quite an interesting/amusing but detached (from reality) perspective in the UK.
In contrast to what they believe, neither the UK government, BREXIT, nor the EU have anything to do with Bombardier's problems. Now I can pity what the British government has been dealing with regards to Bombardier's UK operations (the general public is going crazy over BREXIT).


Go ahead and read the comment section yourself for some good laughs and amusement, it's like living in an alternate reality/universe : https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -swoops-in

Having spent (wasted) those 2 hours this morning reading c.1000 Guardian posts, the only post containing an alternative reality that I actually found was yours, if I'm honest.

One thing you did point out accurately is that (avoiding taking sides), the Brexit issue is a source of great angst both politically and socially within the UK, as is only to be expected when the referendum split was a virtual 50/50. As a result the UK press will seize on anything pretty much to further the debate in THEIR media and generate sales.

From conversations that I've had at work, the biggest surprise to most uninvolved UK readers seems to be that they make state-of-the-art airliner wings in Belfast, as well as in Broughton. Most of us seem to have forgotten it

Rgds

Revelation wrote:

Interesting article. Lots of sizzle, not much bacon. Interesting enumeration of the challenges, but not much insight on how/why Airbus will not be able to deal with the challenges, other than the nebulous dark influence of the corruption scandal.

That's what I call whorenalism. Reuters has nothing to report on the issue but they have to keep the 24/7 news mill running so they invented facts citing "a person with ties to the company" as a source. That means it's something one of their apprentices read on THIS or some other aviation forum and are trying to present as plausible news. Phrases like "falling sales", "internal disarray", etc show that the person writing has NO idea about the sector. She even goes as far as saying "Airbus is shying away from problematic countries". Without any substantiation or citing sources of course. I'm so tired of once reputable news agencies turning into unscrupulous cloakas. However, for Reuters that's nothing new. They turned into yellow press some 20 years ago.

Revelation wrote:

In the long run Airbus might find it helpful to have the USA FAL as a useful counter-balance to the power that BBD and Quebec will still have over the program once Airbus buys them out.

And indeed it gives Airbus useful bargaining power before the 7½ years comes up.
It might also be quite interesting for the Airbus accountancy dept to compare & contrast the production costs at each FAL, and trade them off against each other. Internal competition.

Or as I said something like a thousand posts back; selling Mobile produced CS300s at one price, and Quebec CS300s at another. Of course it would never be disclosed quite that obviously, but there are sleights of hand that come to the same difference.

BREECH wrote:

Revelation wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

IMHO there is alot riding on the ITC decision and NAFTA. If the US isolates itself things could change quite drastically. I hope cooler heads prevail at this time.

Personally I don't think there's a lot riding on the ITC decision. If it's a high tariff then the FAL at BFM is used to bypass it and life goes on. Someone in the administration has to realize this by now and is probably telling people to back off. I really do hope cooler heads prevail.

Have you seen many "cool heads" in the current administration? Have you seen any heads at all? All I've seen so far is an incredible collection of APU exhausts.
As for the ITC, I not only think any outcome can be circumvented by airbbd (please everyone remember to mentions me in your memoirs as a person who coined in this clever abbreviation), but I also think that if ITC rules against Boeing, the current administration will declare (in Twitter of course) that they won't execute the ITC decision. Someone in the administration HAS TO realize all those things you mentioned, but the problem with the cooler head prevailing, in this particular case, is absolute lack thereof.

Your frustration is not unfounded, and felt by many.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

It might also be quite interesting for the Airbus accountancy dept to compare & contrast the production costs at each FAL, and trade them off against each other. Internal competition.

I don't think there's much need for too deep an analysis. It's absolutely clear that the Mobile plant is a cheaper option. Salaries alone would make their accountants cry. Hence the clause about keeping Quebec jobs.

BREECH wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I agree. Canada could also use two engines in their future aircraft, hard to detect with passive systems would be nice as well. Is it possible to integrate west and European? That would be great
The 35 only partially covers one of the three items on the wish list. Even though Canada was involved in the 35 program I do not believe Canada had much say in the design. That being said the 35 is the only current option for the future.

Not entirely. There is also Eurofighter Typhoon, there is Rafale, there is Su-35, all VERY capable and, in case of Su-35 and compared to F-35, a VERY cheap option. F-35 meanwhile remains a VERY uncertain aircraft. In order to make it a "universal platform", way too many things were sacrificed. The price has gone up tremendously, which is not a very popular bullet point in European countries where both the people and the leaders are expressing the evergrowing doubt over the viability and necessity of the NATO. As for Canada itself, the whole F-35 contract cost the conservatives the PM seat, and the new PM Justin Trudeau has already said they won't be buying F-35. Personally, I think the best way for Canada would be Su-35 with its rugged design and ability to land anywhere approximately flat. Russia has some experience with supplying NATO countries, so why not? But of course politically the European designs are more likely. OR EVEN, this new cooperation within CETA may lead to Canada once again developing their own fighter. With Airbus's help, they can do it.

In June airbus announced that they were going to build a new fighter to replace the typhoon. They stated requirements for stealth and other upgrades. The article also mentioned other countries flying the f18 (Canada not mentioned) were in need of a replacement as well. There was also talks about the BBD /canada and airbus deal leading to other projects. Enclude airbus calling Canada the first member country outside of Europe. It is starting to seem likely that Canada might be building a replacement for the typhoon with airbus.

thumper76 wrote:

BREECH wrote:

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

Very good point BREECH. The third party I had in mind for the joint venture is in this direction and defense...

Defense can be interesting. With growing tensions between the US and... well, EVERYONE and the new CETA deal, Canada may be very interested in both buying European military products and selling theirs in Europe. RCAF is already using A310 Polaris. And considering (I'm choosing my words very carefully here) the current political tendencies behind the Canadian southern border, they may feel the need to strengthen their Air Force with something that's not dependent on Due North supplies. But as for selling BBD military equipment in Europe... do they have any? I honestly have never heard of a military product by Bombardier.

I agree. Canada could also use two engines in their future aircraft, hard to detect with passive systems would be nice as well. Is it possible to integrate west and European? That would be great
The 35 only partially covers one of the three items on the wish list. Even though Canada was involved in the 35 program I do not believe Canada had much say in the design. That being said the 35 is the only current option for the future.

The US, Danes, Norwegians and Swedes all fly single engine jets inside the Arctic Circle. Canada did the same before CF-18. And Canada cross-shopped the F-16 and F-18 and only purchased the latter because of its radar. Dunno where the twin engine myth comes from. You know who really has an engine reliability requirement? The US Navy. Operating from a carrier is far more dangerous than operating in the Arctic. So if it's good enough for the USN, should be fine for us.

We may end up buying something else. But it will not be because of a twin engine requirement. So far, none of the RCAF Requirement Specs have insisted on twins.

BREECH wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I agree. Canada could also use two engines in their future aircraft, hard to detect with passive systems would be nice as well. Is it possible to integrate west and European? That would be great
The 35 only partially covers one of the three items on the wish list. Even though Canada was involved in the 35 program I do not believe Canada had much say in the design. That being said the 35 is the only current option for the future.

Not entirely. There is also Eurofighter Typhoon, there is Rafale, there is Su-35, all VERY capable and, in case of Su-35 and compared to F-35, a VERY cheap option. F-35 meanwhile remains a VERY uncertain aircraft. In order to make it a "universal platform", way too many things were sacrificed. The price has gone up tremendously, which is not a very popular bullet point in European countries where both the people and the leaders are expressing the evergrowing doubt over the viability and necessity of the NATO. As for Canada itself, the whole F-35 contract cost the conservatives the PM seat, and the new PM Justin Trudeau has already said they won't be buying F-35. Personally, I think the best way for Canada would be Su-35 with its rugged design and ability to land anywhere approximately flat. Russia has some experience with supplying NATO countries, so why not? But of course politically the European designs are more likely. OR EVEN, this new cooperation within CETA may lead to Canada once again developing their own fighter. With Airbus's help, they can do it.

Russian jets? Really?

Also, the who pitch for Super Hornet was based on a bunch of left leaning "defence analysts" (read Michael Byers) pitching it as a cheap alternative to the F-35, which was supposedly better because of its twin engines. But now we know that costs are pretty similar and Boeing tried to screw over Canada.

Unfortunately for the government, none of the alternatives are cheaper than the F-35, with similar capabilities and most importantly quality industrial workshare. Canada always pushes for 100% offsets with defence contracts. Of which 10-15% has to be direct offsets (aerospace workshare). There's a joke that all of Boeing and Lockheed's furniture is made in Canada. At one point, Boeing has given money to build rec centres and hockey rinks to meet their offset obligations. This stuff is challenging for Americans. It'd be much worse for Europeans who have governments who also insist on the same at home.

The biggest issue for the government is cost and industrial workshare. They don't care about the tech. The Typhoon is way too expensive. The French offered to assemble the Rafale in Canada. But the plane may still be expensive and industry will still be pissed if they don't get integrated into Rafale's full program as suppliers.

I have a feeling we'll get back to the F-35. Maybe in about 6 years, when this government is out.

LockheedBBD wrote:

ytz wrote:

There are only two US customers for the CSeries. DL with 75 orders. And Republic with 40 orders.

After Republic went into bankruptcy, they put the CSeries order on an "indefinite hold", and Bombardier is reported to have taken the Republic order off of their delivery schedule.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... la-425557/

http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... ies-orders

Indeed. But we have to assume that the value of those orders changes with this deal. Whoever ends up RAH may well end up selling the order or taking delivery and selling the airplanes. If not, DL ends up in an even better position. The first two years of any American FALs production would be completely theirs.

BREECH wrote:

ytz wrote:

Embraer has a fantastic product. But look how much they spent to develop that. And look at their sales.

What's with Embraer's sales? They sold 1,377 E-Jets alone, made 6 billion revenue last year with the net profit of 335 million. As revenue-profit ratio that's better than Boeing. MUCH better. And how much did they spend developing it? Could you elaborate on that?

And yes, regional airplanes market is profitable. It's not as glamorous and media-followed as the big planes sector but there is a lot of money in it. As for upsizing, again, I'd like to hear more. Don't see much upsizing on that market.

As per what I've read, they are going to spend $1.7 billion on the E2 till 2022. And have only ~230 sales to date. The 175 has a scope problem. And from now on every 190 and 195 order will be competed for by Airbus. That's definitely not a good position to be in. Still better than BBD though! At least they develop a plane to maturity and give away half of it (potentially all of it).

Revelation wrote:

Reuters: Airbus turmoil overshadows bid to rescue CSeries says:

Airbus’s (AIR.PA) coup in buying a $6 billion Canadian jetliner project for a dollar stunned investors and took the spotlight off a growing ethics row last week, but internal disarray has raised questions over how smoothly it can implement the deal.

And:

Chief Executive Tom Enders has urged staff to keep calm in the face of French reports describing payments to intermediaries and growing concern over fallout from the investigations.

But the mood at the group’s Toulouse offices remains grim.

“Bombardier asked for an ambulance and Airbus sent a hearse,” said one person with close ties to the company.

Pretty dark, no?

A source close to Bombardier acknowledged disruption at Airbus but predicted things would settle down by the time the deal for Airbus to sell the CSeries closes next year.

At that point Airbus will face a second challenge in marketing the CSeries, which for years it dismissed as a weak upstart. Now it must offer the aircraft side by side with the older A320.

Airbus plans to refresh the A320 further after adding new engines and this will bring it closer to the smaller CSeries in performance, two people close to the plans said. It may also make some CSeries features more compatible with its own A320s.

That comes on top of plans to enhance the larger A321neo in response to Boeing’s launch of a new mid-market plane, which industry sources expect to happen next year.

Interesting article. Lots of sizzle, not much bacon. Interesting enumeration of the challenges, but not much insight on how/why Airbus will not be able to deal with the challenges, other than the nebulous dark influence of the corruption scandal.

Long on speculation and short on facts. Undoubtedly the deal wasn't great for Bombardier. But that only reflects well on Airbus. And the whole marketshare thing is idiotic. Airbus has almost a one-year longer backlog with the A320 over the 737MAX. Surely that impacts sales (that's why I think a CS500 offers value). They were slightly behind on widebodies. But surely that changes as the 350 and 330NEO wrap up development over the next 1-2 years. I don't see the reason for poor morale on sales. As Boeing fills up its order books, Airbus will start gaining again, such is the nature of the duopoly.

I have no doubts that the investigations and their fallouts could impact morale. That's a different issue.

ytz wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

BREECH wrote:

Defense can be interesting. With growing tensions between the US and... well, EVERYONE and the new CETA deal, Canada may be very interested in both buying European military products and selling theirs in Europe. RCAF is already using A310 Polaris. And considering (I'm choosing my words very carefully here) the current political tendencies behind the Canadian southern border, they may feel the need to strengthen their Air Force with something that's not dependent on Due North supplies. But as for selling BBD military equipment in Europe... do they have any? I honestly have never heard of a military product by Bombardier.

I agree. Canada could also use two engines in their future aircraft, hard to detect with passive systems would be nice as well. Is it possible to integrate west and European? That would be great
The 35 only partially covers one of the three items on the wish list. Even though Canada was involved in the 35 program I do not believe Canada had much say in the design. That being said the 35 is the only current option for the future.

The US, Danes, Norwegians and Swedes all fly single engine jets inside the Arctic Circle. Canada did the same before CF-18. And Canada cross-shopped the F-16 and F-18 and only purchased the latter because of its radar. Dunno where the twin engine myth comes from. You know who really has an engine reliability requirement? The US Navy. Operating from a carrier is far more dangerous than operating in the Arctic. So if it's good enough for the USN, should be fine for us.

We may end up buying something else. But it will not be because of a twin engine requirement. So far, none of the RCAF Requirement Specs have insisted on twins.

BREECH wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I agree. Canada could also use two engines in their future aircraft, hard to detect with passive systems would be nice as well. Is it possible to integrate west and European? That would be great
The 35 only partially covers one of the three items on the wish list. Even though Canada was involved in the 35 program I do not believe Canada had much say in the design. That being said the 35 is the only current option for the future.

Not entirely. There is also Eurofighter Typhoon, there is Rafale, there is Su-35, all VERY capable and, in case of Su-35 and compared to F-35, a VERY cheap option. F-35 meanwhile remains a VERY uncertain aircraft. In order to make it a "universal platform", way too many things were sacrificed. The price has gone up tremendously, which is not a very popular bullet point in European countries where both the people and the leaders are expressing the evergrowing doubt over the viability and necessity of the NATO. As for Canada itself, the whole F-35 contract cost the conservatives the PM seat, and the new PM Justin Trudeau has already said they won't be buying F-35. Personally, I think the best way for Canada would be Su-35 with its rugged design and ability to land anywhere approximately flat. Russia has some experience with supplying NATO countries, so why not? But of course politically the European designs are more likely. OR EVEN, this new cooperation within CETA may lead to Canada once again developing their own fighter. With Airbus's help, they can do it.

Russian jets? Really?

Also, the who pitch for Super Hornet was based on a bunch of left leaning "defence analysts" (read Michael Byers) pitching it as a cheap alternative to the F-35, which was supposedly better because of its twin engines. But now we know that costs are pretty similar and Boeing tried to screw over Canada.

Unfortunately for the government, none of the alternatives are cheaper than the F-35, with similar capabilities and most importantly quality industrial workshare. Canada always pushes for 100% offsets with defence contracts. Of which 10-15% has to be direct offsets (aerospace workshare). There's a joke that all of Boeing and Lockheed's furniture is made in Canada. At one point, Boeing has given money to build rec centres and hockey rinks to meet their offset obligations. This stuff is challenging for Americans. It'd be much worse for Europeans who have governments who also insist on the same at home.

The biggest issue for the government is cost and industrial workshare. They don't care about the tech. The Typhoon is way too expensive. The French offered to assemble the Rafale in Canada. But the plane may still be expensive and industry will still be pissed if they don't get integrated into Rafale's full program as suppliers.

I have a feeling we'll get back to the F-35. Maybe in about 6 years, when this government is out.

LockheedBBD wrote:

ytz wrote:

There are only two US customers for the CSeries. DL with 75 orders. And Republic with 40 orders.

After Republic went into bankruptcy, they put the CSeries order on an "indefinite hold", and Bombardier is reported to have taken the Republic order off of their delivery schedule.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... la-425557/

http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... ies-orders

Indeed. But we have to assume that the value of those orders changes with this deal. Whoever ends up RAH may well end up selling the order or taking delivery and selling the airplanes. If not, DL ends up in an even better position. The first two years of any American FALs production would be completely theirs.

BREECH wrote:

ytz wrote:

Embraer has a fantastic product. But look how much they spent to develop that. And look at their sales.

What's with Embraer's sales? They sold 1,377 E-Jets alone, made 6 billion revenue last year with the net profit of 335 million. As revenue-profit ratio that's better than Boeing. MUCH better. And how much did they spend developing it? Could you elaborate on that?

And yes, regional airplanes market is profitable. It's not as glamorous and media-followed as the big planes sector but there is a lot of money in it. As for upsizing, again, I'd like to hear more. Don't see much upsizing on that market.

As per what I've read, they are going to spend $1.7 billion on the E2 till 2022. And have only ~230 sales to date. The 175 has a scope problem. And from now on every 190 and 195 order will be competed for by Airbus. That's definitely not a good position to be in. Still better than BBD though! At least they develop a plane to maturity and give away half of it (potentially all of it).

Revelation wrote:

Reuters: Airbus turmoil overshadows bid to rescue CSeries says:

Airbus’s (AIR.PA) coup in buying a $6 billion Canadian jetliner project for a dollar stunned investors and took the spotlight off a growing ethics row last week, but internal disarray has raised questions over how smoothly it can implement the deal.

And:

Chief Executive Tom Enders has urged staff to keep calm in the face of French reports describing payments to intermediaries and growing concern over fallout from the investigations.

But the mood at the group’s Toulouse offices remains grim.

“Bombardier asked for an ambulance and Airbus sent a hearse,” said one person with close ties to the company.

Pretty dark, no?

A source close to Bombardier acknowledged disruption at Airbus but predicted things would settle down by the time the deal for Airbus to sell the CSeries closes next year.

At that point Airbus will face a second challenge in marketing the CSeries, which for years it dismissed as a weak upstart. Now it must offer the aircraft side by side with the older A320.

Airbus plans to refresh the A320 further after adding new engines and this will bring it closer to the smaller CSeries in performance, two people close to the plans said. It may also make some CSeries features more compatible with its own A320s.

That comes on top of plans to enhance the larger A321neo in response to Boeing’s launch of a new mid-market plane, which industry sources expect to happen next year.

Interesting article. Lots of sizzle, not much bacon. Interesting enumeration of the challenges, but not much insight on how/why Airbus will not be able to deal with the challenges, other than the nebulous dark influence of the corruption scandal.

Long on speculation and short on facts. Undoubtedly the deal wasn't great for Bombardier. But that only reflects well on Airbus. And the whole marketshare thing is idiotic. Airbus has almost a one-year longer backlog with the A320 over the 737MAX. Surely that impacts sales (that's why I think a CS500 offers value). They were slightly behind on widebodies. But surely that changes as the 350 and 330NEO wrap up development over the next 1-2 years. I don't see the reason for poor morale on sales. As Boeing fills up its order books, Airbus will start gaining again, such is the nature of the duopoly.

I have no doubts that the investigations and their fallouts could impact morale. That's a different issue.

In regards to single or two engine fighters for Canada. A two engine fighter is better, short of a uncontaned engine failure the twin will get a fighter home. I am willing to pay more for a two engine than a single. If the aircraft is designed and built in Canada the cost would be offset, I have great respect for the Canadian armed forces and only want the best for them. My hope is that a new aircraft best fitting Canada's needs might come out of this deal! It will be a long wait but should be worth it in the end.

If we look at BBD's order book and the projected production rates with 3 FALs at 70 frames annually per FAL, that means 450-550 frames. The CSeries order book is at 360. Obviously, some like Republic look weak. So Airbus has to help sell 130-230 frames over next 7 years. Is that a tall order? I don't think so.

And their full up A320 order book is why I think they launch the CS500. That'll fill up the CS500 pipeline and open up some near term A320 slots to sell.

thumper76 wrote:

ytz wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I agree. Canada could also use two engines in their future aircraft, hard to detect with passive systems would be nice as well. Is it possible to integrate west and European? That would be great
The 35 only partially covers one of the three items on the wish list. Even though Canada was involved in the 35 program I do not believe Canada had much say in the design. That being said the 35 is the only current option for the future.

The US, Danes, Norwegians and Swedes all fly single engine jets inside the Arctic Circle. Canada did the same before CF-18. And Canada cross-shopped the F-16 and F-18 and only purchased the latter because of its radar. Dunno where the twin engine myth comes from. You know who really has an engine reliability requirement? The US Navy. Operating from a carrier is far more dangerous than operating in the Arctic. So if it's good enough for the USN, should be fine for us.

We may end up buying something else. But it will not be because of a twin engine requirement. So far, none of the RCAF Requirement Specs have insisted on twins.

BREECH wrote:

Not entirely. There is also Eurofighter Typhoon, there is Rafale, there is Su-35, all VERY capable and, in case of Su-35 and compared to F-35, a VERY cheap option. F-35 meanwhile remains a VERY uncertain aircraft. In order to make it a "universal platform", way too many things were sacrificed. The price has gone up tremendously, which is not a very popular bullet point in European countries where both the people and the leaders are expressing the evergrowing doubt over the viability and necessity of the NATO. As for Canada itself, the whole F-35 contract cost the conservatives the PM seat, and the new PM Justin Trudeau has already said they won't be buying F-35. Personally, I think the best way for Canada would be Su-35 with its rugged design and ability to land anywhere approximately flat. Russia has some experience with supplying NATO countries, so why not? But of course politically the European designs are more likely. OR EVEN, this new cooperation within CETA may lead to Canada once again developing their own fighter. With Airbus's help, they can do it.

Russian jets? Really?

Also, the who pitch for Super Hornet was based on a bunch of left leaning "defence analysts" (read Michael Byers) pitching it as a cheap alternative to the F-35, which was supposedly better because of its twin engines. But now we know that costs are pretty similar and Boeing tried to screw over Canada.

Unfortunately for the government, none of the alternatives are cheaper than the F-35, with similar capabilities and most importantly quality industrial workshare. Canada always pushes for 100% offsets with defence contracts. Of which 10-15% has to be direct offsets (aerospace workshare). There's a joke that all of Boeing and Lockheed's furniture is made in Canada. At one point, Boeing has given money to build rec centres and hockey rinks to meet their offset obligations. This stuff is challenging for Americans. It'd be much worse for Europeans who have governments who also insist on the same at home.

The biggest issue for the government is cost and industrial workshare. They don't care about the tech. The Typhoon is way too expensive. The French offered to assemble the Rafale in Canada. But the plane may still be expensive and industry will still be pissed if they don't get integrated into Rafale's full program as suppliers.

I have a feeling we'll get back to the F-35. Maybe in about 6 years, when this government is out.

LockheedBBD wrote:

After Republic went into bankruptcy, they put the CSeries order on an "indefinite hold", and Bombardier is reported to have taken the Republic order off of their delivery schedule.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... la-425557/

http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... ies-orders

Indeed. But we have to assume that the value of those orders changes with this deal. Whoever ends up RAH may well end up selling the order or taking delivery and selling the airplanes. If not, DL ends up in an even better position. The first two years of any American FALs production would be completely theirs.

BREECH wrote:

What's with Embraer's sales? They sold 1,377 E-Jets alone, made 6 billion revenue last year with the net profit of 335 million. As revenue-profit ratio that's better than Boeing. MUCH better. And how much did they spend developing it? Could you elaborate on that?

And yes, regional airplanes market is profitable. It's not as glamorous and media-followed as the big planes sector but there is a lot of money in it. As for upsizing, again, I'd like to hear more. Don't see much upsizing on that market.

As per what I've read, they are going to spend $1.7 billion on the E2 till 2022. And have only ~230 sales to date. The 175 has a scope problem. And from now on every 190 and 195 order will be competed for by Airbus. That's definitely not a good position to be in. Still better than BBD though! At least they develop a plane to maturity and give away half of it (potentially all of it).

Revelation wrote:

Reuters: Airbus turmoil overshadows bid to rescue CSeries says:


And:


Pretty dark, no?


Interesting article. Lots of sizzle, not much bacon. Interesting enumeration of the challenges, but not much insight on how/why Airbus will not be able to deal with the challenges, other than the nebulous dark influence of the corruption scandal.

Long on speculation and short on facts. Undoubtedly the deal wasn't great for Bombardier. But that only reflects well on Airbus. And the whole marketshare thing is idiotic. Airbus has almost a one-year longer backlog with the A320 over the 737MAX. Surely that impacts sales (that's why I think a CS500 offers value). They were slightly behind on widebodies. But surely that changes as the 350 and 330NEO wrap up development over the next 1-2 years. I don't see the reason for poor morale on sales. As Boeing fills up its order books, Airbus will start gaining again, such is the nature of the duopoly.

I have no doubts that the investigations and their fallouts could impact morale. That's a different issue.

In regards to single or two engine fighters for Canada. A two engine fighter is better, short of a uncontaned engine failure the twin will get a fighter home. I am willing to pay more for a two engine than a single. If the aircraft is designed and built in Canada the cost would be offset, I have great respect for the Canadian armed forces and only want the best for them. My hope is that a new aircraft best fitting Canada's needs might come out of this deal! It will be a long wait but should be worth it in the end.

The number of engines is irrelevant if you don't survive a fight. We don't buy jets to simply return home from an uncontained engine failure. Go through the survivability methodology. Nothing better than an F-22 at present. The F-35 is next. And if we're going to keep a jet till 2060 as the government is promising, that aircraft's detectability becomes far more paramount. It's not a small issue at all.

Anyway, that's derailing the thread. So I'll leave the fighter discussion for another time. I worked beside the NGFC guys. I could write essays on the issue. Let's keep it at BBD and Airbus.

Revelation wrote:

ytz wrote:

I don't see the reason for poor morale on sales. As Boeing fills up its order books, Airbus will start gaining again, such is the nature of the duopoly.

I have no doubts that the investigations and their fallouts could impact morale. That's a different issue.

My reading of the Reuters and Spiegel articles suggests that the sales side is unhappy that Enders has taken away a key tool from them by shutting down the "Bullshit Castle" in 2016.

The Spiegel article ( http://www.spiegel.de/international/bus ... 73736.html ) is more explicit on the usefulness of the tool going back to 2007:

Jean-Paul Gut left the aircraft manufacturer in 2007, shortly after his finest hour, which saw him strike a 16 billion euro deal with Qatar Airways for 80 A350 aircraft. A deal he pulled off thanks to the excellent connections he had built up in the Gulf states. Within the company, no one knew exactly what Gut did or how he did it - the main thing was, he did it. First and foremost, he hired and guided consultants whose job was to help win over influencers in countries where Airbus was looking to sell its aircraft.

See also: http://www.spiegel.de/international/bus ... 71533.html ...

Sales forces largely live on commissions, and it seems the "Bullshit Castle" salesman had a very effective system where they made big sales and got big commissions whilst the company ate the cost of the "consultants whose job was to help win over influencers" by the use of shadowy third party corporations set up for the purpose.

Thanks for the link. That at least makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying that morale is just low because sales haven't kept up.

ytz wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

ytz wrote:

The US, Danes, Norwegians and Swedes all fly single engine jets inside the Arctic Circle. Canada did the same before CF-18. And Canada cross-shopped the F-16 and F-18 and only purchased the latter because of its radar. Dunno where the twin engine myth comes from. You know who really has an engine reliability requirement? The US Navy. Operating from a carrier is far more dangerous than operating in the Arctic. So if it's good enough for the USN, should be fine for us.

We may end up buying something else. But it will not be because of a twin engine requirement. So far, none of the RCAF Requirement Specs have insisted on twins.



Russian jets? Really?

Also, the who pitch for Super Hornet was based on a bunch of left leaning "defence analysts" (read Michael Byers) pitching it as a cheap alternative to the F-35, which was supposedly better because of its twin engines. But now we know that costs are pretty similar and Boeing tried to screw over Canada.

Unfortunately for the government, none of the alternatives are cheaper than the F-35, with similar capabilities and most importantly quality industrial workshare. Canada always pushes for 100% offsets with defence contracts. Of which 10-15% has to be direct offsets (aerospace workshare). There's a joke that all of Boeing and Lockheed's furniture is made in Canada. At one point, Boeing has given money to build rec centres and hockey rinks to meet their offset obligations. This stuff is challenging for Americans. It'd be much worse for Europeans who have governments who also insist on the same at home.

The biggest issue for the government is cost and industrial workshare. They don't care about the tech. The Typhoon is way too expensive. The French offered to assemble the Rafale in Canada. But the plane may still be expensive and industry will still be pissed if they don't get integrated into Rafale's full program as suppliers.

I have a feeling we'll get back to the F-35. Maybe in about 6 years, when this government is out.



Indeed. But we have to assume that the value of those orders changes with this deal. Whoever ends up RAH may well end up selling the order or taking delivery and selling the airplanes. If not, DL ends up in an even better position. The first two years of any American FALs production would be completely theirs.


As per what I've read, they are going to spend $1.7 billion on the E2 till 2022. And have only ~230 sales to date. The 175 has a scope problem. And from now on every 190 and 195 order will be competed for by Airbus. That's definitely not a good position to be in. Still better than BBD though! At least they develop a plane to maturity and give away half of it (potentially all of it).


Long on speculation and short on facts. Undoubtedly the deal wasn't great for Bombardier. But that only reflects well on Airbus. And the whole marketshare thing is idiotic. Airbus has almost a one-year longer backlog with the A320 over the 737MAX. Surely that impacts sales (that's why I think a CS500 offers value). They were slightly behind on widebodies. But surely that changes as the 350 and 330NEO wrap up development over the next 1-2 years. I don't see the reason for poor morale on sales. As Boeing fills up its order books, Airbus will start gaining again, such is the nature of the duopoly.

I have no doubts that the investigations and their fallouts could impact morale. That's a different issue.

In regards to single or two engine fighters for Canada. A two engine fighter is better, short of a uncontaned engine failure the twin will get a fighter home. I am willing to pay more for a two engine than a single. If the aircraft is designed and built in Canada the cost would be offset, I have great respect for the Canadian armed forces and only want the best for them. My hope is that a new aircraft best fitting Canada's needs might come out of this deal! It will be a long wait but should be worth it in the end.

The number of engines is irrelevant if you don't survive a fight. We don't buy jets to simply return home from an uncontained engine failure. Go through the survivability methodology. Nothing better than an F-22 at present. The F-35 is next. And if we're going to keep a jet till 2060 as the government is promising, that aircraft's detectability becomes far more paramount. It's not a small issue at all.

Anyway, that's derailing the thread. So I'll leave the fighter discussion for another time. I worked beside the NGFC guys. I could write essays on the issue. Let's keep it at BBD and Airbus.

I would agree that the f22 is better. Would think Canada should buy it with the F35 passive system. Unfortunately the aircraft is not for sale and we could never afford it. Derail ended! Time will tell what all comes out of Canada being the first member outside of Europe. Still hoping ITC is willing to do what is right and not find harm. Would rather see Canadians employed at this point. Blunt but honest.

thumper76 wrote:

ytz wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

In regards to single or two engine fighters for Canada. A two engine fighter is better, short of a uncontaned engine failure the twin will get a fighter home. I am willing to pay more for a two engine than a single. If the aircraft is designed and built in Canada the cost would be offset, I have great respect for the Canadian armed forces and only want the best for them. My hope is that a new aircraft best fitting Canada's needs might come out of this deal! It will be a long wait but should be worth it in the end.

The number of engines is irrelevant if you don't survive a fight. We don't buy jets to simply return home from an uncontained engine failure. Go through the survivability methodology. Nothing better than an F-22 at present. The F-35 is next. And if we're going to keep a jet till 2060 as the government is promising, that aircraft's detectability becomes far more paramount. It's not a small issue at all.

Anyway, that's derailing the thread. So I'll leave the fighter discussion for another time. I worked beside the NGFC guys. I could write essays on the issue. Let's keep it at BBD and Airbus.

I would agree that the f22 is better. Would think Canada should buy it with the F35 passive system. Unfortunately the aircraft is not for sale and we could never afford it. Derail ended! Time will tell what all comes out of Canada being the first member outside of Europe. Still hoping ITC is willing to do what is right and not find harm. Would rather see Canadians employed at this point. Blunt but honest.

Hopefully the ITC does the right thing. That only speeds along the DL deal. But I think the third FAL in Mobile is needed anyway. It adds > 200 slots from 2020-2023. Unless there are doubts of selling that many frames, it's actually a great idea for Airbus to build that FAL.

Samrnpage wrote:

I am actually chuffed that the Cseries will live on!! Or does it? :/ Boeing must be smacking their heads against the table!

Boeing has not only shot itself in the foot but, they have been able to reload and shoot again.

This is sad and will probably go down in Aviation History as a pivotal moment in the dominance game between Airbus and Boeing, with Airbus being the clear winner. And, that saddens me immensley. Shame on Boeing

For many around here, Boeing will be remembered as the bully that pushed BBD to sell its CSeries program at a steep discount.

We also got reminded that Boeing shut early the DHC-6 Twin Otter / Dash-7 programs - and destroyed most of the jigs in the process (just ask Viking...)

But above are just emotions. It shall be irrelevent to any rational decision processes.

But hey, the US administration seems now running on emotions and rethorics...

ytz wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

ytz wrote:

The number of engines is irrelevant if you don't survive a fight. We don't buy jets to simply return home from an uncontained engine failure. Go through the survivability methodology. Nothing better than an F-22 at present. The F-35 is next. And if we're going to keep a jet till 2060 as the government is promising, that aircraft's detectability becomes far more paramount. It's not a small issue at all.

Anyway, that's derailing the thread. So I'll leave the fighter discussion for another time. I worked beside the NGFC guys. I could write essays on the issue. Let's keep it at BBD and Airbus.

I would agree that the f22 is better. Would think Canada should buy it with the F35 passive system. Unfortunately the aircraft is not for sale and we could never afford it. Derail ended! Time will tell what all comes out of Canada being the first member outside of Europe. Still hoping ITC is willing to do what is right and not find harm. Would rather see Canadians employed at this point. Blunt but honest.

Hopefully the ITC does the right thing. That only speeds along the DL deal. But I think the third FAL in Mobile is needed anyway. It adds > 200 slots from 2020-2023. Unless there are doubts of selling that many frames, it's actually a great idea for Airbus to build that FAL.

If there are enough sales to support a second fal (there should be) but not until Canadian fal can't keep up. I believe Airbus when they say the cseries should get half of 6000. Not Boeing saying market not there. Never should a manufacturer be able to dictate customers needs!

thumper76 wrote:

ytz wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I would agree that the f22 is better. Would think Canada should buy it with the F35 passive system. Unfortunately the aircraft is not for sale and we could never afford it. Derail ended! Time will tell what all comes out of Canada being the first member outside of Europe. Still hoping ITC is willing to do what is right and not find harm. Would rather see Canadians employed at this point. Blunt but honest.

Hopefully the ITC does the right thing. That only speeds along the DL deal. But I think the third FAL in Mobile is needed anyway. It adds > 200 slots from 2020-2023. Unless there are doubts of selling that many frames, it's actually a great idea for Airbus to build that FAL.

If there are enough sales to support a second fal (there should be) but not until Canadian fal can't keep up. I believe Airbus when they say the cseries should get half of 6000. Not Boeing saying market not there. Never should a manufacturer be able to dictate customers needs!

For hypothetical sake. Let's say DL wants to replace the 717, 737-700 and 319s with CS300, that's 150-160 frames. That plus 75 of the original order is around 225 frames. Let's say there's overlap on the orders, it's still around 200 frames. That's enough to keep the Mobile FAL running for a few years.

There's no way Ed Bastian and Tom Enders are not thinking about this. The CS300 is perfect for them in this capacity class.

crimsonchin wrote:

keesje wrote:

VeroVenia entered an identity crisis. The blogger famous for being selectively critical (everything Airbus), deleting everyone not agreeing (rubbish, it's my blog), and endless, selective self referencing, is now trying to rewrite history claiming he supported such aquisition all along.

https://verovenia.wordpress.com

It's VV's wonderland.

I was going to ask if anyone had checked up on VV, Saj Ahmad and Fleetbuzz, and hopefully kept all sharp objects out of their reach.

They must be foaming at the mouth seeing their two most loathed companies together, while their golden child, Boeing cries in a corner

I do not understand very well the comment.
I just do not see any future impact of all this to 737 MAX, since the 737-7 has grown in size by 12 seats.

Can you please explain what you meant by "Boeing cries in the corner"?

VV wrote:

I do not understand very well the comment.
I just do not see any future impact of all this to 737 MAX, since the 737-7 has grown in size by 12 seats.

Can you please explain what you meant by "Boeing cries in the corner"?

The C-Series is the most efficient and high tech aircraft in this class. It now has full backing of Airbus, including it's sales apparatus and very valuable customer portfolio. Airbus is even willing to push the C-Series ahead of it's own A319neo in all sales. The 737-7 MAX is a half a century old design with continious upgrades. It won't sell unless it's at rock bottom pricing around $23 million. But you don't see ANY impact of this Bombardier/Airbus deal - because the 737-7 MAX was stretched by two rows? Are you aware the CS300 is being offered with up to 160 seats?

JetBuddy wrote:

VV wrote:

I do not understand very well the comment.
I just do not see any future impact of all this to 737 MAX, since the 737-7 has grown in size by 12 seats.

Can you please explain what you meant by "Boeing cries in the corner"?

The C-Series is the most efficient and high tech aircraft in this class. It now has full backing of Airbus, including it's sales apparatus and very valuable customer portfolio. Airbus is even willing to push the C-Series ahead of it's own A319neo in all sales. The 737-7 MAX is a half a century old design with continious upgrades. It won't sell unless it's at rock bottom pricing around $23 million. But you don't see ANY impact of this Bombardier/Airbus deal - because the 737-7 MAX was stretched by two rows? Are you aware the CS300 is being offered with up to 160 seats?

No, seriously I do not see any impact on the 737 MAX, not even on the 737-7.

If I was aware the CS300 being offered with up to 160 seats? Oh damn yes!
But I do not think an airline would want it.

Regards ytz
You are correct. Just have to be sure that a high volume fal is set up in Canada first. After that all is well with set up of 2nd fal in mobile. There should be plenty orders for a second fal. If only the airlines new airbus was going to go this route a year ago (We might have seen more airbus sales with options.) the cseries is wanted but has had its sales hindered by uncertainty for the past several years. Like I said if only airlines new then what they know now!

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

I believe the problem here is that you have been reading a Brexit article, that incidentally mentions some trivial aircraft nonsense, involving some stupid foreign countries.

If you can truly come up with directions to that statement from the Grauniad, I will offer a humble apology; until then, I'm sceptical.

You over-estimate how much the British Gov't is bothered by the whole Bombardier/Boeing/Airbus situation. Apart from a handful of DUP's, it really has very little genuine interest. Brexit dwarfs it 1000-to-1. (FYI I count myself as the exceptional "1"; I'm thoroughly bored by the whole event)


I only read the first 64 posts in the comments section, and then only found ONE that came close to your claim;
Andrew Whitely posted “an EU company rescued a UK company from a certain bankruptcy caused entirely by the actions of the USA”
If you believe he is saying that Bombardier is a UK company, then that is your interpretation. I see that both you & he are looking down a narrow telescope, but in different directions.
I believe he is suggesting that Short Brothers were facing certain bankruptcy due to the actions of the USA. And when I last looked, Short’s were a UK company.
Have you got anything that contradicts that?

To be fair, another poster thought the same as you, and rushed to correct Mr Whiteley with “Bombardier are a Canadian company”, so you can take comfort that you were not the only one to make that mistake. But then you also need to accept that for every individual that may erroneously believe BBD is UK owned, there is another individual that that posts a correction. And that still leaves your original comment incorrect.

astuteman wrote:

Having spent (wasted) those 2 hours this morning reading c.1000 Guardian posts, the only post containing an alternative reality that I actually found was yours, if I'm honest.

One thing you did point out accurately is that (avoiding taking sides), the Brexit issue is a source of great angst both politically and socially within the UK, as is only to be expected when the referendum split was a virtual 50/50. As a result the UK press will seize on anything pretty much to further the debate in THEIR media and generate sales.

From conversations that I've had at work, the biggest surprise to most uninvolved UK readers seems to be that they make state-of-the-art airliner wings in Belfast, as well as in Broughton. Most of us seem to have forgotten it

Rgds

It is apparent that my reading comprehension and knowledge of reputable UK news sources needs improvement. My apologies.

From my personal perspective, I am absolutely happy with Airbus' decision to acquire a majority stake in CSALP. There is not any question about it.

However, I find the buzz around this "deal" is overblown.

The only change is that C Series will cease to be a liability to Bombardier.
This being said, there is nothing today that indicates it would change the market significantly.

Airbus support to favour CS300 sales is not necessarily easy to do considering the possible extra cost of engine spares. It is true that it is not a big deal, especially if the engine manufacturer also provides strong support.

In addition, the presence of the CS300 in any Airbus narrowbody campaign would make life a little bit complicated due to the fact there are two engine manufacturers on the A320neo.

Life is never simple.

VV wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

VV wrote:

I do not understand very well the comment.
I just do not see any future impact of all this to 737 MAX, since the 737-7 has grown in size by 12 seats.

Can you please explain what you meant by "Boeing cries in the corner"?

The C-Series is the most efficient and high tech aircraft in this class. It now has full backing of Airbus, including it's sales apparatus and very valuable customer portfolio. Airbus is even willing to push the C-Series ahead of it's own A319neo in all sales. The 737-7 MAX is a half a century old design with continious upgrades. It won't sell unless it's at rock bottom pricing around $23 million. But you don't see ANY impact of this Bombardier/Airbus deal - because the 737-7 MAX was stretched by two rows? Are you aware the CS300 is being offered with up to 160 seats?

No, seriously I do not see any impact on the 737 MAX, not even on the 737-7.

If I was aware the CS300 being offered with up to 160 seats? Oh damn yes!
But I do not think an airline would want it.

Interesting standpoint. It seems seems Bombardier, United and Boeing fully disagree.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cseries-prices-threaten-737-max-7-viability-boein-437624/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotthamilton5/2016/03/08/united-boeing-and-the-competitors/#424a969c30da

(Nope, no delete option here.)

keesje wrote:

VV wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

The C-Series is the most efficient and high tech aircraft in this class. It now has full backing of Airbus, including it's sales apparatus and very valuable customer portfolio. Airbus is even willing to push the C-Series ahead of it's own A319neo in all sales. The 737-7 MAX is a half a century old design with continious upgrades. It won't sell unless it's at rock bottom pricing around $23 million. But you don't see ANY impact of this Bombardier/Airbus deal - because the 737-7 MAX was stretched by two rows? Are you aware the CS300 is being offered with up to 160 seats?

No, seriously I do not see any impact on the 737 MAX, not even on the 737-7.

If I was aware the CS300 being offered with up to 160 seats? Oh damn yes!
But I do not think an airline would want it.

Interesting standpoint. It seems seems Bombardier, United and Boeing fully disagree.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cseries-prices-threaten-737-max-7-viability-boein-437624/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotthamilton5/2016/03/08/united-boeing-and-the-competitors/#424a969c30da

(Nope, no delete option here.)

One article, from FlightGlobal is dated from May 2017 well before the "deal" was announced. I am not sure if the C Series pricing is still relevant If Airbus takes over CSALP. Who decides the rpicing? Is it the CSALP, that will be under Airbus' control, or is it Bombardier?

The second article is even older, from March 2016, well before the 737-7 was redesigned with 12 extra seats and higher design weights.

Can we have more relevant articles please.

And I confirm that I still do not see any impact on 737 MAX product line due to the recent announcement of Airbus decision to take majority stake in CSALP.

And yes, I confirm that I am absolutely positive and very delighted by Airbus' decision to take a majority stake in CSALP. It has transformed the C Series program from a liability to Bombardier into a real opportunity.

Breech,

What business jets does Airbus produce? I was in the business for 12 years and know of none.

The Passport isn’t a CF-34 replacement and has the same problem all the re-enginning proposals have—too much weight for the CRJ’s tail-mounted configuration.



GF

VV you say you do not see any impact of the CSeries take over on the 737 MAX, not even on the 737-7.

I provided two recent links that clearly support the contrary. It seems more opportune you come up with some
solid references to support your particular statement. Solid would exclude self referencing.

keesje wrote:

VV you say you do not see any impact of the CSeries take over on the 737 MAX, not even on the 737-7.

I provided two recent links that clearly support the contrary. It seems more opportune you come up with some
solid references to support your particular statement. Solid would exclude self referencing.

If a airline was looking for a aircraft +/-15 seats of the cs300 and was not worried about the efficiency or passenger comfort... Should I keep going? Is it up to you to cost passengers more money or up to the airline to be profitable with the customer in mind. If you could clarify that would be great

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Taking what is printed in the Grauniad as representative of the thinking of "the people of Britain" is fraught with hazard IMO
I'd suggest a fairly widespread bit of research is in order before taking what the Grauniad says as in any way a "fact".
Rgds

Yes, indeed, but in defence of Mr Lockheed, he wasn't to know that.
Just as many outside the USA might not know how much Fox News is regarded as something of a joke.
Meanwhile back with Mr L, I'll try and set him straight in my next post.

Woah woah woah!

Sorry but in absolutely no way should you compare the Guardian and Fox! They are polar opposites - both politically and metaphorically.

The Guardian is left-leaning and pro-Europe and is a proper journalistic paper. I think if anything they *ARE* a reliable source when it comes to factual reporting.

If you're right wing and anti-Europe then you may disagree with its editorial stance, but I think its very wrong to paint it as untrustworthy here.

Note that it's those very right wing anti Europe crowd who love to troll the comment sections of places like the Guardian and the BBC - and it was *comments* where all the nonsense was being spouted in this case...

Please don't mix things up!

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Woah woah woah!

Sorry but in absolutely no way should you compare the Guardian and Fox! They are polar opposites - both politically and metaphorically.

The Guardian is left-leaning and pro-Europe and is a proper journalistic paper. I think if anything they *ARE* a reliable source when it comes to factual reporting.

If you're right wing and anti-Europe then you may disagree with its editorial stance, but I think its very wrong to paint it as untrustworthy here.

Note that it's those very right wing anti Europe crowd who love to troll the comment sections of places like the Guardian and the BBC - and it was *comments* where all the nonsense was being spouted in this case...

Please don't mix things up!

I regret having brought up the articles/comments on the Guardian at all. I misinterpreted what some of the articles/comments were implying as I am unfamiliar with UK politics/views. I also regret posting off-topic material in this thread. My bad. I will refrain from making such judgments/comments about news/politics in the future.



Getting on topic, this article had some interesting points about the future of the A320/1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bomb ... SKBN1CR0H4

At that point Airbus will face a second challenge in marketing the CSeries, which for years it dismissed as a weak upstart. Now it must offer the aircraft side by side with the older A320.

Airbus plans to refresh the A320 further after adding new engines and this will bring it closer to the smaller CSeries in performance, two people close to the plans said. It may also make some CSeries features more compatible with its own A320s.

That comes on top of plans to enhance the larger A321neo in response to Boeing’s launch of a new mid-market plane, which industry sources expect to happen next year.

Boeing is having their quarterly earnings conference call this Wednesday, I will be eagerly tuning in to see if there are any comments/questions regarding how they plan on countering this deal.

Interesting old Leeham news article sighting France's intervention of a potential Qatar CSeries order years ago: https://leehamnews.com/2013/12/31/qatar ... rs-remain/

Bombardier had negotiated a contract for 20 CSeries to be signed at the show, and with market expectations high, was embarrassed when Qatar’s CEO, Akbar Al-Baker, did one of his famous U-Turns and didn’t proceed. (Al-Baker would embarrass Boeing and Airbus at later air shows by withdrawing an announced deal for the 777-300ER and no-showing at an Airbus press conference.) We were reliably told that the French government intervened with the Qatari government to block the important CSeries order at the Paris Air Show in favor of an order for the A319neo and A320neo.

In hindsight, that probably benefitted Bombardier because Al-Baker is no stranger to yelling out his complaints to the press (A320neo example), and the longer than expected delays may have lead to a cancellation anyways.

keesje wrote:

VV you say you do not see any impact of the CSeries take over on the 737 MAX, not even on the 737-7.

I provided two recent links that clearly support the contrary. It seems more opportune you come up with some
solid references to support your particular statement. Solid would exclude self referencing.

I cannot give any links whatsoever, but it is not not worse than giving irrelevant links. That's life, let's deal with it.

The reality is that there is NO change whatsoever in term of (A320neo+CS300) vs 737 MAX competition landscape. So I stand firmly on my opinion that the C Series deal with Airbus does not impact anything on 737 MAX, although I must say that I am absolutely happy and extremely delighted Airbus takes the decision.

I am not saying that 737 MAX suddenly has a boost in term of orders due to the fact Airbus might support CS300's sales, but I am not at all saying that A320neo (or CS300) sales can suddenly boom either.

The C Series will continue to sell as usual, today it has above 300 orders, the Airbus deal will certainly make some orders more firm than prior to the deal, but nothing significant will change. There will certainly be some orders in the coming weeks just to show how good the impact of the Airbus deal is. But that's just an epiphenomenon.

In the long term, the way Airbus does marketing and sales will help C Series to actually enter the market it targets, but there won't be any extraordinary boom. It is not necessarily about the aircraft it is mostly about the market or the way airlines address the air traffic volume.

Nothing has changed significantly from market perspective. I fully agree that the CS300 will not hamper A320neo sales any more by offering low acquisition and service cost, but that's all. I can see a huge benefit to the A320neo because sales campaigns will be easier since one contender is now under control, but it will not change anything on the 737 MAX side.

Now, just think about how Airbus will "package" a campaign for the A320neo, A321neo and CS300. Oh damn, CS300 is an adopted kid when the orphan has already entered puberty. In addition, the A320neo family has two engine manufacturers on board, the adopted kid has an engine manufacturer and it is not even exactly the same engine as its family of adoption. Think about this calmly, keesje. Think about the consequences during a sales campaign.

The whole discussion about Airbus taking a majority stake of the CSALP is overblown in my opinion.
The only significant aspect in the take over of the C Series program by Airbus is that The C Series program gains the much needed credibility. Airbus take-over transforms the C Series from a liability to a potential opportunity. It is true for Bombardier and for Airbus in some way.

If Airbus wanted the C Series dearly, it would have built a cooperation since its inception. I can tell you that it has not been the case.

VV,
If the deal goes true, Airbus will offer three options: (from ~H2 2018)
1) A321Neo, A320Neo and A319Neo with CFM LEAP-A
2) A321Neo, A320Neo and A319Neo with PW-1100G
3) A321Neo & A320 Neo with PW-1100G and CS300 & CS100 with PW-1500G

Boeing has only one option. 737-MAX10, 737-MAX9, 737-MAX8 and 737-MAX7 with CFM LEAP-B.
I think airlines like to have multiple options and figure out what is best for them.
(C919 and MC-21 are also going to compete in the same market.)
CASLP could develop a 4th option. CS500, CS300 and CS100 with PW1500G.
A fifth and sixth option could be developed by developing a CSeries with LEAP engines.

I think that Boeing's single aissle market share is going to drop ~5% further. Airbus 60% Boeing 35% others 5% (BBD largest)

ytz wrote:

The US, Danes, Norwegians and Swedes all fly single engine jets inside the Arctic Circle. Canada did the same before CF-18. And Canada cross-shopped the F-16 and F-18 and only purchased the latter because of its radar. Dunno where the twin engine myth comes from. You know who really has an engine reliability requirement? The US Navy. Operating from a carrier is far more dangerous than operating in the Arctic. So if it's good enough for the USN, should be fine for us.

I'll only take this seriously if you post a youtube video of you dealing with an engine failure not further than 1000 km from the North Pole. Couch coaches are legion. You can yap all you want about "if it's good for", but you are not the person who is flying a single engined aircraft with nowhere to land and knowing that even if you eject you will be too far away to effectively rescue.

ytz wrote:

Russian jets? Really?

Yes, Russian jets, really. What, it's not good for US Navy so it's not good for you?

ytz wrote:

Unfortunately for the government, none of the alternatives are cheaper than the F-35, with similar capabilities

If you mean the capability to extend the development budget indefinitely and then failing to be better than a 40 year old F-16, then yes, they are truly unique.

ytz wrote:

BREECH wrote:

What's with Embraer's sales? They sold 1,377 E-Jets alone, made 6 billion revenue last year with the net profit of 335 million. As revenue-profit ratio that's better than Boeing. MUCH better. And how much did they spend developing it? Could you elaborate on that?

As per what I've read, they are going to spend $1.7 billion on the E2 till 2022. And have only ~230 sales to date. The 175 has a scope problem. And from now on every 190 and 195 order will be competed for by Airbus. That's definitely not a good position to be in.

That's the position they've been in for the past 20 years and last I heard they're doing fine. 1.7 billion to develop an upgraded aircraft is perfectly normal. Russia spent 3 billion on Superjet (officially). Bombarider spent 5.4 billion on CSeries. 230 sales for an aircraft that's not even flying is great. Boeing launched 777-300ER with only 10 orders.

ytz wrote:

I have no doubts that the investigations and their fallouts could impact morale. That's a different issue.

Really? They'll stop making good airplanes because their company is under investigation? Toyota and VW are constantly under investigation for something or other, but they still make the best cars. Leehamnews are BSers.

It seems what Airbus said about the CSeries in the past is consistent with what they did last week.

They describe it as a nice little airplane but an Orphan. Now they adopted it.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/airbus-executive-calls-bombardiers-c-series-jet-an-orphan/article28133795/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

ytz wrote:

The US, Danes, Norwegians and Swedes all fly single engine jets inside the Arctic Circle.

Denmark doesn't fly single engine jets inside the Arctic circle. The only Danish AF aircraft in Greenland are the Challengers, C-130s and shipborne Lynx'. We never had single engine aircraft up there apart from a few helicopters.
It's hardly relevant to bring up Norway or Sweden either. Only the very northernmost parts of those two countries are located north of the arctic circle, and compared to Canada, Alaska or Greenland, those areas are tiny and densely populated. A rescue helicopter can reach pretty much anywhere in those regions in less than 30 minutes.

And the highlight of today goes to

http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/20 ... #more-2255

RalXWB wrote:

And the highlight of today goes to

http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/20 ... #more-2255

Let me just help anybody who is unfamiliar with this organisation; "StrategicAero Research"

"Founded by Chief Analyst, Saj Ahmad; Mr. Ahmad regularly features globally on aerospace/airline coverage, from the Middle East, US, Asia and Europe and is a frequent contributor to the likes of international press such as Khaleej Times, The National and other news/media organizations.

Mr . Ahmad regularly attends global air shows such as Farnborough International and the Dubai Air Show as a Royal Family VIP delegate under the patronage of His Highness Sheikh Muhammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum,......."

Summary; he honours certain airshows with his exalted presence, considers the Khaleej Times to be an international publication of note, and would prefer to be addressed as "Your Royal Loveliness"
Ok, maybe I'm being a little harsh. But after you read the article, you might be inclined to agree with me.