raylee67 wrote:

There is one subtle thing Boeing won. By forcing the CSeries program into the hands of Airbus, Boeing (and Airbus) have now guarantee that there will not be a CS500, which will be a direct (and more formidable) competitor of both 737MAX and A320NEO. They now guarantee that they will own the more lucrative 150-seat market for the next 10 years. I don't think anyone thinks that the C919 and MS21 are real competitors in the short term.

With massive backlogs on the A320 line, would there be a room for a CS500? An aircraft with a brochure range of 2,500nm suited for shorter sectors, much like the MD-80 except it's efficient? AFAIK the 737 has the advantage on shorter stage lengths .

washingtonflyer wrote:

I'd be careful for those who think that all's done and well. If I had to bet money, i'd bet that the ITC found that the Canadian product wasn't causing injury because there were no imports of BBD product during the POI and that there was no causal link. Boeing could go to bat in 24 or 36 months and plead their case again - once we have entries.

Do you feel like no one is hearing you, washingtonflyer? It's twice now that you've mentioned this. Given your track record on this issue thus far, I'm inclined to give you some credit. I'm listening, and I feel like more people on this thread should also be listening to you. If you have time (and the inclination), I would be happy to hear more about how such an appeal process could proceed, and how that could affect BBD/Airbus/CSALP.

Boeing feared the CSeries so much that they tried their worst to kill it. By doing so they achieved two things: making sure that its path is cleared, and... giving it for free to Airbus. D'oh!

Huh. Someone in the US did something right. Well this is cause for celebration. Also since Jetblue, Spirit and Sun Country also supported this decision, I'm praying there will be more CSeries orders.

Aptivaboy wrote:

I hope this will spur Boeing to actually design and compete, and not litigate.

The bottom line is that Boeing is better than this. Now, they need to step back, reevaluate and do what Boeing has, in the past, done best: innovate and compete.

That's a less likely hope now. There's no worse disincentivizing action for innovation and competing than governments picking winners and losers. Your wish that Boeing would innovate or compete more because of this is a common, but completely irrational thought. Take the 100-150 seat market. How in the world should we expect any manufacturer to try to fight Bombardier now? Even if this size range was a more viable market for another entrant (it's clearly not), what private entity would dare go up against a failed program kept afloat by a government and actively selling below cost? It's beyond foolish. Boeing's not even going to think about it. Embraer is even further in trouble and needs a way out. And obviously Airbus isn't going to be competing either. The 100-150 seat market is marching further towards a monopoly. Sagas such as the Bombardier CS program are detrimental for innovation and competition and a negative for consumers in the long-run. There's just no doubt about it. If you're wondering why Boeing or Airbus isn't just "getting out there and competing" more, the CSeries is exhibit A.

MSPNWA wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

I hope this will spur Boeing to actually design and compete, and not litigate.

The bottom line is that Boeing is better than this. Now, they need to step back, reevaluate and do what Boeing has, in the past, done best: innovate and compete.

. Your wish that Boeing would innovate or compete more because of this is a common, but completely irrational thought. Take the 100-150 seat market.

You've brought up a very good point. If airlines are perfectly happy purchasing your product, there's no reason to re-invent the wheel. Money doesn't grow on trees and a new airline program could cost at least $5 bilion+. Boeing says that they expect the 737-MAX7 to achieve 50% market share in the 100-150 seat segment [1]. If that is the case, I don't see why Boeing needs to spend money on that market segment when the planes will sell themselves. If you're running a business, you don't spend more money than you have to.

[1] https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/24/boein ... tor-737-7/

LockheedBBD wrote:

Boeing says that they expect the 737-MAX7 to achieve 50% market share in the 100-150 seat segment

That sounds like BS. It looks like BS. It smells like BS.

However, I think this is Boeing laying the foundations for future appeals on the basis of actual harm done. "Look, we were going to sell 1,500-2,000 MAX7, but then along comes this pesky CSeries and now we've only sold 75!"

I have the feeling Boeing jumped the gun on this one. It was the wrong order and airplane they went to court for. They don't have a competing aircraft to the CS100. No "harm" done. They should have sat this one out. Once an US airline orders the CS300 in a competition where Boeing actually offered the 737-MAX7 we could see a different outcome.
That is also why Airbus goes ahead with the Mobile FAL to be able to build those CS300 in the US.
It could of course be too late now, I don't know.

burnsie28 wrote:

You do realize boeing does the same thing. They got $8.7 billion alone from the state of Washington. Secondly, Boeing complained when they didn't even offer the same product group. They claimed that it was hurting the much larger 737 MAX 7 when they didn't even offer that up, rather they offered used Embraer's. So wouldn't that have hurt the max the same way since they were not attempting to sell the 737 MAX 7 to DL?

Finally I'm pretty sure that the C Series has more US components than the 787 does. Either way, a large part of the C Series is made by US Companies.

Boeing didn't develop an aircraft in this seat class, and now they are in talks with Embraer, funny how that works.

There is nothing black and white involved in government aid/subsidies/grants/facilitations/etc...it is all shades of grey...A, B and Bombardier all fully benefited from public money in one form or another throughout their existence...congratulations to Bombardier!...


Faro

RalXWB wrote:

Fantastic news for Airbus and the C-Series or soon A315...

I am actually wondering about this. Will they at one point call it A314 and A315, as well as later launch the A316(CS500)?
Only if and when Airbus owns 100% of the program, or not?

YuriMG2 wrote:

Are you really serious about the fair competition or ur just anti-Boeing?

By general consent the 787 is the most subsidized airframe ever.
it was sold for a fraction of production cost.

By any means pointing at BBD for dumping points 4 fingers back at Boeing.
A fine end to an unsavory act of bigotry.

mat66 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

Fantastic news for Airbus and the C-Series or soon A315...

I am actually wondering about this. Will they at one point call it A314 and A315, as well as later launch the A316(CS500)?
Only if and when Airbus owns 100% of the program, or not?

going by history it will be AB314..17 ( Airbus BBD ) or more probable AC314..17 (Airbus-CSeries:-)
( ref: the aborted AE316, AE317 coop with Aviation Industries of China (AVIC),
Singapore Technologies Aerospace (STAe)and Alenia for some below A319 sized frames.
after that project faltered Airbus went forward with the Baby Bus A318.)

berari wrote:

Then again, we know that Bombardier struggled all along to sell a good product because it lacked the sales might/capabilities/network that Boeing and Airbus have.

You don't know what kind of other underhanded but out of sight "help" Boeing has lavished on the CSeries.

Boeing seems to invest massively into negative marketing.( see all the unsavory
news bytes trashing Airbus and other competition for pidling this or that.
With the high incidence of these there must be money available in that domain.)

I haven't read all this thread so sorry if this has already been covered.
It seems that a key point that the Embraer's new 150 seater product was found to within the scope of the enquirery.
As known there are strong rumours that Boeing are negotiating to take a large stake in the Brazilian company.
If so it would not be in Boeing's interest to continue down this legal line of inquiry.No?
In the end (if it happens) the 2 global majors extend their hold on the global aircraft industry by controlling the 100-150 regional segment as well.
BTW
Whilst much is made of Boeing's projection of 50%.In a mass market sense this segment is contracting faster than greased lightning.
Only a few years ago it was the second biggest NB segment-now it hardly exists.All the 'action' is in the 175-240 sector with possibilities up to 270.This 100-150 sector is frankly 'small beer' to either A or B.

Waterbomber wrote:

I think that I must beg to differ with some opinions above.
<good content snipped>

That is an interesting viewpoint.

It would in a way jibe with that recent quip from Mr. Robert Michael:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/01/24/boein ... tor-737-7/
A frame that does not sell shall capture half of a 7000+ frames market. haha.
So very much over the top that this could have been a "premeditated overstatement".

ADD:
On the other I've seen opinion that this overexpectation is done to later show
actual damage. ( don't think that will work, butt ...)

Without a deal, Embraer is on the way out.

With a deal Embraer will be turned into a gutted hollow shell in no time. No Gain.
US corporations don't do "mutually beneficial".

Embraer is a very valuable asset for Brazil as it is.

WIederling wrote:

mat66 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

Fantastic news for Airbus and the C-Series or soon A315...

I am actually wondering about this. Will they at one point call it A314 and A315, as well as later launch the A316(CS500)?
Only if and when Airbus owns 100% of the program, or not?

going by history it will be AB314..17 ( Airbus BBD ) or more probable AC314..17 (Airbus-CSeries:-)
( ref: the aborted AE316, AE317 coop with Aviation Industries of China (AVIC),
Singapore Technologies Aerospace (STAe)and Alenia for some below A319 sized frames.
after that project faltered Airbus went forward with the Baby Bus A318.)

I think Airbus should give the CS its own identity, such as A360 for the CS100, A363 for the CS300, and (hopefully) A365 for the CS500.

washingtonflyer wrote:

??? USA is a signatory to the SCM and regularly submits its reports and participation to the SCM Committee.

I'm referring to this?

The bilateral WTO Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (TLCA) of 1992 regulated the permitted levels of support for the European and American aviation industries. In October 2004, the US unilaterally withdrew from the TLCA, right as Boeing was about to lose its market leader status. Together with the termination of the TLCA, the US requested the initiation of WTO dispute settlement proceedings against the EU as well as against the governments of Germany, France, the UK and Spain regarding alleged direct and indirect subsidisation of Airbus.

https://archive.intereconomics.eu/year/ ... spotlight/

WIederling wrote:

mat66 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

Fantastic news for Airbus and the C-Series or soon A315...

I am actually wondering about this. Will they at one point call it A314 and A315, as well as later launch the A316(CS500)?
Only if and when Airbus owns 100% of the program, or not?

going by history it will be AB314..17 ( Airbus BBD ) or more probable AC314..17 (Airbus-CSeries:-)
( ref: the aborted AE316, AE317 coop with Aviation Industries of China (AVIC),
Singapore Technologies Aerospace (STAe)and Alenia for some below A319 sized frames.
after that project faltered Airbus went forward with the Baby Bus A318.)

What is even funnier is, that right at the time the AE316/17 project faltered in 1998, Bombardier launched (and later in 2000 shelved) the BRJ-X. A 5-abreast plane for 85-110 pax. Their first attempt at this market, which later became the C-series. So in alternative history mode Airbus could have looked to Bombardier to partner with ...silly, I know.

So this applies now to both CS100 and CS300?

Speedalive wrote:

Well that’s unexpected. Does Bombardier regret the sale of the CSeries to Airbus now given that there won’t be any tarifs or was it still the right move?

I think it was definitely the right move. BBD was struggling to manufacture it and airlines were not in a rush to buy a plane when its maker's ability to remain in business was anyone's guess. Airbus can provide the logistics and industrial resources that Bombardier lacks and it can give airlines the confidence they need.

washingtonflyer wrote:

I'd be careful for those who think that all's done and well. If I had to bet money, i'd bet that the ITC found that the Canadian product wasn't causing injury because there were no imports of BBD product during the POI and that there was no causal link. Boeing could go to bat in 24 or 36 months and plead their case again - once we have entries.

Hi there, WF. Congrats on all your analysis going way back. You called it right.

What intrigues me is what sort of case Boeing might have in 24 or 36 months time.

Let us assume that CSALP recognise they dodged a bullet this time, but with the backing of Airbus, a new FAL up & running, and CS100s entering service with DL to rave reviews, they are not going to sell any new C-Series at the same ridiculously low price (whatever that was...)
If the new frames are not being sold at an unreasonably low price, what possible dumping case is there?

Or are you suggesting Boeing will ask the WTO/USITC to re-visit the DL order as a one-off event?
And if that happens, it will have the unfortunate effect of looking like Boeing targeting DL as opposed to targeting BBD.

rigo wrote:

Speedalive wrote:

Well that’s unexpected. Does Bombardier regret the sale of the CSeries to Airbus now given that there won’t be any tarifs or was it still the right move?

I think it was definitely the right move. BBD was struggling to manufacture it and airlines were not in a rush to buy a plane when its maker's ability to remain in business was anyone's guess. Airbus can provide the logistics and industrial resources that Bombardier lacks and it can give airlines the confidence they need.

This is the worst possible outcome for boeing. They really shot themselves in the foot. Can't say I feel sorry for them.

LockheedBBD wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

I am. And I want Boeing to back the f away from Embraer. We know how Boeing works on those partnership: Take over then kill it.

But if this happens, I hope Embraer and Brazilian Government take every penny they can out of it.

But if it was up to me there would be no deal.

At the very least, Embraer should be proud that they know how to design great aircraft, and they deliver them on time and on budget. There's probably a reason why Boeing skipped over a chnace to buy the CSeries, and chose to deal with Embraer instead. Embraer has more to offer than just an aircraft.

What was Boeing going to do with the CS? The CS cockpit is nothing like the 787, and Boeing was not going to pump money into a struggling program to bring it in line with its standards. There is a reason, again, why Boeing passed on the deal Airbus took.

ADrum23 wrote:

Why exactly was Boeing pursuing this in the first place when they don't have a comparable product to compete with? I always thought the CS100 was more of a glorified large-end regional jet that was outside of the range of what Boeing built. Was this more of the fact that they were afraid the larger CSeries planes (CS300?) could go head to head with the 737's in the future?

I am a Boeing fan in general, but I disagree with them 100,000% on this. Boeing needs to stop this nonsense, do what they can to mend fences (which will be difficult), fire the people involved in this decision to pursue this case and improve their products so they can compete better. Admittingly, other than the 787 Dreamliner, all of their products have been subpar to Airbus over the last decade. The 737 MAX is ok, but not nearly as good as the A320neo series. They are steadily losing ground, particularly in the narrowbody market. Boeing needs to focus on developing the MOM and try to win back customers.

Especially after reading some posts, i would assume it was to tie DL's hands so that the Boeing Embraer relationship could be settled, then Boeing could sell DL - and perhaps other US airlines - E2s. That wouldn't be possible of DL is already flying C-series. In other words, while Boeing doesn't have a competing aircraft now and isn't really developing one, perhaps an Embraer subsidiary will in a few years so if they get the newly xenophobic US gummint to prevent DL (and by extension other US airlines) from buying C-series, they have a captive market.

I'm guessing Sept/Oct delivery for first CS100 to Delta. They already had a simulator and multidisciplinary training programs underway. Ops Specs submittals and various other necessary programs were well advanced. Delta should pounce....one could expect aggressive efforts will be re-launched Monday at 0800, they probably already have been relaunched.

Delta deliveries were going to be delayed anyway due to Bombardier completion issues and PW issues generally. Delta won't be phased by the PW problems because they think they can manage engine issues competently. The delay caused by this Boeing induced fiasco is somewhat analogous to the Apollo 1 fire (without the tragic loss of life obviously). This fiasco has given Bombardier, PW, and Delta more time to refine their programs and ensures a better final product and better service entry.

In about 18 months Delta will place a top off CS300 order and become the launch customer for the CS500. Possible ETOPS/Hawaii in the 2021 timeframe.

The 737 series and A320 series are moving "up" the product line in terms of capacity and range due to low fuel consumption of GTF and LEAP, leaving a nice gap for the CSeries that nothing else can match due to the unique 5 abreast fuselage width. E2 is not an economic competitor in this size class. Boeng is left with no product in this size class while Airbus can leverage the CSeries. I expect Airbus to let Bombardier continue to live, they are sensitive to politics between Europe and Quebec.

The 91 Delta 717s will be flown to end of their economic life, about 10-12 more years. It'll take 3-5 years to get the CS program up to 100 or so Delta deliveries anyway. Remember, Delta has a RR engine deal also and the airframe leases are VERY cheap.

Every since the Richard Anderson days, Delta has had its eyes on the 787-10. They may throw Boeing a bone to soften the impact of this crushing defeat.

The forms of subsidy vary by country and manufacturer. What isn't debatable is the product.....Boeing refuses to innovate, their product is both larger and older. They desperately need new leadership and more pliable unions. Boeing in its current form is floundering imo.

parapente wrote:

Whilst much is made of Boeing's projection of 50%.In a mass market sense this segment is contracting faster than greased lightning.
Only a few years ago it was the second biggest NB segment-now it hardly exists.All the 'action' is in the 175-240 sector with possibilities up to 270.This 100-150 sector is frankly 'small beer' to either A or B.

The question was raised, why did Boeing go after the CS100? Why didn't they wit until the CS300 had sold to airlines in the US? Because once the CS300 genie is out of the bottle in the US, its won't be going back in. The CS 300 is a bit early for the 73G/319 replacement market. The current market in the US is replacement of 757s, late 737 classics and early A320s.

Boeing has nothing suitable in the 100-150 seat market. In total Boeing sold ~1200 73G and Airbus ~1500 319s. 2700 aircraft, plus the 717s, E195s, 733s and the few BAe146s left make for a market of at least 3000 aircraft. Lets assume that some airlines will "grow out" of the ~150 size (like easyJet, for example) and say that 1500 aircraft will still need direct replacement. Boeing's plan was to sell 737-7 dirt cheap, which worked OK at UA, until the CS got Airbus behind it. UA still, arguably, have a place for the CS since they swapped the order for 739s.

I think Boeing has gifted Airbus a solution to the problem of how to keep making the larger narrowbodies more capable while keeping them light enough at the smaller end. Airbus now has an incredible proposition from 100 to 250 seats, two platforms it can sell together to cover a wide range of applications, from 200mile hops over the channel to transatlantic journeys. They might need to dust off the A330/340 sales campaigns.

MoM is going to have to be good, and Boeing might succeed by building the two families together 757/767 style. The failure of their case against the C-Series forces their hand.

MSPNWA wrote:

Take the 100-150 seat market. How in the world should we expect any manufacturer to try to fight Bombardier now?

The same way! For the money, that Boeing saved due to subsidies for the mid-life upgrade of the 777, they can fund one or two C-Series kind-of programs...

Waterbomber wrote:

The Canadians have given up their ego, but they've kept their jobs and further down the line, they can polish up their pride when the Cseries flies all around the world.
Will the Brazilians give up their ego's? I doubt it, based on what we've seen coming from the Embraer die-hards on airlines.net
Without a deal, Embraer is on the way out.

In few weeks you will have a big surprise !!!

Then you will figure out why the deal is in our hands and not in Boeing´s hands and that is Boeing in need for Embraer and not the opposite !!!

Take a look at my avatar: is a hint for you ...

rheinwaldner wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Take the 100-150 seat market. How in the world should we expect any manufacturer to try to fight Bombardier now?

The same way! For the money, that Boeing saved due to subsidies for the mid-life upgrade of the 777, they can fund one or two C-Series kind-of programs...

They could if they were well run....

It seems to me based on media accounts that basically Delta won because ITC said that the USA does not have a significant share of the market for 100-150 seat planes, so there is no harm. By the same logic, Delta would lose an ITC case against EK/EY/QR because Delta doesn't fly to UAE or Qatar.

enilria wrote:

It seems to me based on media accounts that basically Delta won because ITC said that the USA does not have a significant share of the market for 100-150 seat planes, so there is no harm. By the same logic, Delta would lose an ITC case against EK/EY/QR because Delta doesn't fly to UAE or Qatar.

Except that you are comparing different industries. Airline customers can plan their journies over many different airports/hubs between city pairs.

Exactly, rheinwaldner!

UA, AA, JB can ask for DL’s but they won’t get it from Airbus. It’ll be a more proven program with Airbus backing.

Doesn’t anyone remember the Airbus/EAL deal? They about gave the planes to EA to get into the market. It made Airbus in the US

As to, EMB/Boeing tie-up, the only craziness there will be the corrupt Brazilian government, so keep them out of it. I doubt Boeing would allow them veto powers.

GF

there's been talk of B6 did they order CS100's?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Exactly, rheinwaldner!

UA, AA, JB can ask for DL’s but they won’t get it from Airbus. It’ll be a more proven program with Airbus backing.

Doesn’t anyone remember the Airbus/EAL deal? They about gave the planes to EA to get into the market. It made Airbus in the US

As to, EMB/Boeing tie-up, the only craziness there will be the corrupt Brazilian government, so keep them out of it. I doubt Boeing would allow them veto powers.

GF

Brazilian government will keep the Goldenshare thats for sure, this is not even in the negotiation.

So Boeing doesnt try to do with Embraer what they have done with other ''partners''.

enilria wrote:

It seems to me based on media accounts that basically Delta won because ITC said that the USA does not have a significant share of the market for 100-150 seat planes, so there is no harm. By the same logic, Delta would lose an ITC case against EK/EY/QR because Delta doesn't fly to UAE or Qatar.

I’m not a lawyer but I think the DOC/ITC dumping issues only concern manufactured goods or raw materials not a service like airlines . Besides IIRC Delta wasn’t the only airline and the issue also involves passengers from 3rd countries coming to the US who now go via ME hubs and not the ‘traditional ‘ direct or European hubs where US carriers do still fly.

aerolimani wrote:

washingtonflyer wrote:

I'd be careful for those who think that all's done and well. If I had to bet money, i'd bet that the ITC found that the Canadian product wasn't causing injury because there were no imports of BBD product during the POI and that there was no causal link. Boeing could go to bat in 24 or 36 months and plead their case again - once we have entries.

Do you feel like no one is hearing you, washingtonflyer? It's twice now that you've mentioned this. Given your track record on this issue thus far, I'm inclined to give you some credit. I'm listening, and I feel like more people on this thread should also be listening to you. If you have time (and the inclination), I would be happy to hear more about how such an appeal process could proceed, and how that could affect BBD/Airbus/CSALP.

At least Airbus is listening as the CS will be coming out of the Alabama factory. When built in the US it no longer is an US product (or is this incorrect). The reason stated by washingtonflyer is probably the reason why Airbus/CS keeps going with the Alabama plant. This is probably the only positive for Boeing, it has forced BBD into a second plant.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Well, BBD can’t make money at the price offered DL, but that’s besides the point. BBD is “buying” into the market to prove the plane.

Exactly, it's basically the same thing as those fabled launch customer discounts, which are guaranteed to be loss-making in the short term but are meant to persuade customers to take the plunge for an unproved product. Similar discounts/incentives are also offered when an OEM tries to break into a key market.
To illustrate this point - Boeing originally priced the 787-8 almost the same as the 767-300ER at list prices. Now, the difference in list prices reflects reality a bit better with a ~15% uptick on the 787.

Wingtips56 wrote:

From a Devil's Advocate point of view, what would the reaction have been if Boeing hadn't taken a stab at this issue? Is it really wrong to try to protect your business, or should they have just sat back and done nothing? (I know, they don't have an equivalent in the market at present, but that's not the point.)

Actually, that's exactly the point. I would expect any company to fight back competition by developing/offering a superior product. Not by trying to bully and sue its way out of a position where they know full well that their own product isn't good enough, as evident by the complete lack of sales of the 737-7 going back way before the DL deal. Airbus of course also tried to belittle the CSeries as a cute little plane, and they tried to build pakage deals of A32X series planes that would include A319neos at very low cost in order to try and make up for the fact that the CSeries is a better plane, espcially considering the CS100 actually operates in a size category below the A319. Airbus tried the same with the A340 vs the 777. It didn't work in either case. At some point, though, they did concede defeat in both cases. And they went with what I and many here think is the proper approach - they went and developed a better product (the A350) in one case, and they went and sough cooperation in the other. They didn't resort to very transparent legal tactics to try and change the result of the game they had actually lost, plain and simple, in the field.
That said I fully expect Boeing to not even admit defeat now, i.e. we'll of course see an appeal.

Like the overwhelming majority here, I think this is an absolutely justified decision and actually a great day for aviation in the US which as a result gets some innovative impetus - and a better product for airlines and the flying public.
like many here, I'm pleasantly surprised that common sense prevailed again for a change.

This saga was by no means over and in a broader context is just about to heat up. NAFTA negotiations are entering round two and Canada has a outstanding WTO complaint regarding softwood lumber and aerospace products (specifically Bombardier). What comes out of this weeks NAFTA negotiations remains to be seen, as the most contentious issues are now on the table dealing directly the articles that govern the current dumping issues and dispute mechanisms. This decision is only the second salvo in a long protracted trade dispute, with many more to come.

MSPNWA wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

Sagas such as the Bombardier CS program are detrimental for innovation and competition and a negative for consumers in the long-run. There's just no doubt about it. If you're wondering why Boeing or Airbus isn't just "getting out there and competing" more, the CSeries is exhibit A.

It seems you missed a few episodes of the CSeries/Boeing saga, going by the conclusions you draw.
So here's a quick recap:
The CSeries is the innovator here, which Boeing, which only has a larger plane on offer that is a derivative of a 1960s design*, tried to basically bully out of existence.
Which means the opposite of what you say is true: Had Boeing succeded, it would have been a bad sign for innovation, because it would have meant the big guy always wins, no matter how more innovative the competition is.

And yes, I know, subsidies... Look at the 787, an innovative move from Boeing if there ever was one, and a non-starter without the various subsidies in the US, Japan and elsewhere.
Subsidies are the norm in the aviation industry, they take different shapes, but essentially, any new development or substantial revamp doesn't happen without some form of government aid. Somtimes, even the establishment of a new FAL (needed because the product is selling well, i.e. the company expects to make more money this way) is subsidised by tax breaks cheap loans, etc.


*That 737-700, had seen very few sales despite the only lacklustre sales of the CSeries, and even a deal where Boeing themselves allegedly sold at or below cost didn't eventually go through with UA ditching the order against larger 737 variants.

william wrote:

What was Boeing going to do with the CS? The CS cockpit is nothing like the 787, and Boeing was not going to pump money into a struggling program to bring it in line with its standards. There is a reason, again, why Boeing passed on the deal Airbus took.

You are conveniently ignoring that not a single credible analyst or airline exec is on record saying the CS is a bad airplane.
Most of the analysis of "why isn't the CS selling better" revolves around BBDs supply chain management issues and not-so-stellar support framework, as well as missing sales/marketing clout. All things that Boeing, like Airbus now, would have been able to address without breaking a sweat.

BrianDromey wrote:

The question was raised, why did Boeing go after the CS100? Why didn't they wit until the CS300 had sold to airlines in the US?

Well, for startersm while the CS300 is actually much closer to the 737-700 in terms of size, it doesn't sell for the same price as the CS100, i.e. the whole "look how cheap they are!" doesn't quite work the same way any more.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

This is about BBD acts, which in my opinion are unfair and ilegal, regardless of whatever Boeing has done, it dosnt make BDD right.

The ITC disagrees. And clearly it ISN'T "illegal". Boeing didn't even have a product to compete with to begin.

We'll have to wait for the opinion. The ITC may have very well found that the products competed but that the BBD product wasn't causing injury or threat of injury to Boeing.

I'd be careful for those who think that all's done and well. If I had to bet money, i'd bet that the ITC found that the Canadian product wasn't causing injury because there were no imports of BBD product during the POI and that there was no causal link. Boeing could go to bat in 24 or 36 months and plead their case again - once we have entries.

This is why the US assembly line will move forward. The bulk of the Delta order will be produced here and Airbus will have 2 years to drive down widget costs.

Boeing should have bought the plane to produce but likely wanted to shutter it and Quebec would never go for that.

anfromme wrote:

william wrote:

What was Boeing going to do with the CS? The CS cockpit is nothing like the 787, and Boeing was not going to pump money into a struggling program to bring it in line with its standards. There is a reason, again, why Boeing passed on the deal Airbus took.

You are conveniently ignoring that not a single credible analyst or airline exec is on record saying the CS is a bad airplane.
Most of the analysis of "why isn't the CS selling better" revolves around BBDs supply chain management issues and not-so-stellar support framework, as well as missing sales/marketing clout. All things that Boeing, like Airbus now, would have been able to address without breaking a sweat.

Who said it was a bad plane? The five across seating and 18 inch wide seats will make it comfortable to fly on and most efficient with GTF powerplants. The CS fits Airbus's array of products ( cockpit for instance) more so than Boeing's. For Boeing it would have been the 717 all over again. There is a reason Boeing, again for the umpteenth time passed on the deal Airbus accepted. Is Boeing happy Airbus got the CS, most assuredly not, but that would not change their decision to take the program.

And UA,and AA, not so much JB will wait out BBD for deal like Delta's. The ITC decision assured that.

If not UA or AA very likely their regional carriers will be placing C-Series orders.

YX (Republic) did place an order that was cancelled due to bankruptcy proceedings - but as far as I know they're no longer in bankruptcy protection and likely will take another look at C-Series.

william wrote:

anfromme wrote:

william wrote:

What was Boeing going to do with the CS? The CS cockpit is nothing like the 787, and Boeing was not going to pump money into a struggling program to bring it in line with its standards. There is a reason, again, why Boeing passed on the deal Airbus took.

You are conveniently ignoring that not a single credible analyst or airline exec is on record saying the CS is a bad airplane.
Most of the analysis of "why isn't the CS selling better" revolves around BBDs supply chain management issues and not-so-stellar support framework, as well as missing sales/marketing clout. All things that Boeing, like Airbus now, would have been able to address without breaking a sweat.

Who said it was a bad plane? The five across seating and 18 inch wide seats will make it comfortable to fly on and most efficient with GTF powerplants. The CS fits Airbus's array of products ( cockpit for instance) more so than Boeing's. For Boeing it would have been the 717 all over again. There is a reason Boeing, again for the umpteenth time passed on the deal Airbus accepted. Is Boeing happy Airbus got the CS, most assuredly not, but that would not change their decision to take the program.

And UA,and AA, not so much JB will wait out BBD for deal like Delta's. The ITC decision assured that.

There’s no assurance BBD or Canada or Airbus will fund a similar deal to any other airline. This could well piss off Delta’s domestic competitors.

bmacleod wrote:

If not UA or AA very likely their regional carriers will be placing C-Series orders.

YX (Republic) did place an order that was cancelled due to bankruptcy proceedings - but as far as I know they're no longer in bankruptcy protection and likely will take another look at C-Series.

The C Series weight is well above scope clauses. They will not be taking any C Series.

william wrote:

LockheedBBD wrote:

At the very least, Embraer should be proud that they know how to design great aircraft, and they deliver them on time and on budget. There's probably a reason why Boeing skipped over a chnace to buy the CSeries, and chose to deal with Embraer instead. Embraer has more to offer than just an aircraft.

What was Boeing going to do with the CS? The CS cockpit is nothing like the 787, and Boeing was not going to pump money into a struggling program to bring it in line with its standards. There is a reason, again, why Boeing passed on the deal Airbus took.

Where did I say that Boeing should have bought Embraer? Re-read my post, I said that Embraer makes more sense for Boeing. Boeing doesn't want just a single aircraft (CSeries). They want the employees, and the capability that the employees would provide. The Bombardier family would never give up their company for any reasonable amount. Employment is also cheaper in Brazil, the their engineers are very capable at getting the job done, and most importantly, getting the job done on-time.

Just a few of my musings:

1. DL is smart in their acquisitions, having done what is best for them at the right time (717 acquisitions, extending life of older aircraft). Their decision logic is based on what offers the best possibilities to keep passengers in the air. Given that BOE wasn't really competing with an aircraft like the CS, the obvious choice was for the newer airframe. This is an excellent choice; and it is only the passengers that will benefit.

2. As for the E90, there is truth to the name "MX wrecks". And no, we are not talking about early teething issues. The E series was a great aircraft, compared to what was available at the time - the CRJ's. There will continue to be a market for the redesigned E-jet family of aircraft. Maintenance costs, though, will continue to be a decisive factor (despite the promised 15-20% reduction in DMC)

There are some obviously misguided people here, stating opinions as fact. Perhaps some, being here for only as 2 weeks - their ignorance can be forgiven.