Bombardier announces extended range of 7,700 (from 7400 nm) nautical miles for Global 7000 aircraft. First delivery still planned during the second half of 2018.

https://www.bombardier.com/en/media/new ... ercom.html

Impressive performance, the 8000 is supposed to have even longer range


Will it be built though ?

Oh my... No need for the Global 8000 now.

Well done Bombardier and GE.
Now get delivering as demand for the Global 6000 is dropping and the poor resale market pretty much killed the 5000.

This puts Gulfstream and RR in a bind as the G650ER is no longer the clear top of the market. Gulfstream has the G500 coming out just a little late after end of production of the G450. The G550 is on its last legs, partially due to the Falcon 8X and partially the availability of used G650. So the G600 will be late.

What I'm getting at is it is time for product refresh. That has always been true of business jets. The 7000 is needed. Then something for Learjet.

But this is a 7000 thread. It will continue to do well. It just needs to be delivered!

Lightsaber

The Global 8000 is planned to be a shrink of the 7000 with 7900 nmi of range. However, with the ability to easily do a mission like JFK-HKG nonstop (or more likely, TEB-HKG nonstop), what need is there for a shrink? I would say that it's time to abandon the 8000, and I see this as a VIP aircraft of choice for governments without the budget or desire to purchase a mainline jet.

As for something for Learjet, would that cannibalize sales of the 7000? Why not just have two lines---one in Montreal (Mirabel) and one in Wichita?

No Learjet ever competed against the Globals—very different planes. No need for two production lines, we’re talking about, at most, 4-5 per month. Downsview is the Global line, with completions and delivery at Dorval. The shorter 8000 design could just as easily be the new 6000-better fuel burn. M.90 Cruise, FBW, larger galley, otherwise very similar size cabin.

TEB-HKG is unlikely, runway length at TEB and 7000nm great circle distance would be a stretch. It wasn’t possible for the original 8000 design. Problem area is crew rest for 17+15 flight time.

Replacement for CL 605/650 is next.

GF

Very impressive, I'm guessing the Passport is performing much better than expected or the aerodynamics were much better than predicted. Largest and most ranged business jet on the market, this aircraft is gonna be the gold standard in this space.

Bombardier needs to show Learjet some love, it's the most iconic brand in business aviation and they're neglecting it to die on the vine while Cessna and Embraer take over the market.

The market is killing the Lear, not BBD. Not to say they’re not investing in a product that isn’t getting “love” from the market. The light jet market sells on runway performance, look at Cessna’s appeal there, not the Lear icon. The thrust increase on the 75 actually worsened runway performance at light weights and/or wet runways.

GF

I do believe Learjet is done

It’s a tired old design that has been warmed up and over cooked

I don’t think Bombardier will throw any more money at it especially after the Mexican debacle

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No Learjet ever competed against the Globals—very different planes. No need for two production lines, we’re talking about, at most, 4-5 per month. Downsview is the Global line, with completions and delivery at Dorval. The shorter 8000 design could just as easily be the new 6000-better fuel burn. M.90 Cruise, FBW, larger galley, otherwise very similar size cabin.

TEB-HKG is unlikely, runway length at TEB and 7000nm great circle distance would be a stretch. It wasn’t possible for the original 8000 design. Problem area is crew rest for 17+15 flight time.

Replacement for CL 605/650 is next.

GF

Interesting points but I don’t think crew rest areas are a big concern for many corporate operators and there’s no regulations mandating them

Good news the Global 7000 is turning out to be beter than expected. Possibly developing the shortened 8000 isn't required anymore. Or it's range could increase as well to over 8200NM.
Didn't Bombardier try to improve the Learjet with the Learjet 85, that turned out disastrous. AFAIK the Challengers are competing much more with the Learjets than the Globals compete with the Learjets.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

Good news the Global 7000 is turning out to be beter than expected. Possibly developing the shortened 8000 isn't required anymore. Or it's range could increase as well to over 8200NM.
Didn't Bombardier try to improve the Learjet with the Learjet 85, that turned out disastrous. AFAIK the Challengers are competing much more with the Learjets than the Globals compete with the Learjets.

It is great news that the 7000 basically has to he range of the promised 8000.

Better to add a tail tank for a 7000ER than a hard to resell shrink.

The Learjet just hasn't had the investment Cessna and Embraer have fone. The L85 was poorly managed, but a neat concept. It would have done well. But now the Embraer and Cessna products are the future. Cest la vie. Bombardier either dies a cleansheet design or will leave the market.

But I didn't mean to derail the thread. It is that business jet design requires investment. Gulfstream will have trouble after Global 7000 production ramps up as this is an amazing design. What will Gulfstream do to counter? Improved engines are a must and prior history has a number if business jets switching vendors for small improvements.

Lightsaber

Max Q wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No Learjet ever competed against the Globals—very different planes. No need for two production lines, we’re talking about, at most, 4-5 per month. Downsview is the Global line, with completions and delivery at Dorval. The shorter 8000 design could just as easily be the new 6000-better fuel burn. M.90 Cruise, FBW, larger galley, otherwise very similar size cabin.

TEB-HKG is unlikely, runway length at TEB and 7000nm great circle distance would be a stretch. It wasn’t possible for the original 8000 design. Problem area is crew rest for 17+15 flight time.

Replacement for CL 605/650 is next.

GF

Interesting points but I don’t think crew rest areas are a big concern for many corporate operators and there’s no regulations mandating them

Crew rest, regardless of regulatory environment, is a concern for most operators. Outside the US, most authorities, including EASA, Indian CAA for two NAAs, require full crew rest and augmented crews. Operators have to have SMS and FRMS in place. It’s been an issue. Remember, the total duty day will approach 20 hours. With that said, there will likely be few 17 hour flights. The leg average for these planes is 2.5 hours.

The CL300/G280/Legacy 450/500 are kind of becoming the bottom of the market. Buyers want standup lavs, a galley so meals aren’t sandwich trays, stretch out room and flat floors. The light jets are going to fleets who do lots of short day trips to business where airline service is difficult or expensive.

The Lear 45, updated to 75 with G3000, is NOT the old Lear 25/35 design. It’s entireky new about 20 years ago. Runway performance has been its weak point.

GF

lightsaber wrote:

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

Good news the Global 7000 is turning out to be beter than expected. Possibly developing the shortened 8000 isn't required anymore. Or it's range could increase as well to over 8200NM.
Didn't Bombardier try to improve the Learjet with the Learjet 85, that turned out disastrous. AFAIK the Challengers are competing much more with the Learjets than the Globals compete with the Learjets.

It is great news that the 7000 basically has to he range of the promised 8000.

Better to add a tail tank for a 7000ER than a hard to resell shrink.

The Learjet just hasn't had the investment Cessna and Embraer have fone. The L85 was poorly managed, but a neat concept. It would have done well. But now the Embraer and Cessna products are the future. Cest la vie. Bombardier either dies a cleansheet design or will leave the market.

But I didn't mean to derail the thread. It is that business jet design requires investment. Gulfstream will have trouble after Global 7000 production ramps up as this is an amazing design. What will Gulfstream do to counter? Improved engines are a must and prior history has a number if business jets switching vendors for small improvements.

Lightsaber

Maybe a fuel limited shrink with 6500 or 7000 nm range to replace the Global 6000 would be a good idea.

For Gulfstream, I see them stretch the G650ER with new gen engines like PW800 or BR700NG.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The Global 8000 is planned to be a shrink of the 7000 with 7900 nmi of range. However, with the ability to easily do a mission like JFK-HKG nonstop (or more likely, TEB-HKG nonstop), what need is there for a shrink? I would say that it's time to abandon the 8000, and I see this as a VIP aircraft of choice for governments without the budget or desire to purchase a mainline jet.

I can see this as a government plane, but for me, if I'm flying NYC-HKG, give me the room, comfort and safety of F in a CX 773!

The Global 7000 demo interior with the rear stateroom on youtube is amazing! What a dream machine.

Hinckley,

The people that own these planes look at F in a B777 as if it were economy class, last row. I’ve seen their eyes when told, “the plane has a snag and won’t be available for your trip”. It’s like the scene at Sun Country in Mexico—denial (this can’t be happening), anger (it’s the damned crew’s fault, they didn’t anticipate this”), negotiating (can we get a charter, I can wait til tomorrow morning”), acceptance of the inevitable (alright, but this better not happen again”). Once, “f**k, I’ll cancel the trip for now.”

GF

How does the Global compare with the G-650? Anyone have a feel for which is the preferred platform going forward? The G650 is much more attractive, and probably has a better support network, and is produced by a company with a reputation for management success. But the Global 7000 stats look better. Be real interesting to see who wins the sales race.

Cabin Length: 53 (Global) 47 (G650)
Cabin Width 7.92 (Global) 8.10 (G650)
Range: 7,600 (Global) 7000 (G650)
Runway: 5900 (Global) 6200 (G650)

http://www.dnaviation.com/side-by-side- ... 00-vs-bbj/
https://www.magellanjets.com/blog/gulfs ... hoose.html

kitplane01 wrote:

How does the Global compare with the G-650? Anyone have a feel for which is the preferred platform going forward? Be real interesting to see who wins the sales race.

While I cannot comment on G-650 sales, Bombardier claims to have a backlog until 2021 for the Global 7000. That article was from last October, who knows what it is now. What that means is anyone's guess. They could assemble 1 jet a year and claim to have a backlog until 2050.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bomb ... SKBN1CD0ZU

“We have a healthy order book for the Global 7000 and can confirm that the aircraft is sold out until 2021,” said Bombardier Business Aircraft President David Coleal by email.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Hinckley,

The people that own these planes look at F in a B777 as if it were economy class, last row. I’ve seen their eyes when told, “the plane has a snag and won’t be available for your trip”. It’s like the scene at Sun Country in Mexico—denial (this can’t be happening), anger (it’s the damned crew’s fault, they didn’t anticipate this”), negotiating (can we get a charter, I can wait til tomorrow morning”), acceptance of the inevitable (alright, but this better not happen again”). Once, “f**k, I’ll cancel the trip for now.”

GF

Not only are you correct, but for most individuals who outright own jets like these, it's not entirely about comfort - it's about time and convenience. It's about being able to fly from BCT which is 10 minutes from their beachfront $20 million mansion, instead having to take the Rolls Royce through traffic to FLL, PBI or MIA, etc. I literally met a businessman who bought a jet (not a Global, though) once direct scheduled service between his home base and Miami was terminated, because, to him, the time savings of not having to backtrack to the region's international hub was worth the multi-million investment.

With this said, however, I probably would also stick to F. But I live a life that's vastly different from that of Bombardier's target audience.

About the Global 7000 though, I've always wondered with ULR bizjets like these, isn't size an issue? Meaning crew rest areas, and such. I've never been inside such a large bizjet, so I'm really confused by the logistics of it all.

hinckley wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The Global 8000 is planned to be a shrink of the 7000 with 7900 nmi of range. However, with the ability to easily do a mission like JFK-HKG nonstop (or more likely, TEB-HKG nonstop), what need is there for a shrink? I would say that it's time to abandon the 8000, and I see this as a VIP aircraft of choice for governments without the budget or desire to purchase a mainline jet.

I can see this as a government plane, but for me, if I'm flying NYC-HKG, give me the room, comfort and safety of F in a CX 773!

Still just two engines..

Crew rest room is an issue. Heck, on G6000, storing the catering can be a challenge, if the F/A goes overboard. It’s a rare leg beyond about 12 hours, range is, for many, bragging rights. When a Global is used to commute NYC to PBI or LAX, you realize it’s about privacy, convenience and “I can afford it, so I have one”. Or two, one for the spouse.

GF

reffado wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Hinckley, The people that own these planes look at F in a B777 as if it were economy class, last row. I’ve seen their eyes when told, “the plane has a snag and won’t be available for your trip”. It’s like the scene at Sun Country in Mexico—denial (this can’t be happening), anger (it’s the damned crew’s fault, they didn’t anticipate this”), negotiating (can we get a charter, I can wait til tomorrow morning”), acceptance of the inevitable (alright, but this better not happen again”). Once, “f**k, I’ll cancel the trip for now.”

Not only are you correct, but for most individuals who outright own jets like these, it's not entirely about comfort - it's about time and convenience. It's about being able to fly from BCT which is 10 minutes from their beachfront $20 million mansion, instead having to take the Rolls Royce through traffic to FLL, PBI or MIA, etc. I literally met a businessman who bought a jet (not a Global, though) once direct scheduled service between his home base and Miami was terminated, because, to him, the time savings of not having to backtrack to the region's international hub was worth the multi-million investment.

With this said, however, I probably would also stick to F. But I live a life that's vastly different from that of Bombardier's target audience.

About the Global 7000 though, I've always wondered with ULR bizjets like these, isn't size an issue? Meaning crew rest areas, and such. I've never been inside such a large bizjet, so I'm really confused by the logistics of it all.

I've flown private several times, mostly for business purposes, and absolutely get (and love) what private flying has to offer. No question, I'd fly private any day of the week from NYC to PBI, or to anywhere on the west coast for that matter. My point specifically related to long-haul and ULH flying. In those cases, I'd happily trade the convenience of departing on my schedule for the need to schlep with the masses at JFK and the security of multiple flight crews and real walk-around room. Private planes get claustrophobic on transcon flight, I can't imagine what it'd be like on a 16 hour flight.

cruising at Mach 0.925.. yowzers

What types have you flown? The G7000 has a fixed bed stateroom, a media area with dican, plus a seating for 8 foreword. And a bunk arrangement for crews. I’d agree the crew rest is marginally adequate, but I flown dozens of 11+ legs and pax and crew were happy throughout. No security bs; passport control is done onboard; no delays, your schedule. It’s a choice.

GF

Hinckley.

Also, I suspect you’re a regular person with average tastes. To be Uber-rich, you’ll need to up your level of control freakdom a lot, a whole lot. You can’t go to the CX maintenance asking why the leading edges aren’t polished today. You can’t inform CX Catering in HKG that your chef will be onboard to prepare your meals and has the wine selections. You can’t tell the CX captain that you’ll be stopping at Tokyo to drop off your wife for some shopping. Then, on arrival at HKG, tell the crew to run up to Tokyo tomorrow and pick her up.

GF

kitplane01 wrote:

How does the Global compare with the G-650? Anyone have a feel for which is the preferred platform going forward? The G650 is much more attractive, and probably has a better support network, and is produced by a company with a reputation for management success. But the Global 7000 stats look better. Be real interesting to see who wins the sales race.

Cabin Length: 53 (Global) 47 (G650)
Cabin Width 7.92 (Global) 8.10 (G650)
Range: 7,600 (Global) 7000 (G650)
Runway: 5900 (Global) 6200 (G650)

http://www.dnaviation.com/side-by-side- ... 00-vs-bbj/
https://www.magellanjets.com/blog/gulfs ... hoose.html

As you indicate, the two are closely matched. They are both pinnacle VVIP bizjets. Also consider the Falcon 8X. Nobody needs these. Is it really about capability? As noted above these don't necessarily often fly to the limits (especially with individual owners). A charter operator might allocate them more fully to long range flying. This is mostly about having the best there is.

You can get a darn nice Gulfstream IV that will do almost the same job as these for 4 million. The crews will cost the same. AFAIK most sales will be not to individuals, but to charter operators. Anyone know that split for the big bizjets?

G7000 Sales, I believe, were heavily weighted toward “high net worth individuals”—private equity, entrepreneurs, oligarchs. Charter operators, in the US anyway, are pressed to pay for a $70 million plane and make a profit. They’re buying pre-owned which are fairly cheap.

GF