Airbus considering re-branding CSeries as A200

ac7e7 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:26 pm

"Among the names under consideration for a plane in which Bombardier invested more than $6 billion is “A200,” according to the people, who asked not to be identified as no decision has been made. The designations A210 and A230 would be applied to the CS100 and CS300 variants, respectively." - Bloomberg

CS100 -> A210
CS300 -> A230

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-25/bombardier-c-series-set-to-become-just-another-airbus-after-deal

LMFNINJA · Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:34 pm

That is absurd.

It will always be the CSeries at least in my mind.

PlanesNTrains · Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:35 pm

Booooo

C110/C130 made no sense
CS100/CS300 are perfect
Just like the MD-95 to 717-200 was unnatural, so to is this one.

But I get why for marketing purposes it might be desirable.

448205 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:42 pm

Makes no sense.

Joon, Level, A200... Aviation is on a tear of terrible names.

timf · Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:45 pm

Naming them A210 and A230 make no sense in the current Airbus numbering scheme. They are clearly part of the same family and not unique models. If they really want to use numbers in the A2xx series call them something like A200-100 and A200-300 or A219 and A220. Better yet, just use the next logical number A360-100 and A360-300.

F9Animal · Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:48 pm

I just dont see why they would do that. The costs of changing the name of the aircraft would be insane. I could see maybe doing a AC Series. I just prefer to see this airplane sell like hotcakes.

Slash787 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:56 pm

This is Madness. CS100 and CS300 are the perfect names for those aircrafts, I hope they make a CS500 rather this idiotic name change.

wjcandee · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:02 pm

Well, emotions aside, I see the point of calling it an Airbus.

However, if A thinks that this is some kind of panacea, renaming the MD95 as the 717 didn't do squat, and while it may have been intended to give the impression that Boeing was fully-behind the model, Boeing of course shut the thing down as soon as they could to protect the horrible 737-600.

flyingturtle · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:09 pm

What's the ruckus?

Not naming an aircraft something like "Brabazon", "Britannia", "Starliner" or "Backfire" is the real travesty.

Signed,
David

Sooner787 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:13 pm

The Airbus brand is gold to airlines customers, this is a good way to show potential CS customers
that Airbus is committed to the C Series long term.

So we'd have the A210 , A230 and possibly the A250 ?

MrBren · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:14 pm

Excellent move towards a common family.

flyingclrs727 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:15 pm

A360 makes the most sense. It's a decades younger design than the A300. It shouldn't have a lower number than the A300. Also, A360 and A370 are still available almost 2 decades after the launch of the A380 program and more than a decade after the first A380 went into airline service.

Bricktop · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:17 pm

If they are going to change the names, ACS100 and ACS300 would be far better, IMO.

YIMBY · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:18 pm

timf wrote:
Naming them A210 and A230 make no sense in the current Airbus numbering scheme. They are clearly part of the same family and not unique models. If they really want to use numbers in the A2xx series call them something like A200-100 and A200-300 or A219 and A220. Better yet, just use the next logical number A360-100 and A360-300.

The current numbering sense makes little sense so 210/230 is sufficiently coherent, as your proposals, too.

Polot · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:29 pm

F9Animal wrote:
I just dont see why they would do that. The costs of changing the name of the aircraft would be insane. I could see maybe doing a AC Series. I just prefer to see this airplane sell like hotcakes.

The costs of changing the name of the C series would not be insanse. The CS100/CS300 are technically marketing names and not even the aircraft’s official designiations (which are BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 respectively).

bzcat · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:33 pm

Really should be A200-800 and A200-900 to be consistent given how the new Airbus models are named. -800 is the standard or shrink model, and -900 is the longer version.

Alternatively, if they want the C300 to be consistent with narrow body A320 series, then the name should be A220 and A221.

Faro · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:37 pm

Maybe just testing the waters...to see what feedback such a change may give rise to...on the airlines’ side and generally, including here on A.net...

Faro

lightsaber · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:41 pm

If Airbus is to sell... Why not? As already noted, these are BD-500-A1x anyway.

So why not A100 and A130? I like those numbers better.

Lightsaber

ikolkyo · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:45 pm

How about the Airbus CSERIES family of aircraft... CS100 and CS300..

keesje · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:55 pm

I think Airbus was condering A316 & A317 when they were considering 5 abreast CSeries like aircraft themselves with AVIC.

william · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:01 pm

Why hold onto the CS prefix? This isn't BBD's product anymore but Airbus's. Intelligent move by Airbus to change the CS name to something more in line with the Airbus family.

LAXintl · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:07 pm

I think it's a great idea.

The numbers don't matter to me, but breaking the negative association with Bombardier and repositioning it as an Airbus product would be immensely beneficial for perception.

Waterbomber · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:08 pm

I think that Airbus would do well to highlight it as a baby version of an A320.
The A220 would be great for that.
That would then make it the A220-100, A220-300 and A220-500.
Or it could be A219, A220, A221.
One more option is to rename them as variants of the A320.
A312 A314 A316.

According to BBD it was going to be A vs B vs C.
Airbus cant have that so the C has to go.

mercure1 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:19 pm

Lets be honest Bombardier has a perception problem and lacks market confidence.

A rebrand as an Airbus product helps build market credibility and commitment in program.

Its can only be a good thing for products long term prospects.

Flighty · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:21 pm

Reluctantly I agree that in order to leverage the CSeries in Airbus sales pitches, it should be named Airbus. It’s high praise that BBD engineered a frame fully up to airbus standards. This is something to be proud of.

N415XJ · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:30 pm

I wonder if this could extend to other Bombardier products like the CRJs or Dash-8.

nine4nine · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:34 pm

I think it’s perfect. When you step onto a 7*7 branded plane you know it’s a Boeing. When you step onto an A*** you know it’s an Airbus. Makes perfect sense. While some people especially business travelers or the flying public who fly frequently may not be purist aviation enthusiasts, yet have a personal preference when booking what type of equipment they will be on. I think having an Airbus aircraft model designation continuity is big.

dazwalsh · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:37 pm

a220 and a221 would have sounded better if you ask me. A200 sounds like a mini A400

janders · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:39 pm

Rebadging as an Airbus product brings credibility to models.

Like it or not, Bombardier is a weak vendor in eyes of sector, so marketing planes as Airbus can help improve perception issues that goes along with BBD, while firmly establishing Airbus commitment.

Polot · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:54 pm

N415XJ wrote:
I wonder if this could extend to other Bombardier products like the CRJs or Dash-8.

Airbus just has (or rather will have) a stake in the C series, not BBD. They have no control over the CRJ and Dash-8 and will not be selling and marketing those planes (regulators would never approve that anyways due to Airbus’s stake in ATR).

aviationaware · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:57 pm

Strictly against it. Would be sad to see the Bombardier brand vanish from the industry.

Clipper136 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:58 pm

As noted above.... keep the same nomenclature

CS100 / CS300 / CS500
A219 / A220 / A221
or
A315 / A316 / A317

Frontier14 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:02 pm

Airbus will make this change to facilitate whatever strategy makes the most economic sense for them. Too bad that Bombardier was never able to get its ducks in order, this plane could have been a significant player in aviation for years to come.

Frontier 14

LAX772LR · Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:17 pm

Understandable, though the whole thing's rather odd.

What I don't understand is to whom is this marketing designed to appeal?

Airlines? ...what airline, ready to potentially invest billions, isn't going to be fully aware of the history of this frame?

Passengers? ...why bother, when you could tell 99% of them that it was an "Airbus 747" an they'd likely believe it.

Lessors? ...see "airlines" above.

So who?

N415XJ · Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:18 pm

Polot wrote:
N415XJ wrote:
I wonder if this could extend to other Bombardier products like the CRJs or Dash-8.

Airbus just has (or rather will have) a stake in the C series, not BBD. They have no control over the CRJ and Dash-8 and will not be selling and marketing those planes (regulators would never approve that anyways due to Airbus’s stake in ATR).

Ah, ok. I could have sworn they had a stake in the entire company and not just the CS program. Thanks.

anfromme · Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:26 pm

I just dont see why they would do that. The costs of changing the name of the aircraft would be insane.

How so?
It's just a label. You repaint the test fleet (which they would probably do regardless of any name change, to present the CSeries with at least hybrid BBD/Airbus colours), and do some paper work to add some appendices to the certification papers. Hardly unheard of, and hardly breaks the bank.
On the plus side, you can present the new plane as part of the Airbus family. That's what marketing is all about - telling a concise story. Part of that story would have to be that Airbus is fully committed to the plane. Also, the Airbus name brings credibility to a plane that is currently unknown to the travelling public and that suffers from a lack of reputation of the current manufacturer.
So changing the name makes a lot of sense, really.

Although in fairnes, I still have to get used to how A210 and A230 (if these turn out to be chosen) look.

If this (or a variantion thereod) turns out to be true, it's another hint that Airbus has – contrary to some naysayers’ beliefs – every intention of making the CSeries a successfull programme, rather than buying it to shut it down in order to get rid of unwanted competition.

anfromme · Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:34 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Understandable, though the whole thing's rather odd.
What I don't understand is to whom is this marketing designed to appeal?
Airlines? ...what airline, ready to potentially invest billions, isn't going to be fully aware of the history of this frame?
Passengers? ...why bother, when you could tell 99% of them that it was an "Airbus 747" an they'd likely believe it.
Lessors? ...see "airlines" above.

Indeed, all of the above.
Marketing is still important, no matter how big the deal.
With tha A-name comes a completely different image in terms of available support, for instance. It also instills confidence that Airbus are committed to the type and you're not going to buy an orphan plane.
Both huge factors in plane purchasing decisions.
From my own experience, it's a lot easier to argue for a well-known quantity than for a supplier who's showing promise but has problems with support, a somewhat mixed track record, etc. Consequently, it's a lot easier to get approval for purchases.
For passengers, they mightn't be able to tell an A330 and a 777 apart, but they have a general idea that Airbus and Boeing exist and are generally renowned and recognised manufacturers. When the safety card says "Bombardier", "Embraer" or "Sukhoi"... different story.

bigjku · Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:35 pm

N415XJ wrote:
Polot wrote:
N415XJ wrote:
I wonder if this could extend to other Bombardier products like the CRJs or Dash-8.

Airbus just has (or rather will have) a stake in the C series, not BBD. They have no control over the CRJ and Dash-8 and will not be selling and marketing those planes (regulators would never approve that anyways due to Airbus’s stake in ATR).

Ah, ok. I could have sworn they had a stake in the entire company and not just the CS program. Thanks.

They have warrants to buy BBD stock but it wouldn’t be controlling interest or anything close. Basically BBD paid Airbus to bail them out with the stock warrants. They have a price to Airbus of $2.29 in Canadian dollars and BBD is trading at $3.99 today. By my math it’s worth some percentage of $170 million to them today.

So Airbus can upon closing this deal execute its warrants, sell its stock in BBD and collect a pile of cash without doing anything. BBD is on the hook for the first $700 million USD of shortfalls over the first three years. Most of their stock price appreciation is due to the fact that the arrangements made effectively stop the bleeding that had BBD headed for insolvency so it’s fair Airbus gets the appreciation for that on the warrants. However if the deal closes as proposed it isn’t just that Airbus paid nothing for it. They were effectively paid several hundred million up to a billion dollars depending on how you choose to count it to take the program over.

It was in that poor of shape.

Samrnpage · Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:45 pm

If I were Airbus id rename it, but A210 and A230 doesnt roll off the tongue nicely. What's wrong with "Airbus Cseries 100/300"

LAX772LR · Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:55 pm

anfromme wrote:
For passengers, they mightn't be able to tell an A330 and a 777 apart, but they have a general idea that Airbus and Boeing exist and are generally renowned and recognised manufacturers. When the safety card says "Bombardier", "Embraer" or "Sukhoi"... different story.

Sure, but the question goes right back to: what RESULTS from that "different story?"
And the answer seems to be: nothing.

When's the last time we've heard of someone sitting down on an airline that they like, at the price they wanted, and a time that's convenient.... but then looked down on the card, saw Bombardier or Embraer, and then got up, disembarked, and demanded a refund?

I'm guessing somewhere around never.

LAX772LR · Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:00 pm

Samrnpage wrote:
but A210 and A230 doesnt roll off the tongue nicely. What's wrong with "Airbus Cseries 100/300"

Replacing 3 and 4 syllable names with an 8-syllable one, somehow "rolls off the tongue" better? :confused:

leghorn · Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:13 pm

1XX will be left for a regional turboprop.

49Paralell · Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:18 pm

Mmmm nope! It will destroy the branding that is already flying. Marketing at Bombardier has to get up to par in prospecting clients that can use the aircraft, to me, that's the issue. This would be like Boeing acquiring Embrear and call them the "600 series".

TheDBCooper · Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:26 pm

I wonder if they'd rename the ATR series to something like the A100? (A142/A172).

aviationjunky · Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:37 pm

Why don't they just do the Airbus C100? The AXXX numbering system is almost finished, so naturally you could move to another letter, skipping B for obvious Boeing marketing clashes. That would make more sense, seeing how most people in the aviation industry already know it that the C100, why not just drop the Bombardier name and replace it with Airbus? It would also allow Airbus to continue the CXXX numbering system until that was finished.

Jayafe · Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:01 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Strictly against it. Would be sad to see the Bombardier brand vanish from the industry.

You know that Bombardier makes business selling other families of aircrafts, apart from the CSeries, don't you?

49Paralell wrote:
Mmmm nope! It will destroy the branding that is already flying. Marketing at Bombardier has to get up to par in prospecting clients that can use the aircraft, to me, that's the issue.

Exactly how many are already flying? How successful you say that marketing effort has been so far? Yes, enough to sell the program for 1 quid. Time for real marketers to jump in and have things moving forward.

anfromme · Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:11 pm

49Paralell wrote:
Mmmm nope! It will destroy the branding that is already flying.

That's 29 planes. Not even 10% of those ordered so far.
Quite negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Slap a new sticker on them, change the safety cards, and you're done in terms of rebranding the flying fleet.

49Paralell wrote:
Marketing at Bombardier has to get up to par in prospecting clients that can use the aircraft, to me, that's the issue.

...and it seems just this isn't quite so easy.
Of course, if this was purely a BBD product henceforth I'd agree that renaming it wouldn't do much, if anything.

However, it's going to be an Airbus product in the future, and one of the chief reasons that BBD sold to Airbus was: Access to their marketing and sales department.
With the CSeries in the future being an Airbus product, sold alongside A320s, A330s, A350s and A380s, it makes perfect sense to rename it to show it's now part of a bigger family.

anfromme · Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:25 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
Why don't they just do the Airbus C100? The AXXX numbering system is almost finished

Uhm, how is AXXX almost finished?
A3XX is almost finished (A360, A370 and A390 are still left, though), and A4XX seems reserved for military use. But they still have another seven A*XX variations (A1XX, A2XX, A5XX etc) left before they'll have to reuse names, or change the starting letter, or just go to four digits, or come up with something else starting with A.

aviationjunky wrote:
why not just drop the Bombardier name and replace it with Airbus?

That's of course an option, and one should note that so far, the rename to A2XX (or A*XX) is only a rumour, likely based on an actual internal study at Airbus. They could still end up doing "Airbus CS100", like they did with the C-212, CN-235 and C295 when the CASA brand disappeared.
Given the much higher brand visibility of commercial aircraft, I somehow doubt it, though.

scbriml · Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:38 pm

There's nothing like an new airline paint scheme or the naming of an aircraft to cause a.net to get its collective panties in a wad.

c933103 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:08 pm

Using A2x0 for each sub model might not able to reflect the aircraft commonality in the single family

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net