Possible CSeries routes?

[Splash]

Are there any plans to transfer A320's to Rouge?

[rudder]

One would have to assume that AC is getting extremely attractive terms on the 319 lease extensions. Not much of a market out there for first generation 318/319 aircraft. I am guessing that the initiative to park the 319’s will pick up steam commencing with the CS300 deliveries 2020 and beyond.

I see Rouge morphing to a larger gauge NB fleet comprised mostly of 321’s. Not sure what the RRA aircraft will be. Perhaps that is a role for the surplus 319’s at discounted lease rates.

Will be interesting to see what the medium term fleet replacement will be for Rouge WB. Lots of older 330’s will be available after 2021 as operators switch to 350 and 330NEO. If the Rouge fleet mix became 321/330, once again it would seem that CCQ and a single rate (WB) would make sense. Seems that Transat may be headed in that direction.

[altiplano]

One would have to assume that AC is getting extremely attractive terms on the 319 lease extensions. Not much of a market out there for first generation 318/319 aircraft. I am guessing that the initiative to park the 319’s will pick up steam commencing with the CS300 deliveries 2020 and beyond.

I see Rouge morphing to a larger gauge NB fleet comprised mostly of 321’s. Not sure what the RRA aircraft will be. Perhaps that is a role for the surplus 319’s at discounted lease rates.

Will be interesting to see what the medium term fleet replacement will be for Rouge WB. Lots of older 330’s will be available after 2021 as operators switch to 350 and 330NEO. If the Rouge fleet mix became 321/330, once again it would seem that CCQ and a single rate (WB) would make sense. Seems that Transat may be headed in that direction.

Keeping the 319s was already a given. The 319s are all relatively newer. Average age is far lower than most of the 320s.

Keeping them boosts the benchmark allowing for LCC expansion, in ACPA's wisdom the 190's didn't count for fleet benchmarks.

More ASMs than the 190s accomplishes a lot, serves the pax growth that happening, allows for more CPA flying and makes better economics.

I agree that we will see the existing LCC 319s go to RRA and be replaced on the existing routes with 321s. We will be seeing more 330s too and soon.

[Fanblade]

Will be interesting to see what the medium term fleet replacement will be for Rouge WB. Lots of older 330’s will be available after 2021 as operators switch to 350 and 330NEO. If the Rouge fleet mix became 321/330, once again it would seem that CCQ and a single rate (WB) would make sense. Seems that Transat may be headed in that direction.

Definitely has merit. Still leaves 3 narrow body types at mainline though.........actually........ brain grinding.... I guess they could move the mainline 321 to Rouge and acquire a few MAX 10’s at mainline.

Interesting.

2 narrow body fleet types at mainline and one at Rouge.

321 a little large for regional repatriation though don’t you think? On the other hand maybe they don’t need regional repatriation at Rouge with the CS300’s economics.

[Fanblade]

One would have to assume that AC is getting extremely attractive terms on the 319 lease extensions. Not much of a market out there for first generation 318/319 aircraft. I am guessing that the initiative to park the 319’s will pick up steam commencing with the CS300 deliveries 2020 and beyond.

I see Rouge morphing to a larger gauge NB fleet comprised mostly of 321’s. Not sure what the RRA aircraft will be. Perhaps that is a role for the surplus 319’s at discounted lease rates.

Will be interesting to see what the medium term fleet replacement will be for Rouge WB. Lots of older 330’s will be available after 2021 as operators switch to 350 and 330NEO. If the Rouge fleet mix became 321/330, once again it would seem that CCQ and a single rate (WB) would make sense. Seems that Transat may be headed in that direction.

Keeping the 319s was already a given. The 319s are all relatively newer. Average age is far lower than most of the 320s.

Keeping them boosts the benchmark allowing for LCC expansion, in ACPA's wisdom the 190's didn't count for fleet benchmarks.

More ASMs than the 190s accomplishes a lot, serves the pax growth that happening, allows for more CPA flying and makes better economics.

I agree that we will see the existing LCC 319s go to RRA and be replaced on the existing routes with 321s. We will be seeing more 330s too and soon.

Neither the 319 or 190 have good enough economics to see any longevity. The319/190 juggling we are watching is primarily stop gap. All it means is the 319 is a bit better economically.

[aV1aTOr]

FWIW, I queried ED regarding the CS300 ending up at rouge as a 319 replacement, his response was there were currently no plans for the CS at rouge. Of course, plans change month to month. 4 months ago 319s were going back to lessor in Q1. That's all changed.
Regarding the CS300 not fitting in the mainline fleet plan, I fail to see how we can NOT have it in the fleet plan. As stated, the E190/319 are on borrowed time. As soon as they depart the fleet (E190s clock is ticking, 319 are on lease), the seat count gap in the mainline/express fleet is from 76 (I'm referring to jets only) to 146. That's a whopping 70 seats. The CS slots in perfectly in this gap, with the best CASM/range/technology in existence in this category to boot.
Many will say this airplane was ordered to make a lawsuit go away. This is so nonsensical. Of course the entire deal was giftwrapped, but in the end AC needs this airplane. BS saying there is no business case for the CS right before ordering it is classic airline/manufacturer negotiating tactics 101. Remember the "leaked" Air Canada 320NEO order announcement the day before the MAX order was inked?

[TheStig]

There is something to be said for the value of older 'cheap' aircraft, just look at the number of MD-82/B717's flying with Delta and American. The side benefit to having some older aircraft in the fleet is flexibility, insofar as when there is a downturn in the economy they can be parked. The 767-200's left the fleet in 2008 for that reason. Having too many large financial commitments seems to be a big concern for the BOD as well as investors.

Today Air Canada has commitments for 61 MAX's and 45 C Series, it currently has 135-140 narrow body jets in the fleet by the end of 2018, and 10 of its A321's are relatively new. As much as I'd like to see AC continue to grow, there was a recession in the late 70's, 80's, 90's and 10 years ago...when the next one hits the 190's, 767-300's (which are essentially flying as big A321's) and/or A320's can inexpensively leave the fleet as the ability to profitably fly them disappears with the TSX.

Fleet flexibility is key, airlines make major economic projections months and years ahead and the picture gets more focused week to week. In early 2009 I remember someone in marketing telling me that advanced bookings for the upcoming summer had fallen off a cliff, while the airplanes were currently flying at respectable load factors they had no idea what was going to happen over the next few months! When you're talking about billions in cash flow that's a pretty scary position to be in. Since then when you look at the changes to scope language, crew manning bids every two months, aircraft orders/options and leases structured you can see that the focus has been on planning for the long term but also not getting caught with your pants down.

[rudder]

FWIW, I queried ED regarding the CS300 ending up at rouge as a 319 replacement, his response was there were currently no plans for the CS at rouge. Of course, plans change month to month. 4 months ago 319s were going back to lessor in Q1. That's all changed.
Regarding the CS300 not fitting in the mainline fleet plan, I fail to see how we can NOT have it in the fleet plan. As stated, the E190/319 are on borrowed time. As soon as they depart the fleet (E190s clock is ticking, 319 are on lease), the seat count gap in the mainline/express fleet is from 76 (I'm referring to jets only) to 146. That's a whopping 70 seats. The CS slots in perfectly in this gap, with the best CASM/range/technology in existence in this category to boot.
Many will say this airplane was ordered to make a lawsuit go away. This is so nonsensical. Of course the entire deal was giftwrapped, but in the end AC needs this airplane. BS saying there is no business case for the CS right before ordering it is classic airline/manufacturer negotiating tactics 101. Remember the "leaked" Air Canada 320NEO order announcement the day before the MAX order was inked?

It will be interesting to see where AC goes with the Express fleet.

Current initiative seems focused on increasing J class inventory on all of the 76 seat Express jets. Many Express aircraft now configured for 12 J class seats. AC is operating well below the permitted fleet ratio for Express 76 seat jets but there does not seem to be any suggestion that the fleet will be expanding beyond the current 46 76 seat Express jet aircraft.

There are still 24 50 seat CRJ’s in service at Express. I am certain that the lease rates are attractive but it is also a dated aircraft that has high fuel consumption for seating.

I expect that there is a plan on a desk at YUL HQ that describes where AC Express and RRA are headed. All will be known eventually.

[Splash]

It will be interesting to see where AC goes with the Express fleet.

Current initiative seems focused on increasing J class inventory on all of the 76 seat Express jets. Many Express aircraft now configured for 12 J class seats. AC is operating well below the permitted fleet ratio for Express 76 seat jets but there does not seem to be any suggestion that the fleet will be expanding beyond the current 46 76 seat Express jet aircraft.

There are still 24 50 seat CRJ’s in service at Express. I am certain that the lease rates are attractive but it is also a dated aircraft that has high fuel consumption for seating.

I expect that there is a plan on a desk at YUL HQ that describes where AC Express and RRA are headed. All will be known eventually.

If the 50 seat CRJ's eventually get withdrawn from service, would it be reasonable to assume that they would be replaced with 76 seat jets?

[rudder]

If the 50 seat CRJ's eventually get withdrawn from service, would it be reasonable to assume that they would be replaced with 76 seat jets?

Most of the 50 seat CRJ Express flying is on low frequency trans border city pairs. Primary purpose is to feed hubs (YYZ/YUL) for overseas flying therefore focusing on network revenue rather than segment revenue (ergo the lack of J class inventory).

The high fuel consumption on the 50 seat CRJ is offset by lower than traditional fuel prices and depressed lease rates in that particular aircraft category.

My guess is that these aircraft continue for the foreseeable future in their current role. Fuel prices will ultimately determine the longevity of the 50 seat jet.

[aV1aTOr]

There is something to be said for the value of older 'cheap' aircraft, just look at the number of MD-82/B717's flying with Delta and American. The side benefit to having some older aircraft in the fleet is flexibility, insofar as when there is a downturn in the economy they can be parked. The 767-200's left the fleet in 2008 for that reason. Having too many large financial commitments seems to be a big concern for the BOD as well as investors.

Today Air Canada has commitments for 61 MAX's and 45 C Series, it currently has 135-140 narrow body jets in the fleet by the end of 2018, and 10 of its A321's are relatively new. As much as I'd like to see AC continue to grow, there was a recession in the late 70's, 80's, 90's and 10 years ago...when the next one hits the 190's, 767-300's (which are essentially flying as big A321's) and/or A320's can inexpensively leave the fleet as the ability to profitably fly them disappears with the TSX.

Fleet flexibility is key, airlines make major economic projections months and years ahead and the picture gets more focused week to week. In early 2009 I remember someone in marketing telling me that advanced bookings for the upcoming summer had fallen off a cliff, while the airplanes were currently flying at respectable load factors they had no idea what was going to happen over the next few months! When you're talking about billions in cash flow that's a pretty scary position to be in. Since then when you look at the changes to scope language, crew manning bids every two months, aircraft orders/options and leases structured you can see that the focus has been on planning for the long term but also not getting caught with your pants down.

Agree on all points. And I believe these reasons underscore the CS300's importance in an economic downturn. Once E190s and older Airbus' are returned/parked, the seat gap stretches even further, from 76 to 169. This implies all current routes flown by E190s and 319/320s are now reduced to an RJ705/E175, or upguaged to a 78M.
Some have stated that AC flying around 3 narrowbody types (once the E190s leave) makes no sense, I see it as a strength for AC to deploy the right aircraft for the right missions. 321s for trunk domestic/transborder routes, 78Ms as the backbone of domestic/TB feed from secondary cities to hubs, CS300s for longer/thinner routes that justify mainline product (and there are many) but don't support 169+ seats.
As for training costs with multiple fleet types, AC has this locked down with the course right system.

[Gino Under]

FWIW, Delta are on record as saying they can’t get rid of their MD88 ‘MadDogs” and 717s fast enough. The MAX looks good compared to previous versions of the 37 but I’m not so sure in today’s reality it’s the leaps and bounds better than what’s available by comparison. Perhaps pricing and other fleet purchase considerations (777 and 787) must have played their part in deciding to go with the MAX.
In any event, AC were in talks with Bombardier well before the law suit conversation was even introduced.

Gino

[teacher]

The big hold up with AC on the CSeries were the 20 E190s that AC wanted gone. BBD said "NO WAY" to taking them as they are worth NOTHING and of little demand either leased or in the used market. Easy proof of that is the fact that the 20 that Boeing eventually took are still sitting in the desert.

Edited:

I found online that some have been parted out, leased to a few other carriers and some still in storage.

[Gino Under]

Dominique Anglade, Quebec's Minister for Economy, Science and Innovation defended the agreement between Bombardier and Airbus in this week's edition of Aviation Week. Many taxpayers (who, let's face it, don't understand economics) will simply poo poo her response as 'rhetoric'. Each of us gets to decide for ourselves as to the merits of her answers.

How is it in the interest of the Quebec taxpayers to hand over a controlling interest in the C Series to Airbus for no money?
Creating and keeping those jobs will certainly have a huge impact for us. The alternative is NO C SERIES. So what is the cost of no C Series for the government of Quebec? It's significant, because it has a ripple effect on the 40,000 people that are working in that field here. Not doing the investment would have been a lot costlier. That's how we approached it.
When we entered the program, we said that we needed a third partner, and we knew our 50% [stake] would probably go down to 33%. If you look at all the alternatives that were on the table, Airbus was the one that would keep the jobs here in Quebec and create momentum in terms of the [regional aerospace] ecosystem.
Airbus brings to the table the ability to sell more C Series. That's exactly what we want to accomplish. If we keep 40,000 jobs here in Quebec, if we create more momentum for small and medium-sized (SME) companies, that 's where the interest of the tax payers lies. We've been talking for a long time about having other major players in Montreal. We're going to see SME companies here in Montreal get the opportunity to deal with Airbus as suppliers. It's a fifth location for Airbus.

How close was the C Series program to being sold to the Chinese?
The one option we considered - the only one that was viable for us - was the one that was on the table [with Airbus].

[Gino Under]

For those who may have missed it in Flight International ..

Quote: Though Air Canada has described its incoming Bombardier CS300s as replacements for Embraer 190s, a top Air Canada executive has suggested the fleet plan could evolve.

Air Canada president of passenger airlines Benjamin Smith says the new Bombardier aircraft could prove as transformative as Boeing 787s, allowing Air Canada to make broader network changes.

During an interview with FlightGlobal at Toronto Pearson International airport on 9 February, Smith makes clear that Air Canada's plan calls for the CS300 to replace the E190.

"But that's assuming our network is static," he adds.

"This airplane is so good [that] we think it's going to want to go on every route in North America," Smith says of the CS300.

"The economics – it's got CASM rates that are equivalent to much larger airplanes. So it may enable us, or give us the opportunity, to rethink our bank structures, how our network is designed," he adds.

Air Canada has orders for 45 CS300s, with deliveries scheduled for between 2019 and 2022, according to Flight Fleets Analyzer. The 25 E190s scheduled for replacement are only about 10 years old, Fleets Analyzer shows.

"It's kind of like the 787," Smith says of the CSeries.

Air Canada initially ordered 787s as replacements for ageing Boeing 767s and Airbus A330s.

But the 787s proved so efficient on long-haul routes that Air Canada instead used them to launch a major international expansion, Smith says.

Air Canada ended up keeping the A330s in its mainline fleet, and transitioned the 767s to its newly-created low-cost subsidiary Rouge, Smith notes.

Thanks to the 787, Air Canada "rejiggered our entire network," Smith says. "If we can hit a similar home run with the CSeries, that would be amazing."

CSeries would be "perfect" for a route such as Vancouver to Boston, which "stretches the legs of the Airbus narrowbody", Smith says.

Or, Air Canada could potentially deploy CS300s from extreme-eastern Canadian cities to destinations in Europe, or from Vancouver to Hawaii, Smith says.

Smith says Air Canada remains confident Bombardier will meet its delivery schedule, downplaying the possibility that recent delivery delays could stretch into the coming years.

"We don't have a concern about the delivery schedule on the CSeries," Smith says. "We have a long history with Bombardier. We know their leadership extremely well."

[Cessna 180]

"We don't have a concern about the delivery schedule on the CSeries," Smith says. "We have a long history with Bombardier. We know their leadership extremely well."

Bombardier's history is nothing but delays! hahahaha.

[Gino Under]

Perhaps their customers understand a bit more about the delivery delays than your “ha ha ha” comment suggests you do.
Bombardier could deliver every C series ordered, on time, except for the simple fact customers tend not to accept aircraft without engines, thanks to Pratt and Whitney. Something beyond Bombardier’s control I’d imagine.
But, never mind. Another clean sheet design, the B787, wasn’t exactly an example of on time delivery.
Then there’s the USAF B767 tanker...

Gino

[sanjet]

Didn’t both the A380 and 787 both have delays close to 2 years. And didn’t the A320NEO lose it’s ETOPS certificate?

[Gino Under]

So, Airbus are planning to re-brand the C series. Suggesting the A210 and A230 might be appropriate. No final decision yet. Maybe an announcement by Farnborough?