Oh my, it looks like I punched someone right in the French tickler. And it wasn't funny.Gino Under wrote:Get your facts straight.
The Canadian taxpayer isn't funding the CSeries.
Besides, Bombardier pay a sh*tload of corporate taxes not to mention the tax contributions made by a rather large employee group. So, don't try to spin your crap as a one way street where Bombardier is nothing more than a corporate welfare bum.
That's not only worn out and tired stupidity, it's completely inaccurate.
We're reading many comments about Bombardier management, an aircraft program in trouble, poor sales, on and on. Blah, blah, blah.
The reality is, this aircraft has out sold many popular aircraft even before certification, including the B737. Some scoff at the sales so far. Some preach doom and gloom with the CSeries, but obviously they need to pay closer attention (if they were really interested) to what's going on.
The delay right now has to do with an ALL NEW engine. An engine Bombardier didn't design, test, or certify. Pratt and Whitney did. They have far more riding on this engine than does Bombardier. Yet, all the wise guys and aviation industry analysts seem to be ignoring one basic fact! Rare is it that Pratt are cornered by the popular press as to what's going on with their amazing new GTF engine. What happened and why is it taking so long to fix?
Bombardier need to certify an aircraft. Not just come up with a quick fix to appease the pundits and experts.
Bombardier don't make the engine. Therefore, Bombardier isn't going to "fix" the engine problem, whatever it may be. No matter what the delivery dates may be. It has to be ready and right for a safe introduction to airline service.
Pretty simple, huh?
Gino Under
Bombardier's uncertain future
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
The facts seem to suggest otherwise. ..Gino Under wrote:Get your facts straight.
The Canadian taxpayer isn't funding the CSeries.
Besides, Bombardier pay a sh*tload of corporate taxes not to mention the tax contributions made by a rather large employee group. So, don't try to spin your crap as a one way street where Bombardier is nothing more than a corporate welfare bum.
That's not only worn out and tired stupidity, it's completely inaccurate.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research ... fare-trap/
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
Interesting link bede, never heard about this think-tank, only knew the conference board.
After a quick search it looks like bombardier isn't the only one to benefit those subsidies.
That kind of program has been a battle between airbus and boeing for ages, and every aerospace company receives from govt, and as CEO, you would be mad not to use it...
And comparing clean sheet programs, lets not forget that the Cseries prog is doing well compared to the 787 and 380 and delay is minimal.
Bombardier is damn right to take its time to build a product with minimal default that could play against it after delivery. For instance look at boeing: they have a dozen of 787 sitting on the ramp that nobody wants. they were the very first out of the line who didn't benefit major mods put in effect after the troubles suffered by the ANA... What's the point to hurry.
After a quick search it looks like bombardier isn't the only one to benefit those subsidies.
That kind of program has been a battle between airbus and boeing for ages, and every aerospace company receives from govt, and as CEO, you would be mad not to use it...
And comparing clean sheet programs, lets not forget that the Cseries prog is doing well compared to the 787 and 380 and delay is minimal.
Bombardier is damn right to take its time to build a product with minimal default that could play against it after delivery. For instance look at boeing: they have a dozen of 787 sitting on the ramp that nobody wants. they were the very first out of the line who didn't benefit major mods put in effect after the troubles suffered by the ANA... What's the point to hurry.
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
xchox, it's obvious you have never taken a close look at a 604/605 or a 300/350. They have different wings, different fuselages, different engines, cockpits, avionics, doors, windows and different type certificates. It's fair to say that you can't use ANY parts from one to use on the other except for basic hardware. The 300/350 is not a derivative aircraft which is abundantly clear by the different type certificate. It is as clean sheet as you can get. The 300/350 doesn't even share cabin dimensions with any other Bombardier aircraft. Enter the cockpit and you will immediately notice the complete lack of overhead panel like the 604/605 has.
The CRJ line IS a derivative of the CL600 line and they share a type certificate. Much like the 737 and A320 lines which are all derivatives so it's quite silly to make those comparisons.
When you get right down to it, the 707, 727 and 737 are much more related in design. There is plenty of overlap in those aircraft and neither is a "clean sheet."
The CRJ line IS a derivative of the CL600 line and they share a type certificate. Much like the 737 and A320 lines which are all derivatives so it's quite silly to make those comparisons.
When you get right down to it, the 707, 727 and 737 are much more related in design. There is plenty of overlap in those aircraft and neither is a "clean sheet."
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
The Fraser Institute is a right wing think tank that has spent all of it's resources thinking of ways to discredit ANY program that is not in line with their fascist views. The truth is that no major aircraft manufacturer in the world can exist without concessions from their government and in most cases it's worth every penny. On the grand scheme of things however, Bombardier is quite benign in it's dependence on tax dollars.
Airbus takes subsidies directly from the government(s). Boeing funds itself with obscene amounts of money from defense contracts, many of which never produce anything. Embraer has sales "incentives" funded by the Brazilian government. I have read and research MANY documents created and released by the Fraser Institute and tend to find them full of holes and spin.
The Fraser Institute is heavily funded by certain corporations. Who? Well you'll never see them criticize the tax dollars pouting into oil exploration....
Airbus takes subsidies directly from the government(s). Boeing funds itself with obscene amounts of money from defense contracts, many of which never produce anything. Embraer has sales "incentives" funded by the Brazilian government. I have read and research MANY documents created and released by the Fraser Institute and tend to find them full of holes and spin.
The Fraser Institute is heavily funded by certain corporations. Who? Well you'll never see them criticize the tax dollars pouting into oil exploration....
-
Gino Under
- Rank 8
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
It is no secret that Bombardier (as well as Pratt & Whitney) receive lots of "taxpayer support" through various forms of government programs and funding. That's why it's available to Canadian businesses whom, by the way, also pay corporate taxes to the Canadian government. The implication that welfare is a one way proposition is idiotic. The funding is there because of the significant role aerospace plays in the Canadian economy. But you already know that. right?
That's why I used the expression, "get your facts straight". Going to a right wing organization like the Fraser Institute for rebuttal is a bit lame, but okay.
Labelling them, along with Pratt and Whitney, corporate welfare bums is perhaps one way of putting it but the reference suggests either company doesn't contribute or re-pay it's due is simply an inaccurate over-simplification and any right wing organization like the Fraser Institute knows that. No tax payer, whether private citizen or corporate citizen should pay or be expected to pay any more than what is due. To expect otherwise is unreasonable on any level.
It is also worth noting that many of our aerospace 'corporate welfare cases" are based in Montreal. If that's the term of preference?
How does government support of aerospace using tax dollars benefit? Well, without it, there would have been no Dash 7, no Dash 8, no CL-415, no PT6, no RJ, and potentially no CSeries.
I'll take these two corporate welfare cases over selling either one and the technology that goes with them, to China any day. At least there's been a reasonable ROI.
And just so we're clear, the CSeries (including P&W) has benefitted from government (taxpayers) dollars right out of the gate.
Taxpayers money gets poured into aerospace everywhere...
Just like Embraer in Brasil.
Boeing in the States.
Airbus in Europe.
It's what responsible governments do.
MACH1
"Hey, hey, hey... don't you worry one little bit. None of this can't be fixed without large amounts of your tax dollars going in to support this aircraft launch. There's no sum too large for Bombardier."
This remains to be seen and your comment may be correct even if inaccurate. The so-called problem with the CSeries is NOT the aircraft, it's the engine. Which, as you may know, is beyond Bombardier's control. Maybe Pratt could shed some light on it?
If we're going to ask the question we should at least ask the right person.
That was my earlier point.
XCHOX
"Lockheed did not design, test, or certify the RB-211... But look at where Lockheed's commercial program is now. They were only facing 2 competitors in a size category that never existed prior. Compare that to Bombardier... Brand new aircraft going up against proven designs with the 737, A320, EJets. How many airlines currently already own those three? Fleet commonality will be a key selling point."
I have to disagree.
Lockheed side stepped what it did best. Build military aircraft.
McDonnell Douglas side stepped what it did best. Build military aircraft.
Any clean sheet design beats proven designs like the 737, A320 or EJets any day. The solution to greater market sales is through advanced materials, more fuel efficient engines and improved aircraft systems. It certainly isn't a re-engined anything. There's more to it than that. Boeing has stretched their greatest success, the B747. Strapped new engines on it and it is rapidly becoming the Edsel of aircraft.
"Sukhoi has even broken ground in the Americas with the Superjet. This is HUGE given Russia has never had success in the Americas outside of Communist Cuba. Mainly due to Embargo so for a Mexican carrier to order it is a big deal. (some components for the SJ are made in Canada) not to mention Interjet plans on or already has started flying the Superjet into the US."
Okay. If one carrier sale in Mexico is cracking the North American market, I agree. But the Superjet is nowhere near what the CSeries is.
"Mitsubishi without a flying model already has more confirmed orders then the C-Series."
Okay. But it's a Regional Jet. The CSeries isn't a regional jet.
"COMAC ARJ21 whose first flight was in 2008 I believe still isn't certified and still has more confirmed orders than the C-Series."
More orders but from Asian companies, mostly based in China. Another point, it's a regional jet competing with the CRJ1000. Not the CSeries.
"It's a saturated market Gino. I have tons of friends employed by Bombardier in Thunder Bay, at Downsview, and in Montreal. I love my BRP products, and it is in my personal best interest that the C-Series succeed.
That still does not change my view point on how disastrous this may all turn out."
Unfortunately, I completely agree with you. If the engine fix doesn't work it could be the end of the program.
"and FYI: The tax payer isn't funding it directly right now... but you damn well better believe we might be if thousands more jobs become at risk."
On this point, I couldn't say but I would hazard a guess that the sale of Bombardier, Aerospace Division would be the likely scenario and most likely it would be sold to China. And that would be a travesty.
Maybe the university professors at the Fraser Institute have an answer?
I don't.
Gino
That's why I used the expression, "get your facts straight". Going to a right wing organization like the Fraser Institute for rebuttal is a bit lame, but okay.
Labelling them, along with Pratt and Whitney, corporate welfare bums is perhaps one way of putting it but the reference suggests either company doesn't contribute or re-pay it's due is simply an inaccurate over-simplification and any right wing organization like the Fraser Institute knows that. No tax payer, whether private citizen or corporate citizen should pay or be expected to pay any more than what is due. To expect otherwise is unreasonable on any level.
It is also worth noting that many of our aerospace 'corporate welfare cases" are based in Montreal. If that's the term of preference?
How does government support of aerospace using tax dollars benefit? Well, without it, there would have been no Dash 7, no Dash 8, no CL-415, no PT6, no RJ, and potentially no CSeries.
I'll take these two corporate welfare cases over selling either one and the technology that goes with them, to China any day. At least there's been a reasonable ROI.
And just so we're clear, the CSeries (including P&W) has benefitted from government (taxpayers) dollars right out of the gate.
Taxpayers money gets poured into aerospace everywhere...
Just like Embraer in Brasil.
Boeing in the States.
Airbus in Europe.
It's what responsible governments do.
MACH1
"Hey, hey, hey... don't you worry one little bit. None of this can't be fixed without large amounts of your tax dollars going in to support this aircraft launch. There's no sum too large for Bombardier."
This remains to be seen and your comment may be correct even if inaccurate. The so-called problem with the CSeries is NOT the aircraft, it's the engine. Which, as you may know, is beyond Bombardier's control. Maybe Pratt could shed some light on it?
If we're going to ask the question we should at least ask the right person.
That was my earlier point.
XCHOX
"Lockheed did not design, test, or certify the RB-211... But look at where Lockheed's commercial program is now. They were only facing 2 competitors in a size category that never existed prior. Compare that to Bombardier... Brand new aircraft going up against proven designs with the 737, A320, EJets. How many airlines currently already own those three? Fleet commonality will be a key selling point."
I have to disagree.
Lockheed side stepped what it did best. Build military aircraft.
McDonnell Douglas side stepped what it did best. Build military aircraft.
Any clean sheet design beats proven designs like the 737, A320 or EJets any day. The solution to greater market sales is through advanced materials, more fuel efficient engines and improved aircraft systems. It certainly isn't a re-engined anything. There's more to it than that. Boeing has stretched their greatest success, the B747. Strapped new engines on it and it is rapidly becoming the Edsel of aircraft.
"Sukhoi has even broken ground in the Americas with the Superjet. This is HUGE given Russia has never had success in the Americas outside of Communist Cuba. Mainly due to Embargo so for a Mexican carrier to order it is a big deal. (some components for the SJ are made in Canada) not to mention Interjet plans on or already has started flying the Superjet into the US."
Okay. If one carrier sale in Mexico is cracking the North American market, I agree. But the Superjet is nowhere near what the CSeries is.
"Mitsubishi without a flying model already has more confirmed orders then the C-Series."
Okay. But it's a Regional Jet. The CSeries isn't a regional jet.
"COMAC ARJ21 whose first flight was in 2008 I believe still isn't certified and still has more confirmed orders than the C-Series."
More orders but from Asian companies, mostly based in China. Another point, it's a regional jet competing with the CRJ1000. Not the CSeries.
"It's a saturated market Gino. I have tons of friends employed by Bombardier in Thunder Bay, at Downsview, and in Montreal. I love my BRP products, and it is in my personal best interest that the C-Series succeed.
That still does not change my view point on how disastrous this may all turn out."
Unfortunately, I completely agree with you. If the engine fix doesn't work it could be the end of the program.
"and FYI: The tax payer isn't funding it directly right now... but you damn well better believe we might be if thousands more jobs become at risk."
On this point, I couldn't say but I would hazard a guess that the sale of Bombardier, Aerospace Division would be the likely scenario and most likely it would be sold to China. And that would be a travesty.
Maybe the university professors at the Fraser Institute have an answer?
I don't.
Gino
"I'll tell you what's wrong with society. No one drinks from the skulls of their enemies!"
-
WhiskeyWhiskey
- Rank 2
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 2:38 pm
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
I was the one that stated that the C-Series was Bombardiers only clean-sheet design. If you look at the schematics of every aircraft with the exception of the C-Series. They are all similar to their predecessors. Type certificate or not.CID wrote:xchox, it's obvious you have never taken a close look at a 604/605 or a 300/350. They have different wings, different fuselages, different engines, cockpits, avionics, doors, windows and different type certificates. It's fair to say that you can't use ANY parts from one to use on the other except for basic hardware. The 300/350 is not a derivative aircraft which is abundantly clear by the different type certificate. It is as clean sheet as you can get. The 300/350 doesn't even share cabin dimensions with any other Bombardier aircraft. Enter the cockpit and you will immediately notice the complete lack of overhead panel like the 604/605 has.
The CRJ line IS a derivative of the CL600 line and they share a type certificate. Much like the 737 and A320 lines which are all derivatives so it's quite silly to make those comparisons.
When you get right down to it, the 707, 727 and 737 are much more related in design. There is plenty of overlap in those aircraft and neither is a "clean sheet."
My definition of clean-sheet is to break away from the mold. If you have ever flown an MD80 series aircraft, you will notice DC-3 equip in the cockpit. Comparing the 300 to the 600 is ludacris. But if you've ever been in one it screams Canadair from years past.
One could argue that an Airbus A330 is a clean sheet design from the original A300 or that a Cessna C337 is a clean sheet design from the original C172. I personally don't think so. I simply guess our definitions of "Clean-Sheet" are different.
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
Yeah I agree. I have this sudden urge to pay 30,000 dollars just to fly it!Jack Klumpus wrote:That Fokker 120's colour is eerily similar to jetsgos colour scheme :$
Let’s Go Brandon
-
Jet Jockey
- Rank 5
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
- Location: CYUL
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
LOL at those that say the Challenger 300/350 the original Global and the new Global 7000/8000 are not a clean sheet design! You people have no clue.
The 300/350 only shares the name (née "Continental" and not Challenger) with the "real" Challenger, the 600 series (600, 601, 604 and 605). As for the GEX 7000/8000 it is totally new, new wings, new engines, FBW, possibly a composite fuselage/wing and an upgrade version of the latest Collins Fusion cockpit compared to the GEX 6000 and neither the 300/350 or any Globals (Classic, 5000 6000 or XRS) have any Hawker Sidley or de Havilland lineage in them. I should know I have flown the DHC-7, DHC-8, Hawker 125 series, the Challenger 601/604 and the Global.
The 300/350 only shares the name (née "Continental" and not Challenger) with the "real" Challenger, the 600 series (600, 601, 604 and 605). As for the GEX 7000/8000 it is totally new, new wings, new engines, FBW, possibly a composite fuselage/wing and an upgrade version of the latest Collins Fusion cockpit compared to the GEX 6000 and neither the 300/350 or any Globals (Classic, 5000 6000 or XRS) have any Hawker Sidley or de Havilland lineage in them. I should know I have flown the DHC-7, DHC-8, Hawker 125 series, the Challenger 601/604 and the Global.
-
iflyforpie
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Bombardier's uncertain futu
There sure seems to be a lot of arguments over such an ambiguous term. Really, who cares.....? Other than the fact that the more of an airplane you have to design from scratch, the more expensive it is going to be to develop.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
Jet Jockey wrote:The 300/350 only shares the name (née "Continental" and not Challenger) with the "real" Challenger, the 600 series (600, 601, 604 and 605). As for the GEX 7000/8000 it is totally new, new wings, new engines, FBW, possibly a composite fuselage/wing and an upgrade version of the latest Collins Fusion cockpit compared to the GEX 6000 and neither the 300/350 or any Globals (Classic, 5000 6000 or XRS) have any Hawker Sidley or de Havilland lineage in them. I should know I have flown the DHC-7, DHC-8, Hawker 125 series, the Challenger 601/604 and the Global.
In my eyes, comparing the 300/350 to the 604/605 is like comparing a N/P Queen Air to the: 99, King Air, 1900.CID wrote:L1011, the 300/350 is completely different than the Challenger 604/605. The 300 is about as "clean sheet" as you can get. And I guess you've never heard of the Lear 45? Also a clean sheet design.
And the Lear 85 may "look" like a Learjet that's where the similarity ends. It's like saying the Beech Starship is just a KingAir.
Whereas your Starship/King Air comparison is more akin as to how I view the C-Series and any previous Bombardier product.
I have to agree with iflyforpie and WhiskeyWhiskey... We all just view "Clean-Sheet" with a different meaning.
You guys can keep arguing amongst yourselves though. I am thoroughly enjoying it. lol
Meatservo wrote:I just slap 'em in there. I don't even make sure they are lined up properly.
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
I agree to a certain extent. Douglas and Lockheed had excellent commercial programs in the 30s 40s 50s 60s.Gino Under wrote:I have to disagree.
Lockheed side stepped what it did best. Build military aircraft.
McDonnell Douglas side stepped what it did best. Build military aircraft.
Any clean sheet design beats proven designs like the 737, A320 or EJets any day. The solution to greater market sales is through advanced materials, more fuel efficient engines and improved aircraft systems. It certainly isn't a re-engined anything. There's more to it than that. Boeing has stretched their greatest success, the B747. Strapped new engines on it and it is rapidly becoming the Edsel of aircraft.
As for a clean sheet design being better... Yes and No. I do agree that a "clean sheet" design will be better, with the odd exceptions (Dassault Mercure, VFW-Fokker 614, Baade 153, Avro Jetliner etc) If you take an updated existing design you will have a proven design, commanality for flight and ground crews who uses existing types, lower manufacturing costs, faster entry into service time, usually a lower purchase price, no un-expected surprises, and less teething problems.
Agreed. However, for a Russian commercial program to be operated by a North American carrier is a bigger deal then a Western airliner being operated in the CIS.Gino Under wrote:Okay. If one carrier sale in Mexico is cracking the North American market, I agree. But the Superjet is nowhere near what the CSeries is.
Gino Under wrote:Okay. But it's a Regional Jet. The CSeries isn't a regional jet.
Agreed. However, I used those as a "new from scratch" example. So clearly the marketing boys at Bombardier are not doing their job or they chose a poor segment to go after. It would also not be unfeasable for a stretch or LR/ER versions to be developed. The ARJ21 is also using former MD-80 tooling and apparently blueprint ripoffs... so... I can see it being a direct competitor with little to no work.Gino Under wrote:More orders but from Asian companies, mostly based in China. Another point, it's a regional jet competing with the CRJ1000. Not the CSeries.
Gino Under wrote:Unfortunately, I completely agree with you. If the engine fix doesn't work it could be the end of the program.
Sad but true.Gino Under wrote:On this point, I couldn't say but I would hazard a guess that the sale of Bombardier, Aerospace Division would be the likely scenario and most likely it would be sold to China. And that would be a travesty.
Maybe the university professors at the Fraser Institute have an answer?
I don't.
Gino
Meatservo wrote:I just slap 'em in there. I don't even make sure they are lined up properly.
-
WhiskeyWhiskey
- Rank 2
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 2:38 pm
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
Did you want me to get you that cookie now or later?Jet Jockey wrote: I should know I have flown the DHC-7, DHC-8, Hawker 125 series, the Challenger 601/604 and the Global.
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
I guess every airplane is a derivative of the Wright Flyer.....
-
Napoleon So Low
- Rank 1
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 11:33 pm
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
WhiskeyWhiskey wrote:Comparing the 300 to the 600 is ludacris.
lu·di·crous
ˈlo͞odəkrəs/
adjective
adjective: ludicrous
so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.
"it's ludicrous that I have been fined"
synonyms: absurd, ridiculous, farcical, laughable, risible, preposterous, foolish, mad, insane, idiotic, stupid, inane, silly, asinine, nonsensical;
informalcrazy
"a ludicrous idea"
antonyms: sensible
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
LOLWhiskeyWhiskey wrote:Did you want me to get you that cookie now or later?Jet Jockey wrote: I should know I have flown the DHC-7, DHC-8, Hawker 125 series, the Challenger 601/604 and the Global.
True. Helicopters even use basic airfoil design in their rotorblades. Not to mention most G/A planes still use piston engines.CID wrote:I guess every airplane is a derivative of the Wright Flyer.....
Never thought of that.
Compare that to the worlds first car which looked like a horse wagon with a huge steam boiler on the front no brakes and only steered with a stick. Completely different today.
Compared to the similarities to the Wright Flyer, even The Pitts Special is a bi-plane just like the wright flyer. Cool!
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
L1011, I guess you didn't detect the sarcasm in my statement about the Wright Flyer but it's interesting that you go so far as to make comparisons between the airfoil on that "kite" to wings on modern aircraft. I certainly don't want to take away from the Wright Brothers' accomplishments but the Wright Flyer was not the world's first aircraft. Like many early technological achievements, it's quite difficult to define when the "first" of anything was produced as the declarations are usually followed by some sort of qualifier. For example, the Wright Flyer was "the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard".
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
People still argue it was Gustav Whitehead who made the first true airplane. But either way, I do have a great admiration for all those early inventors/aviators. To think most of us still fly with wings and piston engines is a great indication of how far ahead of the times Whitehead, The Wrights, Cayley were.
Now back on topic, Bombardier has cleared the C-Series for more flights so it can only go up from here which is good. Hopefully those orders start coming in so those who were laid off can get back to work.
Now back on topic, Bombardier has cleared the C-Series for more flights so it can only go up from here which is good. Hopefully those orders start coming in so those who were laid off can get back to work.
Meatservo wrote:I just slap 'em in there. I don't even make sure they are lined up properly.
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/09 ... ember.html
"The geared-turbofan engines, made by Pratt and Whitney, have been modified to adapt the oil lubrication system that led to the fire, with the first set installed in the second CSeries plane, known as flight test vehicle 2" Vanessa Lu
“We have informed Bombardier that we will not assume the role of formal launch operator of the aircraft type. Due to increased uncertainty, we are discussing possible changes to the aircraft delivery schedule with Bombardier,” Braathens said in a statement.
"The geared-turbofan engines, made by Pratt and Whitney, have been modified to adapt the oil lubrication system that led to the fire, with the first set installed in the second CSeries plane, known as flight test vehicle 2" Vanessa Lu
“We have informed Bombardier that we will not assume the role of formal launch operator of the aircraft type. Due to increased uncertainty, we are discussing possible changes to the aircraft delivery schedule with Bombardier,” Braathens said in a statement.
Meatservo wrote:I just slap 'em in there. I don't even make sure they are lined up properly.
Re: Bombardier's uncertain future
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... ldname--id~~
Bombardier’s CSeries Faces Increased Skepticism
Clear signs that Bombardier's reassurance strategy no longer works with customers and analysts
Bombardier’s answer to when CSeries flight tests will resume is: In the coming weeks. That has remained constant since the test fleet was grounded more than three months ago. But there are clear signs from customers and analysts that the manufacturer’s assurances are no longer working.
Last week, Goldman Sachs downgraded Bombardier stock because of the CSeries issues that were caused by a severe engine failure on FTV-1 May 29. Malmo Aviation, which was to have been the launch customer, wants to delay deliveries to avoid having to deal with the expected teething problems of early aircraft. It says the troubles “may cause another delay to the CSeries introduction.” And another important CSeries customer says that it suspects another schedule disruption “will come for sure.”
Bombardier is still sticking to its official guidance that the first CS100 will be delivered in the second half of 2015. Although that guidance is flexible enough to compensate a delay of up to several months, Goldman Sachs analyst Noah Poponak believes that margin will not be enough. He calculates that if flight tests were to resume in September, Bombardier would need to reach an average of 160 flight-test hours per month to still make 2015 deliveries. “We see that as very unlikely given the pace achieved before grounding, momentum (not just time) lost during grounding, and the high risk of new problems occurring other than this engine incident,” he writes.
Malmo Aviation has decided to delay deliveries of Bombardier’s CS100s. The airline was to have been the launch customer. Credit: Bombardier Concept
Poponak projects that the “CSeries will negatively impact Bombardier’s financial results and create negative catalysts for the next several years.” He reduced his price target from C$3.20 to C$3 ($2.94 to $2.75) for Bombardier shares.
Bombardier, which recently announced the departure of Guy Hachey, its top aerospace executive, has moved a lot of ground testing forward to limit the time lost. It is also telling customers that the larger CS300 is not affected by previously announced delays for the CS100 and that the current engine issues are not a major concern.
Malmo Aviation nonetheless no longer wants to be first in the row. Its parent, Braathens Aviation, said in a regulatory filing: “We have informed Bombardier that we will not assume the role of formal launch operator of the aircraft type.” The company added that “due to increased uncertainty we are discussing other possible changes to the aircraft delivery schedule with Bombardier.”
Malmo is the Swedish domestic division of Braathens Aviation. The carrier has ordered five CS100s and five CS300s. Most of the CS100s are understood to be due for delivery next year; the CS300s are set to follow in 2016.
The decision is further complicating an already fluid situation. The test fleet is still grounded. Pratt & Whitney has delivered modified engines to Bombardier and those are in the process of being installed on the flight-test aircraft.
Related Article
»Bombardier CSeries Nears Return To Flight
Based on its current orderbook, Bombardier does not have a long list of airlines willing to take the first few aircraft. The most obvious candidate is Lufthansa, which has signed for 30 CS100s for its subsidiary Swiss International Airlines. The carrier urgently needs to replace its aging fleet of 20 Avro Regional Jets. Swiss has decided to remove an initial four Avros from service before year-end, in spite of the fact that a long-term replacement is not yet available. The airline is leasing four Embraer 190s from Helvetic Airways to bridge the gap until the CSeries arrives.
In addition to the aircraft planned for Malmo, other parts of the CSeries backlog look shaky for economic or political reasons. The manufacturer has orders from Ilyushin Finance Co. and Iraqi Airways, among others. U.S. regional carrier Republic Airways, which holds the largest order—40—has indicated some uncertainty, although it has not publicly raised the possibility of canceling the order or deferring deliveries.
In a Bloomberg Businessweek interview last May, CEO Bryan Bedford said: “We are focused on our fixed-fee business. There is no place to operate the CSeries in that model. The question we will have to address is whether the aircraft purchase agreement has value or not and, if it does, then it becomes an asset and assets can be sold.” Republic’s order is for the larger CS300. Bedford also voiced concerns about an insufficient orderbook that would put pressure on residual values and make remarketing more difficult.
Bombardier lists 203 firm orders for the CSeries, including 63 for CS100s. A firm order for two CS300s from Falcon Aviation (United Arab Emirates) was logged in July, but has not yet been added to its official list. Several letters of intent for a total of 60 CSeries were announced at the Farnborough air show in July, but have not yet been turned into firm commitments.
Bombardier’s CSeries Faces Increased Skepticism
Clear signs that Bombardier's reassurance strategy no longer works with customers and analysts
Bombardier’s answer to when CSeries flight tests will resume is: In the coming weeks. That has remained constant since the test fleet was grounded more than three months ago. But there are clear signs from customers and analysts that the manufacturer’s assurances are no longer working.
Last week, Goldman Sachs downgraded Bombardier stock because of the CSeries issues that were caused by a severe engine failure on FTV-1 May 29. Malmo Aviation, which was to have been the launch customer, wants to delay deliveries to avoid having to deal with the expected teething problems of early aircraft. It says the troubles “may cause another delay to the CSeries introduction.” And another important CSeries customer says that it suspects another schedule disruption “will come for sure.”
Bombardier is still sticking to its official guidance that the first CS100 will be delivered in the second half of 2015. Although that guidance is flexible enough to compensate a delay of up to several months, Goldman Sachs analyst Noah Poponak believes that margin will not be enough. He calculates that if flight tests were to resume in September, Bombardier would need to reach an average of 160 flight-test hours per month to still make 2015 deliveries. “We see that as very unlikely given the pace achieved before grounding, momentum (not just time) lost during grounding, and the high risk of new problems occurring other than this engine incident,” he writes.
Malmo Aviation has decided to delay deliveries of Bombardier’s CS100s. The airline was to have been the launch customer. Credit: Bombardier Concept
Poponak projects that the “CSeries will negatively impact Bombardier’s financial results and create negative catalysts for the next several years.” He reduced his price target from C$3.20 to C$3 ($2.94 to $2.75) for Bombardier shares.
Bombardier, which recently announced the departure of Guy Hachey, its top aerospace executive, has moved a lot of ground testing forward to limit the time lost. It is also telling customers that the larger CS300 is not affected by previously announced delays for the CS100 and that the current engine issues are not a major concern.
Malmo Aviation nonetheless no longer wants to be first in the row. Its parent, Braathens Aviation, said in a regulatory filing: “We have informed Bombardier that we will not assume the role of formal launch operator of the aircraft type.” The company added that “due to increased uncertainty we are discussing other possible changes to the aircraft delivery schedule with Bombardier.”
Malmo is the Swedish domestic division of Braathens Aviation. The carrier has ordered five CS100s and five CS300s. Most of the CS100s are understood to be due for delivery next year; the CS300s are set to follow in 2016.
The decision is further complicating an already fluid situation. The test fleet is still grounded. Pratt & Whitney has delivered modified engines to Bombardier and those are in the process of being installed on the flight-test aircraft.
Related Article
»Bombardier CSeries Nears Return To Flight
Based on its current orderbook, Bombardier does not have a long list of airlines willing to take the first few aircraft. The most obvious candidate is Lufthansa, which has signed for 30 CS100s for its subsidiary Swiss International Airlines. The carrier urgently needs to replace its aging fleet of 20 Avro Regional Jets. Swiss has decided to remove an initial four Avros from service before year-end, in spite of the fact that a long-term replacement is not yet available. The airline is leasing four Embraer 190s from Helvetic Airways to bridge the gap until the CSeries arrives.
In addition to the aircraft planned for Malmo, other parts of the CSeries backlog look shaky for economic or political reasons. The manufacturer has orders from Ilyushin Finance Co. and Iraqi Airways, among others. U.S. regional carrier Republic Airways, which holds the largest order—40—has indicated some uncertainty, although it has not publicly raised the possibility of canceling the order or deferring deliveries.
In a Bloomberg Businessweek interview last May, CEO Bryan Bedford said: “We are focused on our fixed-fee business. There is no place to operate the CSeries in that model. The question we will have to address is whether the aircraft purchase agreement has value or not and, if it does, then it becomes an asset and assets can be sold.” Republic’s order is for the larger CS300. Bedford also voiced concerns about an insufficient orderbook that would put pressure on residual values and make remarketing more difficult.
Bombardier lists 203 firm orders for the CSeries, including 63 for CS100s. A firm order for two CS300s from Falcon Aviation (United Arab Emirates) was logged in July, but has not yet been added to its official list. Several letters of intent for a total of 60 CSeries were announced at the Farnborough air show in July, but have not yet been turned into firm commitments.
Last edited by pelmet on Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
