United paid between 20-25 million per 737 they just bought from Boeing
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.busines ... ion-2016-3
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
United paid between 20-25 million per 737 they just bought from Boeing
That 737-700 order was converted/deferred. Pricing also did not include engines.fish4life wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:00 amUnited paid between 20-25 million per 737 they just bought from Boeing
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.busines ... ion-2016-3
Gino Under wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:38 am The reality is simply that no one knows "for sure" what Air Canada will pay for their CS300s. My 'speculative' suggestion that at $30 million per aircraft (if we're to believe Boeing's math) the sum upon full delivery of 45 aircraft to AC is still no small number. I doubt an airline like Air Canada is going to toss 1.3 billion USDs at an aircraft, some suggest, they don't want just to "make the AVEOS law suit go away". We'd better hope AC management has more on-the-ball than that.
Besides, a frivolous lawsuit like Boeing's is simply that. Frivolous. But I get why they can't just sit back and watch. With the present "America First" mentality in D.C. it isn't going to end well for Bombardier and fairness or trade agreements will have nothing to do with the verdict.
Gino Under
I am not sure why this is debated at all? We bought the CSeries so Quebec would drop the lawsuit.Level Change wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:37 amGino Under wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:38 am The reality is simply that no one knows "for sure" what Air Canada will pay for their CS300s. My 'speculative' suggestion that at $30 million per aircraft (if we're to believe Boeing's math) the sum upon full delivery of 45 aircraft to AC is still no small number. I doubt an airline like Air Canada is going to toss 1.3 billion USDs at an aircraft, some suggest, they don't want just to "make the AVEOS law suit go away". We'd better hope AC management has more on-the-ball than that.
Besides, a frivolous lawsuit like Boeing's is simply that. Frivolous. But I get why they can't just sit back and watch. With the present "America First" mentality in D.C. it isn't going to end well for Bombardier and fairness or trade agreements will have nothing to do with the verdict.
Gino Under
Gino. Before AC actually placed an order for the CS they publicly stated they had no intention of buying that airplane. Then they got sued for selling off AVEOS and suddenly, out of thin air, a CS order was announced and the suit dropped. Coincidence? You must remember that Bombardier has always been at the center of political string pulling. Look at the TTC streetcar order and the YQT Streetcar factory with subsequent law suits. If you look at the current NB fleet plan at AC, it makes no sense. Way too many types, even without the CS. Will they keep it? They claim to be and have already assembled an aircraft introduction team, so my guess now is, likely.
I am not sure why some people think the Boeing lawsuit is frivolous. Not trying to stir up an argument or anything, I just don't see it. Getting direct cash injections from the government is exactly what a subsidy is. Both companies have received government contracts but to my knowledge, Bombardier is the only player selling airplanes that has been getting direct cash injections to subsidize a specific aircraft program. Both Trudeau and Bombardier share this "we are above the law" attitude.
Pretty sure Boeing will appeal based on their comments.Gino Under wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:59 pm ITC sides with Bombardier
Quote, “Not a single commissioner was willing to buy Boeing’s arguments,” he said. “I think ‘America First’ is a policy of the White House and the Commerce Department,” he said. “But it’s not the policy of an independent agency (like the ITC).”
I didn't see that coming. I'm speechless ...
This clears the way for “on time” deliveries to Delta.
Gino Under
The key word in your second to last statement is AMONG.Sharklasers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:32 am
Gino. Before AC actually placed an order for the CS they publicly stated they had no intention of buying that airplane. Then they got sued for selling off AVEOS and suddenly, out of thin air, a CS order was announced and the suit dropped. Coincidence? You must remember that Bombardier has always been at the center of political string pulling. Look at the TTC streetcar order and the YQT Streetcar factory with subsequent law suits. If you look at the current NB fleet plan at AC, it makes no sense. Way too many types, even without the CS. Will they keep it? They claim to be and have already assembled an aircraft introduction team, so my guess now is, likely.
Here is a article that says just that, management does not hide the fact that it was among the motivating factors and say so at the road shows. I have literally heard Eddy Doyle say that right to my face.
I see the CS300 as a mainline aircraft with a two class configuration. It is a suitable replacement for both the mainline 190 and 319 fleets.Fanblade wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:04 am
The key word in your second to last statement is AMONG.
Does AC need a 319/190 replacement? Yes
Does a single fleet type make more sense? Yes
Does the Cseries beat the Max 7 economics. Yes on both purchase price and operation.
Does the economics difference justify a new type? No idea. But it certainly helps.
Does placing the CS300 at Rouge somewhat mitigate the costs of a separate type? Probably yes.
Does the economics of the Cseries plus the dropped law suit make more economic sense than the Max 7? Apparently yes.
Would the purchase have made sense without the law suit getting dropped? We will never know. But I’m thinking there is a strong possibility IF the CS300 is planned at Rouge.
Either way. Two birds with one stone.
That would mean possibly 3 narrow body types at mainline. (321/Max8/CS300) The oldest 321’s are about 17 years ish old. 5 are very new. Something will eventually replace them ( max10 or NEO) but I don’t see a need on the near horizon. I also don’t see AC operating without a narrow body the size of the 321.rudder wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:49 amI see the CS300 as a mainline aircraft with a two class configuration. It is a suitable replacement for both the mainline 190 and 319 fleets.Fanblade wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:04 am
The key word in your second to last statement is AMONG.
Does AC need a 319/190 replacement? Yes
Does a single fleet type make more sense? Yes
Does the Cseries beat the Max 7 economics. Yes on both purchase price and operation.
Does the economics difference justify a new type? No idea. But it certainly helps.
Does placing the CS300 at Rouge somewhat mitigate the costs of a separate type? Probably yes.
Does the economics of the Cseries plus the dropped law suit make more economic sense than the Max 7? Apparently yes.
Would the purchase have made sense without the law suit getting dropped? We will never know. But I’m thinking there is a strong possibility IF the CS300 is planned at Rouge.
Either way. Two birds with one stone.
I also see Rouge as optimized when the fleet is Airbus only (319/320/321/330). Perhaps AC/ACPA could look at a CCQ arrangement using status pay at the higher Rouge WB pay scale for all Rouge pilots.
The 737 was an odd fleet choice given AC’s existing Airbus infrastructure. But purchase price can be an attractive incentive and was a major factor in both the MAX and C series fleet decisions. AC has gone all-in so there will be a fleet of at least 61 MAX aircraft.
Keeping the 319s was already a given. The 319s are all relatively newer. Average age is far lower than most of the 320s.rudder wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:24 pm 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.
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.rudder wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:24 pm
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.
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.altiplano wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:43 pmKeeping the 319s was already a given. The 319s are all relatively newer. Average age is far lower than most of the 320s.rudder wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:24 pm 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 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.
It will be interesting to see where AC goes with the Express fleet.aV1aTOr wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:05 pm 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?
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 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:31 am
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.
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).