Porter To Get C Series

[rudder]

CR has already said not interested in being involved in launch of newly certified aircraft type. Zero chance that AC will touch it. Nobody else in North America of any significance has shown any interest in the program either.

[Super 80]

Delta is interested, but only with a commitment to the CS500.

[DEFCON]

Good god; why all the negativity? This isn’t the first time an aircraft got hung up in developmental challenges that increased the cost of the project to levels well beyond those first contemplated; it would seem that this is more, or less the norm.

[Guest]

Good god; why all the negativity? This isn’t the first time an aircraft got hung up in developmental challenges that increased the cost of the project to levels well beyond those first contemplated; it would seem that this is more, or less the norm.

Quite right, the A380 for example has yet to reach a break even point (cost of production vs sales)

Airbus’s (AIR:FP) double-decker A380 wide-body has generated more than its share of buzz. That’s understandable for a plane that can carry as many as 850 passengers and be tricked out with shower suites (on Emirates Airline and Etihad Airways), personal butlers (on Etihad), and stand-up bars for gregarious business-class passengers (on Qatar Airways, Korean Air Lines, Emirates, and Etihad). Despite these luxuries, sales of new A380s have been dismal. Not a single A380 has been ordered by a passenger airline so far in 2014. (The sole new buyer this year was Dublin-based leasing company Amedeo, which has yet to line up a single carrier to take any of the 20 jets it ordered.)

The dearth of orders for the seven-year-old plane led Airbus Chief Financial Officer Harald Wilhelm on Dec. 10 to raise the prospect of discontinuing the A380 as soon as 2018. Wilhelm’s remarks at an investor meeting in London riled customers who bet on the big plane. The next day, Airbus backtracked. Fabrice Brégier, who leads its airliner unit, told investors that upgrades to the A380—more fuel-efficient engines and a stretch version capable of carrying 1,000 passengers—will happen “one day.”

Despite such optimism, there could be financial turbulence ahead for the A380. Airbus will break even on the plane in 2015, 2016, and 2017, but that outlook doesn’t hold for 2018, forcing the company to either spend heavily to improve the economics of its engines or discontinue the program, Wilhelm said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-12-18/airbus-a380-big-plane-small-sales

[Kip Powick]

Fabrice Brégier, who leads its airliner unit, told investors that upgrades to the A380—more fuel-efficient engines and a stretch version capable of carrying 1,000 passengers—will happen “one day.”

Perhaps Airbus execs should talk to a few of today's women who have categorically stated that, "Bigger is not necessarily better".

[boestar]

Lets see....Aircraft that have had delays and cost overruns...............Not enough room to list them all I should think. Have we already forgotten the 787 for example. How many years late? Bombardier is treading in new water themselves with a completely new design. Overruns were inevitable.

[MD2]

Indeed some delay is to be expected with a complete new design. Most importantly, the C series aircraft is meeting or exceeding all its targets, so the sales will come. Possibly lower fuel prices are giving some carriers time to pause for EIS, but that and the CS300 entering the flying phase will likely expedite some orders, whatever the oil prices. Stiffer noise restrictions at European airports will also add more sales in due time...

[Lakelad]

.

Air Canada still interested in CSeries; not scared off by turmoil at Bombardier Inc

Tue Feb 17, 2015 - Financial Post
Ross Marowits, Canadian Press

Program delays and cash concerns within Bombardier’s Inc.’s aerospace division won’t deter Air Canada from considering its new CSeries commercial aircraft, Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu said Tuesday.

The head of the country’s largest airline said the CSeries will definitely be in the running when Air Canada replaces its remaining 90-seat Embraer 190s single-aisle planes after 2020.

“When those Embraers come out, for sure the Bombardier CSeries will be an alternative, 100%,” he told reporters after speaking to the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations.

Air Canada announced about a year ago that it will buy as many as 109 Boeing 737 MAX planes during the next decade but could select the more cost-efficient CSeries to replace the remaining 25 Embraer planes. Mr. Rovinescu didn’t say when an order could be placed.

While he said Bombardier has to make its case for the 110- to 160-seat plane, Mr. Rovinescu said he doesn’t believe Bombardier’s recent struggles are an issue.

“I certainly would not be concerned if I was in the market for airplanes today and I don’t think that that will be an issue,” he added.

Last week, Bombardier hired former United Technologies executive Alain Bellemare to replace chief executive Pierre Beaudoin, who took the job of executive chairman.

It also said it will shore up its finances by suspending its dividend and working to raise an additional US$2.1 billion in capital.

Rovinescu predicted Bombardier will come out of its challenges much stronger, like Air Canada has done since avoiding another round of bankruptcy protection several years ago.

.

,

[rudder]

AC has to have all 3 manufacturers believe they are still in the running in order to ensure the most aggressive pricing from their preferred vendor. There are lots of B737MAX options available for conversion and 25 E190's to be disposed of........

[MD2]

As was the case with the Q400, it would not be surprising at all for other airlines in Canada to follow Porter's example with the C series.

[dagger]

AC has to have all 3 manufacturers believe they are still in the running in order to ensure the most aggressive pricing from their preferred vendor. There are lots of B737MAX options available for conversion and 25 E190's to be disposed of........

Aggressive pricing and a re-marketing of the 25 E-Jets. Bombardier should have stepped up to the plate on that, because it needs an Air Canada order far more than it needs a Porter order. An AC order has always conferred a certain legitimacy to a new plane - AC was a critical early customer for Airbus - because Canada is not directly invested in Airbus or Boeing, and AC is by far the largest Canadian carrier.

However, I think the aviation world would see Calin's remarks as just spreading a little sunshine, maybe pleasing folks in the Quebec market and in the federal government.

This is closer to how Bombardier's situation is viewed in the aerospace community. I'm not a subscriber so I can't give you the whole report, but it paints a less than optimistic

http://leehamnews.com/2015/02/18/bombardiers-crisis-of-confidence-perhaps-the-biggest-challenge-for-cseries/#more-14207

[Thebean]

As was the case with the Q400, it would not be surprising at all for other airlines in Canada to follow Porter's example with the C series.

It's going to take a lot more than Porter's conditional order of a couple dozen airframes to turn the C Series ship around.

At some point, there comes a time to quit throwing good money after bad.

Anyone who truly believes Airbus and Boeing are going to handover the 150 seat market without a blood bath, a blood bath that neither BBD or the Province of Quebec can afford, is dreaming in full screen IMAX lala land.

BBD should have stuck to its knitting.

[GDR]

It looks like the Quebec government is prepared to ensure Bombardier's economic survival.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/quebec-prepared-to-bail-out-bombardier-minister-says/article23051005/

[Kip Powick]

.................and where does all this money, if needed, come from........ the residents of QC????

[Lando Calrissian]

The stock is all but worthless. Where do you turn from there? It's going to take more than the wave of an imaginary wand . . .

And since when is a dividend suspension not a death knell? It is the equivalent of brown rot on the stone fruit.

[Lakelad]

.

Does anyone believe another handout will help Bombardier?

Wed Feb.18, 2015 - Globe and Mail

by Sean Silcoff

The Quebec government has been giving a masterclass on austerity to Canada’s other provincial governments lately, but when it comes to corporate welfare, the ruling Liberals remain just as willing saviours for local companies as they have ever been.

The latest politician to promise taxpayer dollars in exchange for questionable returns is Jacques Daoust, Quebec’s Economy Minister. With Bombardier changing CEOs and announcing moves to take pressure off its challenged balance sheet, Mr. Daoust told reporters Wednesday, “We have money available to finance Bombardier customers. If Bombardier needs that money for its liquidity, we can work with them on that.”

It should be depressing for taxpayers to see their elected representatives jump so quickly to open the vaults for select corporations while overall Canadian competitiveness remains chronically weak. Study after study has questioned what real economic benefit corporate welfare delivers when governments could be more effective by lowering taxes overall, cutting red tape or otherwise creating compelling business conditions to foster investment.

Granted, sluggish jobs growth since the Great Recession has vexed many a lawmaker. But at some point we have to ask whether corporate welfare improves our economy or just delays the inevitable decline in output and employment by chronic aid recipients.

Take the case of small aircraft engine maker Pratt & Whitney Canada. The Montreal-area-based firm had 7,300 employees in Canada seven years ago. When Ottawa ponied up a $300-million “repayable contribution” in December of 2010, it was down to 6,200. Four years later, this past December, Ottawa came through with another $300-million – and Pratt was down to 6,000 employees. What is the message here? That Pratt will cut itself down to profitability with the help of government money, taking jobs with it? Or is there an implied threat that without taxpayer assistance, the cuts would be even worse?

Government bailouts in Canada and the U.S. may have saved General Motors and Chrysler, but there’s no certainty that Canada’s shaky auto sector can fend off a continued decline in production and job numbers if the country can’t be more cost-competitive with Mexico or elsewhere. No bailout will solve that issue in the long-term.

That brings us back to Bombardier, a recipient of much past direct and indirect government aid. The company faces several challenges, aside from its balance sheet. Its rail business is a low-margin venture that perennially falls short of earnings targets. Its airliner business has been challenged since the market for small regional jets dried up last decade thanks to rising oil prices and rationalization of airlines.

Its big bet is on a high-risk C-Series, which it hopes will command the niche market for planes larger than 100-seat regional jets and smaller than transcontinental airliners with 150 or more seats. The C Series is late, overbudget, below target for orders, and lacking in demand from first-tier airlines. Plus, aerospace giants Airbus and Boeing have been making the Montreal company’s life challenging by talking down the new C Series, revamping their smallest airliners and offering enticing discounts to airlines to consider their larger planes instead Bombardier has no business left in the defence market – a rarity for aerospace firms, which usually prop up cyclical weakness with military orders – and has had mixed success developing new planes lately. Bombardier has done virtually no M&A in a decade, something it is now open to considering.

In short, Bombardier has a strategy and competitiveness problem that handouts won’t fix. There’s no doubt it would be traumatic for the local economy if Bombardier fell on even worse times. But surely there must be better options than for governments to again run and fetch the bailout bucket.

.

[DEFCON]

It's business as usual. We already know Bombardier is 'too big to fail'. They'll get the money they need and be around for another thirty years.

[rudder]

Airlines make fleet decisions years in advance. The C-series program is a wounded duck. No credible carrier is going to risk its future fleet plan on a product that may or may not be there.

Great airplane. Poor management execution.

[Homerun]

Rudder, how do you know if it's a great airplane? It hasn't completed 1/3 of flight testing yet.

Despite the number of sales, the RJ was a piece of crap. How can we know if the C-series will be any better?

[Guest]

for a "piece of crap" there are a considerble number still in operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bombardier_CRJ_operators

CRJ100 CRJ200

Total

Ord Del Opr Ord Del Opr Totals Ord Del Opr
226 226 42 795 795 733 1021 1021 775

[Homerun]

I stated that they sold a lot of them. Having flown it, I still assert that it is/was a piece of crap.

[acsidestick]

Homerun, I completely agree, It was my first Jet and at the time I was quite wowed by the whole thing. It didn't take long to see the pig under the lipstick. After flying every Boeing and Airbus available to me afterward, the lack of polish to this day is quite astounding.

Canadiar/Bombarier did everything they could to stretch an existing business jet without actually building a real Airliner and it showed.

It was a piece of crap.

Where to begin

Windshield wipers from Canadian tire that placed you in a 100 dB wind tunnel (corrected later)

No cabin circulation fan whatsoever that worked independently off of ground power, if the APU was U/S there was no air until the engines were started.. (That's why you all sweated so much on that aircraft folks)

No leading edge devices to lower stall speed (took off and landed like a bat out of hell but meandered at a slow Mach in cruise.

Single FMS (corrected when Jazz got them)

A near non existent FMS navigation database requiring entire approaches to be built from hand (corrected after several years of operation)

Frequent non extending flap conditions leading to numerous emergency landings with incredible Ref Speeds

No Auto Brakes

No Autothrottles

No room in flight deck to keep overnight bag

Touch Screen ACARS

Seats in the flight deck from the Marqee de Sade torture room

A toilet requiring sitting if over 6 ft (yep, ladies too )

A toilet floor requiring frequent mopping because guys over 6 feet stood with their heads twisted like the exorcist while trying to pee

Never remotely achieve climb or ceiling performance as promised by the factory and contained in the manuals

On a hot day, it could take as long as 40 minutes after take off to cool the cabin to reasonable levels.

Having to limit the pax numbers on hot days due to the above lack of cooling ability.

A temperature control system ripped right out of a dash 8 (doesn't work either) that required continuous manual adjustment because Auto never worked (but was certified)

A supercritical wing with a leading edge that limited the ability to fly based on the number of dead bugs on the wings leading edge (I kid you not, MTC had a matrix they placed over the leading edge and then counted the bugs guts. If it exceeded a certain amount, the leading edge had to be scrubbed clean).

A flight deck escape hatch which leaked continuously on the ground when raining or deicing. In the case of deicing, you had to lean out of the way or put paper towels on your shoulders to keep toxic glycol off your skin (happened anyway)

A piece of crap.

[rudder]

The original CRJ was based on a platform of an existing business jet (Challenger). That showed through from day 1. It was intended to capitalise on an era of very low fuel costs. However, both the 700 and 900 versions were improved substantially and have received relatively positive reviews from operators, customers, and pilots. The CRJ 900 order book continues to expand.

The C-series is a new platform and if it delivers what it is promising it will in fact be an impressive aircraft. Having said that, commercial success is imperative and that piece of the business plan has thus far been mismanaged.

I see that BBD is going to the capital markets looking for $750 million in equity to shore up the balance sheet.

[MD2]

It's going to take a lot more than Porter's conditional order of a couple dozen airframes to turn the C Series ship around.

At some point, there comes a time to quit throwing good money after bad.

Anyone who truly believes Airbus and Boeing are going to handover the 150 seat market without a blood bath, a blood bath that neither BBD or the Province of Quebec can afford, is dreaming in full screen IMAX lala land.

BBD should have stuck to its knitting.

Mr. Bean, you (and some of the others) are being too hard on Bombardier, a CANADIAN manufacturer! The plan is in motion, the C series is a great technological marvel, and is meeting (or exceeding) its performance targets. And it has not really been delayed that much compared to Boeing and Airbus, that surely are not happy to concede market share, but they will. And you're right, Porter's order may be "small" now in comparison to some others, but it is significant because it showcases C series urban capabilities and will likely bring more orders, all things in their own good time! Having said that, a good marketing & sales strategy is always essential.

[Maverick]

Mr. Bean, you (and some of the others) are being too hard on Bombardier, a CANADIAN manufacturer! The plan is in motion, the C series is a great technological marvel, and is meeting (or exceeding) its performance targets. And it has not really been delayed that much compared to Boeing and Airbus, that surely are not happy to concede market share, but they will. And you're right, Porter's order may be "small" now in comparison to some others, but it is significant because it showcases C series urban capabilities and will likely bring more orders, all things in their own good time! Having said that, a good marketing & sales strategy is always essential.

Get real MD2, Porter's order doesn't means sh!t to anybody. A WJ or AC order would be a very, very significant Canadian win to BBD.

This Porter order, touted as it was, smacks of Bombardiers desperation.

Sad days for a once great company.