C100 At Paris Airshow

[Maverick]

I could see WJ Encore operating a small fleet of CS100's actually.

Around 20 would allow some 2.5-3.5 hour sectors connecting smaller markets to YVR, YYC, YYZ and YUL.

[Guest]

I could see WJ Encore operating a small fleet of CS100's actually.

Around 20 would allow some 2.5-3.5 hour sectors connecting smaller markets to YVR, YYC, YYZ and YUL.

Anything is possible but would WestJet want another aircraft type in their inventory?

[Super 80]

With only 55 total orders the 737-7 is dead on arrival.

[Lakelad]

.

Bombardier snubbed as United to buy 40 Boeing jets

Thu Jan. 21, 2016 - Globe & Mail
Nicolas Van Praet

United Continental Holdings Inc. said it is buying 40 narrow-body planes from Boeing Co. in a significant snub of Bombardier Inc. and its new C Series airliner.

The Chicago-based carrier said Thursday it will take delivery of 40 new Boeing 737-700 aircraft, which will enter its fleet beginning in mid 2017. The planes will replace a portion of the capacity currently operated by the company’s regional partners as UAL said it expects to cut by more than half the number of 50-seat planes in its fleet by 2019.

At first glance, the decision marks a setback for Bombardier, which has struggled to win more sales for the C Series beyond the current orders for 243 planes despite the fact it leads its class in fuel burn and other data points. Bombardier’s sales team had been courting United hard in a bid to offer the 100 to 160-seat C Series and showed off the aircraft to the airline’s senior management team and employees this past November as part of a demonstration tour to prospective customers.

Critics of Bombardier’s single-aisle plane, which Bombardier is counting on to fuel revenue for the next 20 years, have noted that the company has failed so far to sign a blue-chip North American airline as a client. Winning United would have quashed that criticism with an endorsement from one of the biggest carriers in the world but the plane maker is also in talks with several other prospective clients and management has expressed confidence that more orders are coming.

United did not disclose how much it paid for the Boeing jets or how it arrived at its decision, saying only: “Our customers have a preference for an improved travel experience, including first class seats, Economy Plus, and Wi-Fi. These aircraft are an efficient way to meet those needs while reducing 50-seat flying.”

Boeing jets already make up the largest portion of UAL’s fleet.



Bombardier Inc’s CSeries hopes dashed by United Airlines, but Delta Air Lines Inc remains potential buyer

Thu Jan 21, 2016 - Financial Post
Kristine Owram

Two days after the CEO of Delta Air Lines Inc. said the company is taking a “serious look” at Bombardier Inc.’s CSeries jetliner, another major U.S. carrier dashed hopes that it too could be a linchpin customer for the troubled aircraft.

United Airlines announced Thursday that it will buy 40 narrow-body aircraft from Boeing Co. in a deal worth US$3.2 billion at list prices. United had made it clear that it wanted to replace its 50-seat regional planes with larger aircraft in 2016. It was thought that the CSeries was a candidate but the airline opted for Boeing’s 737-700 instead.

Bombardier hasn’t recorded a new firm order for the CSeries since September 2014, and it desperately needs a big-name customer to restore confidence in the program.

In an interview this week, Bombardier’s president of commercial aircraft said he’s feeling “very positive” about how talks with potential customers are going, although he has nothing concrete to announce yet.

“We’re starting to get the inbound interest that we were expecting, so it’s very encouraging and I couldn’t be happier with where we are today,” Fred Cromer said.

Cromer showed the CSeries to Delta’s team in Atlanta right before Christmas and he said they were keen to learn about its technical specifications.

“They’re very interested in the 100-seaters and the 100- to 150-seat category is obviously where the CSeries fits,” Cromer said.

“You start getting deeper and deeper into those conversations and I can tell you, the excitement starts to build when we have those conversations with a customer like Delta.”

On a conference call with analysts earlier this week, Delta CEO Richard Anderson called the CSeries a “pretty impressive” airplane.

“We actually think that at the right price it is quite a competitive airplane, particularly given the engine technology,” Anderson said. “So we are taking a very serious look at it.”

“I met the first crew when they came off the airplane and they couldn’t be happier,”

.

.

[Guest]

and yet Delta is reported to be giving the aircraft a serious look. Transportation

TrendingHousing | Outlook 2016 | Loonie | Suncor | Marijuana | Oil | Valeant | Apple | Retirement

Bombardier Inc’s CSeries hopes dashed by United Airlines, but Delta Air Lines Inc remains potential buyer

Republish Online

Republish Offline

Reprint

Kristine Owram | January 21, 2016 12:34 PM ET
More from Kristine Owram | @KristineOwram

Handout/BombardierBombardier hasn’t recorded a new firm order for the CSeries since September 2014, and it desperately needs a big-name customer to restore confidence in the program. It appears Delta Air Lines may be interested in buying.

Two days after the CEO of Delta Air Lines Inc. said the company is taking a “serious look” at Bombardier Inc.’s CSeries jetliner, another major U.S. carrier dashed hopes that it too could be a linchpin customer for the troubled aircraft.

United Airlines announced Thursday that it will buy 40 narrow-body aircraft from Boeing Co. in a deal worth US$3.2 billion at list prices. United had made it clear that it wanted to replace its 50-seat regional planes with larger aircraft in 2016. It was thought that the CSeries was a candidate but the airline opted for Boeing’s 737-700 instead.

Bombardier hasn’t recorded a new firm order for the CSeries since September 2014, and it desperately needs a big-name customer to restore confidence in the program.

The excitement starts to build when we have those conversations with a customer like Delta

In an interview this week, Bombardier’s president of commercial aircraft said he’s feeling “very positive” about how talks with potential customers are going, although he has nothing concrete to announce yet.

“We’re starting to get the inbound interest that we were expecting, so it’s very encouraging and I couldn’t be happier with where we are today,” Fred Cromer said.

Cromer showed the CSeries to Delta’s team in Atlanta right before Christmas and he said they were keen to learn about its technical specifications.

“They’re very interested in the 100-seaters and the 100- to 150-seat category is obviously where the CSeries fits,” Cromer said.

“You start getting deeper and deeper into those conversations and I can tell you, the excitement starts to build when we have those conversations with a customer like Delta.”

Related

• Bombardier Inc to start direct sales to customers in Middle East, incur $278M charge in Q4
• Bombardier Inc financial aid request being studied by federal government
• Bombardier sees ‘aggressive’ CSeries pricing for new customers amid 15-month order droughtOn a conference call with analysts earlier this week, Delta CEO Richard Anderson called the CSeries a “pretty impressive” airplane.

“We actually think that at the right price it is quite a competitive airplane, particularly given the engine technology,” Anderson said. “So we are taking a very serious look at it.”

The CSeries was certified by Transport Canada in mid-December and will enter into service with Swiss International Air Lines AG in the second quarter of this year.

Production is also ramping up, and the first plane designated for Swiss is now structurally complete. Cromer said Swiss pilots are currently at Bombardier’s site in Mirabel, Que., to train on the aircraft.

“I met the first crew when they came off the airplane and they couldn’t be happier,” Cromer said.

“It flew exactly as advertised and they were pretty excited about it, they were anxious to get in and do it again. I think it was all thumbs-up from their point of view, which was great feedback.”

However, National Bank analyst Cameron Doerksen said the stock — which is down 70 per cent since the beginning of last year — will only move higher when new orders are announced.

A deal with Delta or another marquee customer “would be a significant program-legitimizing order and a major positive for the company,” Doerksen wrote in a recent analysis.

He added that the weak Canadian dollar could prove to be a “nice tailwind” for Bombardier’s aerospace division in 2016, with a potential $288 million in cost reductions, excluding hedging, if the current exchange rate holds.

However, Cromer said the loonie hasn’t affected discussions around the price of the CSeries.

“There has not been a lot of volatility in those pricing discussions,” he said. “The pricing discussions are really more deal-specific.”

[Guest]

Appears the door at UAL is not closed either:

United still considering a CSeries or E2 order

• 21 January, 2016
• BY: Edward Russell
• Washington DC

United Airlines is still out shopping for a new 100-seat mainline aircraft, following its order for 40 new Boeing 737-700s today.

“We are continuing to pursue additional aircraft to continue upgauging and meet our capacity plans,” says Gerry Laderman, acting chief financial officer of the Chicago-based carrier, during an earnings call today.

United considered the Airbus A319, Boeing 737-700 and 100-seat models from both Bombardier and Embraer – likely the airframers’ respective CS100 and E190 or E195 – for the order it placed today, he says. While the 737 won this order “batch”, all of the models remain on the table.

“We will continue to look at [all] those aircraft types going forward,” says Laderman.

His comments are a much needed break for Bombardier, who many in the industry see as in desperate need of a flagship CSeries order from a carrier like United or Delta Air Lines to maintain the programme.

Richard Anderson, chairman and chief executive of Atlanta-based Delta, said on 19 January the airline was giving the CSeries a “serious look” after he and other senior executives toured the aircraft in December.

United executives toured the CS100 when it visited the airline’s Chicago O’Hare base in November.

Laderman has previously said that there is a need for at least 30 narrowbodies with around 100 seats in United’s mainline fleet.

As an added bonus, United would be able to add up to 35 additional 76-seat regional jets to its feeder fleet with the addition of either the CS100 or either Embraer types under the scope clause provisions in its pilots contract.

United will use the 737-700s ordered today and the potential 100-seat aircraft order to replace 50-seat regional jets and upgauge its fleet. It plans to remove “more than half” of the small jets in its feeder fleet by 2019.

The airline had about 250 50-seat regional jets at the end of 2015, putting its 2019 target count at less than 125 of the type. Story Link: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-still-considering-a-cseries-or-e2-order-421081/

United is also leasing 11 used A319s from AerCap for the upgauging programme. The first nine of these will join the fleet in 2016.

[Lakelad]

.

‘We were not prepared for an all-out war’

How Bombardier’s C Series united Airbus and Boeing, and unleashed a battle that brought the Canadian icon to its knees

Fri Jan 29, 2016 - Globe and Mail
Greg keenan, Eric Reguly and Nicolas Van Praet

As the 2010 Farnborough Air Show wound down, Airbus Group SE was riding high.

The European giant had bagged about $13-billion (U.S.) worth of firm airplane orders, while Bombardier Inc., challenging Airbus and its fellow giant Boeing Co. in the single-aisle segment with the new C Series, won not a single order and squirmed while a potential customer went public with criticisms about the engine on the new plane.

John Leahy, chief salesman for Airbus, was so delighted that he offered his best wishes to Bombardier and other “little airline manufacturers that are trying to spring up around the world,” declaring that if Airbus went ahead with a proposal to put more fuel-efficient engines on its A320 family of planes, there would be no business case for airlines to buy the C Series.

Mr. Leahy, chief operating officer-customers, for Airbus, is one of the most outspoken senior executives in the plane-making business, but as events have shown, he was not bragging. He is still at it, more than five years after that Farnborough show and the official announcement later in 2010 that Airbus would “re-engine” its A320 family. In the midst of a long drought of orders for the C Series, earlier this month he derided the aircraft as a “nice little airplane.”

Those public pronouncements aside, Airbus took the threat from Bombardier seriously and set out to vanquish the challenger, provoking Boeing to take similar actions. Their responses have helped force one of the handful of Canadian global champions to its knees and thrown into doubt one of the most ambitious manufacturing projects undertaken in this country.

Airbus, recalling its own roots as an upstart rival to Boeing in the 1970s, defended its turf by taking advantage of economies of scale, its vast customer base, fears at airlines about the risks of brand-new technology, a fortunate turn of events on jet fuel prices and some mistakes by Bombardier.

The A320neo and the Boeing 737 Max have not quite succeeded in crushing the C Series, but they have made a major contribution to the program’s current status as an aircraft that is on life support and has so far failed to make much of a dent in the Airbus-Boeing duopoly.

The C Series program, Bombardier’s bet-the-company bid to disrupt that duopoly, is $2-billion over its original $3.4-billion budget and more than two years behind schedule. No new orders have been landed since 2014. The program has been such a drain on Bombardier that the Quebec government pumped in a $1.0-billion capital infusion last year and the company has asked for a federal contribution as well.

While Mr. Leahy has played bad cop, Tom Williams, Airbus’s chief operating officer, offered the C Series a genuine compliment: It was a potentially competitive plane that threatened to eat into the bread-and-butter market occupied by the A320 family, the planes that are close to overtaking the Boeing 737 as the most popular large commercial jet.

“I always take the view that you should be paranoid and that your enemies are out to get you and you should always be ready to react,” Mr. Williams told The Globe and Mail this month at the annual Airbus news conference in Paris. “So I think we did the right thing. … I think it is more difficult for Bombardier to sell the C Series against the 737 Max and the 320neo.”

The C Series, whose two versions seat from 100 to 150 passengers, is the first entirely new plane in the single-aisle segment in decades. Although it was aimed at the smaller versions of the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 that seat fewer than 150 passengers, it frightened Airbus.

When the C Series program was officially launched in 2007, Airbus took notice and asked a lot of questions.

With 20-per-cent better fuel economy and 15-per-cent lower cash operating costs than the existing A319, would it take over that segment? Crucially: Would the C Series eventually come in ever larger versions, allowing it to compete with the bigger A320 or even the A321, which are the true heart of the lucrative single-aisle market?

“When we launched the 320neo, it wasn’t because we were particularly worried about what Boeing would do with the 737, because they hadn’t done anything,” Mr. Williams said. “We did it because we were worried Bombardier would come into the bottom end of the market and would begin to take away our market [by moving into bigger planes]. I can remember one of the catalysts, and the discussion around the table, was: How do we make sure that we’re ready to compete, not with the smaller Bombardier airplane – the 130-seater is not terribly interesting. But the 150-seater starts to be an interesting airplane. It would be moving up market.”

The result, said a former Bombardier executive, was a battle that the Canadian transportation company didn’t expect and was loath to fight.

“They definitely underestimated the vigour with which Airbus was going to try to kill them,” the former executive said. “What we didn’t plan on was the massive pricing battle that they were able to do… . Without a doubt we were not prepared for an all-out war.”

'The official list prices of airplane manufacturers are fiction'

.

[rudder]

Word on the street is that UA paid USD$25M per copy on their recent two significant B737-700 orders placed with Boeing (40/25). That is a 70% discount from list price.

Customers interested in the CS300 will have that fact and the widely held belief that AC received a 60% discount which will make it very tough for BBD to consummate any future CS300 orders at anything remotely approaching list price. Another factor for the Feds to consider as they continue their potential financial aid to BBD. 

No wonder BBD approached Airbus. Clearly, Boeing intends to take what ever action necessary to preserve its existing NB customers and has the financial wherewithal to do so.

[MD2]

None of these are corroborated information and cannot be treated as "facts". It would be naïve to presume details of any private deals. The only fact is that each airline negotiates its own deal which often includes non-disclosure clauses with penalties involved. Therefore potential future customers must strike their own deal that suits them and the seller, everything else is speculation good for passing time! 

[Guest]

There is doubt that the C300 etc are / will be great aircraft but if no one (at least in survivable numbers) is interested in buying them, then I don't think we should prop Bombardier up any more than any other Canadian company with a great product that no one wants.

[MD2]

I believe what you suggest above would be short-sighted and indeed very unfortunate.

There can be no doubt that Airbus took the C series threat very seriously and not only mounted a vicious attack on it, but also convinced Boeing to do the same. This much is clear. But how they are doing this and undercutting their own prices to retain market share cannot be very legal. In this environment, it is amusing that Embraer is voicing concerns about government investment in Bombardier, not to mention that in an attempt to gain a toehold in the market they themselves have been practically giving away their aircraft for next to nothing for years. 

Boeing and Airbus are heavily discounting their narrow body aircraft in the hopes of retaining market share, and make-up for their losses on these sales on wide body sales, or so they hope. They do have an advantage here, true, at the same time, once the C series are used more, their advantages become more apparent, especially as oil prices recover. Another factor, will be the introduction of a bigger (-500) version. This really scares Boeing and Airbus, and there can be little doubt that Bombardier will get to it, however it first needs to sell some planes and get some cash.

This is why it is absolutely imperative for the federal government to invest in Bombardier and the C series program, being as great a product as it is, and help it succeed. There may be other elements the government has to consider about the company, but the government needs to step in and as well create an environment conducive to more visibility and sale for the C series aircraft. This will help all Canadians and Bombardier as a Canadian icon in world aviation. 

[rudder]

12 minutes ago, MD2 said:

None of these are corroborated information and cannot be treated as "facts". It would be naïve to presume details of any private deals. The only fact is that each airline negotiates its own deal which often includes non-disclosure clauses with penalties involved. Therefore potential future customers must strike their own deal that suits them and the seller, everything else is speculation good for passing time! 

If you understand the industry, then you recognize that this is how consummated deals get done.

If you are just placing a mom-and-pop order, then you get a mom-and-pop discount (20% or less).

If you are a return customer or a customer placing a significant order (either launch customer or large volume), the discount is proportional. If you are familiar with the industry then you would know that those discounts are 25-50%. In exceptional circumstances with a motivated manufacturer you will get 50%+ off list price.

None of this is new. None of it is a secret. If you don't (or didn't?) get a good deal on aircraft ordered, then that is the true definition of naive.

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MD2 said:

I believe what you suggest above would be short-sighted and indeed very unfortunate.

 

This is why it is absolutely imperative for the federal government to invest in Bombardier and the C series program, being as great a product as it is, and help it succeed. There may be other elements the government has to consider about the company, but the government needs to step in and as well create an environment conducive to more visibility and sale for the C series aircraft. This will help all Canadians and Bombardier as a Canadian icon in world aviation. 

and how do they create an environment conducive to more visibility and sale if no major airline wants them???? It is a tough market out there and survival is

dependent upon sales.

[MD2]

56 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

and how do they create an environment conducive to more visibility and sale if no major airline wants them????

And that is the right question to ask!

Lack of sales is not because of bad product in this case, it's because of Airbus and Boeing's attacks.

Investing in the company for the short term, and allowing it to showcase its full capabilities and potential for increased sales over the long term are a good approach...

 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, MD2 said:

And that is the right question to ask!

It was your suggestion , so how would you think they could to that?  I SEE YOU EDITED YOUR POST AFTER I ASKED WHAT YOU WOULD DO.   So is that your answer to my query?

[rudder]

24 minutes ago, MD2 said:

And that is the right question to ask!

Lack of sales is not because of bad product in this case, it's because of Airbus and Boeing's attacks.

Investing in the company for the short term, and allowing it to showcase its full capabilities and potential for increased sales over the long term are a good approach...

 

What response did you expect from Boeing and Airbus? Perhaps both you and BBD were caught off guard. And why don't you lump in Embraer here too as it competes directly with the CS100 using the E2-190 which seems to already have a healthy number of orders.

I do not see where BBD will ever be able to claim break-even on the CS program on a standalone financial basis considering sunk development costs and diminished margin on actual sales (which will be significant).

BBD competitors use cross-subsidization as a competitive tool.  Perhaps BBD will have to do the same although that will become more difficult as it makes deals with financial saviours that are demanding that the business units be separated financially. 

[Fido]

Years late

Billions over budget

Poor sales

Bailout from every level of government

Yup, a real good airplane.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Fido said:

Years late

Billions over budget

Poor sales

Bailout from every level of government

Yup, a real good airplane.

No doubt that it is a good airplane but too little, too late and no one (major) want to buy it.  So like other good ideas it will die a natural death unless some government is stupid enough to support it our money.   I would love to see the aircraft generate a demand but I don't think feeding Bombardier more tax payer dollars will do that.

[MD2]

5 hours ago, Malcolm said:

It was your suggestion , so how would you think they could to that?  I SEE YOU EDITED YOUR POST AFTER I ASKED WHAT YOU WOULD DO.   So is that your answer to my query?

Yes. Some forget the direct and indirect support Airbus and Boeing get from their respective countries and expect Bombardier to produce results in such a competitive business. Defense contracts for Boeing alone are much more than what the Canadian government can ever do to support Bombardier. We cannot expect Boeing and Airbus to do nothing, neither can we expect our governments to do nothing, especially when they essentially get reimbursed in 3-4 years in income taxes of these high-paying jobs that are kept in Canada and also providing business for its suppliers. This is why it makes so much sense to invest in Bombardier as a global icon in aviation and it also helps Canadians.

As well, regardless of existing orders, there is little choice but to allow the CS-100 aircraft to fly from Toronto City airport to adequately showcase its urban operations capability which will enhance its sales potential. Just last week, there was news from British Airways and its CEO mentioned they were interested in the CS100 for London City operations. They and other similar customers will no doubt be looking at the example of Toronto City airport for guidance.

[boestar]

It is just history repeating itself.  They let the Arrow die which was the best of its time and now they will let the CS die which is potentially the best in class of its time.

We have allowed out aerospace industry in this country to stagnate and die since the Arrow program was terminated.  We never again placed resources into that industry to bring back what we once had.  Allowing the aircraft to die while still on the vine is a short sighted and bad idea. 

Yes the aircraft was over budget and delayed but so has every major new aircraft by almost any manufacturer.  Boeing and Airbus included.

The Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda is that Bombardier had the aircraft on the radar in the late 90's as the BRJX platform.  Had they moved forward with it at that time, development and testing would have been done during a down turn in the industry after 9/11.  The airframe would have been ripe for the picking when things recovered. They opted for plan B and back burnered the project and the rest is history.

It is here now, It is a solid performer and delivers on its promises we should be promoting the crap out of this thing.  It is good for the economy as a whole to Keep the aerospace industry alive and even grow it in this country.

[Guest]

MD2: something to ponder on:

15 Greatest Canadian Inventions

by Charles Plant | Sep 13, 2010 | Innovation | 0 comments

In the course of looking for background on Canadian Inventions, I came upon a list of the top 50 Canadian Inventions (Five-Pin Bowling is number 4). This list came out of a show put on by the CBC (who else) in 2007. Following on the heels of the Greatest Canadian this show put it to all Canadians to rank our 50 greatest inventions. To see some background on the show go to www.cbc.ca/inventions/

I was trolling through this list and suddenly it struck me. I couldn’t identify a single company that had been created and gained worldwide prominence out of the first 15 inventions. Where was the pharmaceutical giant spawned from the development of insulin, the nutraceutical behemoth formed from Pablum? Instead I found a list of fabulous inventions which for the most part were opportunities not seized. Certainly Poutine has been a worldwide phenom but have we capitalized on its creation to bring untold wealth back home?

In the top 15 companies there were only two examples of a Canadian company that continues today to benefit from the commercialization of a Canadian invention. (Cobalt-60 by AECL and the Canadarm by MacDonald Dettwiler, for now anyway). I was very pleased to see that Wonderbra made the list but it was marketed by a Canadian firm for only 4 years before the company was sold to Sara Lee.

To be fair, Bombardier with the Skidoo, and RIM hit the list at numbers 17 and 18 but I was once told to keep lists short and I didn’t have time to keep on researching. Here then for your edification and enjoyment are Canada’s top 15 inventions and where they ended up.

1. Insulin, Treatment for Diabetes [1921, Frederick Banting, Charles Best] Marketed by Eli Lilly, US based pharmaceutical giant who made it big specifically as a result of insulin.
2. Telephone [1876, Alexander Graham Bell] Conceived in Canada. Patented and Marketed in the US by National Bell Telephone Company.
3. Light Bulb [1874, Henry Woodward, Mathew Evans] Unsuccessful at commercializing it. Sold their invention to Thomas Edison in 1879
4. Five Pin Bowling [1908, Thomas F. Ryan] Not a commercializable product
5. Wonderbra [1964, Louise Poirier] First successfully commercialized in Canada by Canadian Lady – Canadelle but by 1968 the company had been sold to Sara Lee out of the US.
6. Pacemaker [1950, John Hopps, Wilfred Bigelow, John Callaghan] Among many contributors to development – successfully commercialized by Cardiac Pacemakers Inc of the US in 1972.
7. Robertson Screw, 1908 [Peter Robertson] Sold almost entirely in Canada as the inventor refused to license the screws to anyone (including Ford) due to problems with the first licensee in the UK.
8. Zipper [1913, Gideon Sundback] Not really invented in Canada. Sundback was a Swedish born engineer working in the US at the Hookless Fastener Company
9. Electric Wheelchair [1952, George Klein] No Canadian manufacturer stepped up to the plate to build them so the designs were sent to the US.
10. Poutine [1957, Fernand Lachance] Not a commercializable product – actually not even a tasty one.
11. Cobalt-60 “Bomb” Cancer Treatment [1951, Harold Johns] Commercialized still by AECL.
12. Java Programming Language [1994, James Arthur Gosling] Done in the US by a Canadian for Sun Microsystems
13. Bloody Caesar [1969, Walter Chell] Not a commercializable product – but this one is tasty. Who wouldn’t want to own this patent.
14. Canadarm [1975, Spar Aerospace/NRC] Actually remained Canadian but may not remain so as MacDonald Detwiller tried to sell itself to a US company this year
15. Standard time [1878, Sir Sandford Fleming] Not a commercializable product

[Guest]

Bombardier Launches C Series Route-proving in Europe

by Gregory Polek

 - March 7, 2016, 11:48 AM

 

 

 

 

 

The Bombardier CSeries CS100 has started a month-long route-proving campaign in Europe, Bombardier Commercial Aircraft announced Monday. The program uses a dedicated CS100 route-proving aircraft operated by Bombardier from the Zurich based of launch operator Swiss International Air Lines. Plans call for the route-proving exercises to include main European cities such a Brussels, Vienna and Warsaw. Bombardier plans to deliver the first production CS100 to Swiss in the second quarter.

“As the launch customer and the first airline that will operate the CS100 aircraft, the European route- proving program is very important to us and will provide a real indication of how the aircraft will operate in our network when we take delivery of our first CS100 aircraft in the next few months,” said Swiss International Airlines chief technical officer Peter Wojahn.

The CS100 will conduct route-proving flights using typical airline flight routings and operational procedures, said Bombardier, giving a clear indication of how the C Series aircraft will perform in a typical airline schedule to and from different airports. Airfield performance, landings, airport turnarounds and on-ground operations represent some of what Bombardier calls important characteristics it plans to observe.

The European route-proving program follows one conducted last year across North America that included more than 35 cities.

Separately, Bombardier confirmed that the last of eight flight test vehicles–the second CS300 aircraft–entered the flight test program in Mirabel, Québec last week.

“March is turning out to be a very productive month for the C Series aircraft program,” said CSeries program head Rob Dewar. “In addition to the next phase of route-proving, last week we celebrated the first flight of the eighth and final flight test vehicle. It's only the second CS300 flight test vehicle in the program and one that is equipped with a full production interior. We’re delighted that its test program, which is dedicated to cabin and interior certification, is off to a great start and progressing extremely well.”

[Guest]

And in todays news: Tories pressure Ottawa to expand Billy Bishop airport as way to help Bombardier Add to ...

BILL CURRY

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Mar. 07, 2016 10:21PM EST

Last updated Monday, Mar. 07, 2016 11:03PM EST

The Conservatives are ramping up the pressure on federal Liberals to expand Toronto’s Billy Bishop island airport as a way of helping Bombardier Inc..

The Conservatives plan to introduce a motion from Saskatchewan MP Kelly Block Tuesday that calls on Ottawa to reverse their opposition to expanding the airport.

The motion also calls for the recognition that “there is already a market solution available that could support Bombardier.”

Tuesday is an opposition day in the House of Commons, meaning the Conservatives can put forward a motion of their choice for a day-long debate and vote.

Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. is seeking at least $1-billion in federal support toward its C-Series jet program. The Quebec government has already pledged $1-billion and is urging the federal government to make a similar commitment. Ottawa has said it is studying the request, but has not made a final decision.

The Conservative motion does not directly address how Ottawa should respond to this request from Bombardier.

In 2013, Porter Airlines expressed an interest in purchasing up to 30 C Series aircraft from Bombardier under the condition that the jets were allowed to land at the Toronto island airport.

Porter’s proposal stirred vocal opposition from groups in downtown Toronto who expressed concerns about increased noise, pollution and traffic if the island airport was expanded.

In an interview, Ms. Block criticized Transport Minister Marc Garneau for ruling out an expansion.

“As the critic, it’s my job to hold the minister to account for decisions that don’t make sense,” said Ms. Block. “I think this motion is about jobs and economic growth and the airport is a major contributor to both of those.”

Ms. Block declined to say whether Ottawa should directly support Bombardier.

In a statement, Mr. Garneau said the existing rules for the airport create the right balance between commercial and local community interests, and the government will not be reopening the issue.

[DEFCON]

It this sort of thing' that creates an air of black magic and brand loyalty when it comes to aircraft manufacturing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-10/the-u-dot-s-dot-subsidizes-boeings-foreign-customers-dot-delta-wants-it-stop

Why did AC require a  large discount before they would purchase the C Series? Probably because of the advantages foreign competitors enjoy through the benefits provided by organizations such as the EDC.

 

 

[MD2]

Malcolm,

Thank you for sharing that. Indeed Canada has not benefited from its inventions as it should have. Let's hope C series aircraft will not be added to the list of Canadian innovation used by others. On another note:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/liberals-vote-down-bid-to-call-bombardier-executives-before-commons-committee/article29099192/

{quote}

...A separate Conservative Opposition motion in the Commons called on the government to extend the runway at Billy Bishop to help Bombardier, rather than provide a corporate bailout.

“We’re saying to the government you can do a lot of things to help Bombardier without giving them taxpayer’s money,” Bernier said.

Transport Minister Marc Garneau said the decision to not extend the runway at the airport was a response to community concerns about the quality of life in Canada’s largest city.

During debate in the Commons, Garneau said the Tories were taking a “simplistic” view of the decision and its effect on Bombardier, arguing that view “ignores a much larger picture.”

“Bombardier is a first-class aerospace company and I’m sure that Bombardier is not going to rise or fall on the decision related to Billy Bishop airport,” Garneau said.

{end quote}

 

It would be very unfortunate for the Liberal government to insist on this line of thinking for 4 reasons:

1. While it is good that the Liberals were able to broker a deal that Air Canada may buy some C series aircraft in return for scratching Quebec government's lawsuit and easing ACPPA; at the same time, it would be a grave mistake to presume these as a replacement for Porter airline's order. It would be like assuming that after eating once, we need not worry about eating again! Sadly, we have to eat every day, and manufacturers have to keep selling and one order does not replace another one. Of course once Air Canada firms the order with a deposit, it can be taken more seriously.

2. Regardless of other orders, it is paramount for the C series to fly from Toronto city airport to demonstrate its environmental friendliness and urban operations suitability. While showcasing this capability, Porter's order also offers an "industry solution" that provides much needed cash for Bombardier and reduce the government's own direct investment. Urban operations suitability will also bring more orders. Failing to do this would send the wrong signal to global airlines that Canada itself does not endorse the C series for urban operations and materially retard its progress and sales in global markets.

3. Saying "Bombardier is a first-class aerospace company and I’m sure that Bombardier is not going to rise or fall on the decision related to Billy Bishop airport", is a dangerous declaration to make on its behalf. Instead, it would be wiser to let its own executives who are better informed to make assessments on its financial health and challenges and if need be testify under oath before a by-partisan industrial committee. Otherwise, if this presumption is proven wrong a lot of hardship will be felt in Canadian economy, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, and remembered for a very long time by voters.

4. Lest we forget, under the last Liberal government, Canada's second largest airline went bankrupt due to federal government's slow reaction and unreasonable demands in a very challenging time for airlines around the world. In contrast in the U.S, where the terrorist attacks actually occurred, none of the major carriers disappeared. This Liberal government would be wise to learn from those days and chart a balanced path away from the past.