SkyBlazer Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 MONTREAL -- Bombardier Inc. is not really at a disadvantage in the contest against its foreign rivals to supply regional jets to Air Canada and is the top contender in the four-way race, an analyst says. "We believe Bombardier has the home court advantage regarding Air Canada," Ronald Epstein of Merrill Lynch & Co. in New York said in a research note for clients yesterday. Air Canada boss Robert Milton and Bombardier Aerospace president Pierre Beaudoin said on Thursday that Bombardier is at a disadvantage because it's technically ineligible for government export financing on domestic deals, unlike rivals Boeing Co. of Seattle, Embraer SA of Brazil and Airbus Industrie of Europe, which are all eligible for export financing from their respective governments. Air Canada and Bombardier could conceivably get around the problem of not being eligible for export financing from the federal government, Mr. Epstein said, citing comments from Merrill Lynch colleague Ihor Danyliuk, who covers Bombardier from Toronto. "Conceivably, Bombardier could structure a deal where it exports jets (with export financing support) to a foreign leasing company that in turn leases the jets to Air Canada," he said. The fuss over the lack of export financing available to Bombardier is likely just a "negotiating tactic with the Canadian government," Mr. Epstein wrote, citing Mr. Danyliuk. The airline is in the market for up to 100 jets in the 70- to 110-seat range and the fact it's emerging from bankruptcy protection indicates it will seek the best possible deal, with financing a key element affecting the final selection, Mr. Epstein said. "Ultimately, we believe financing and Canadian politics will emerge as the key deciding factors" in Air Canada's choice, he added. Meanwhile, St. George, Utah-based SkyWest Inc. said yesterday it was close to ordering 30 Bombardier regional jets because of an expanded contract with UAL Corp.'s United Airlines. © The Globe and Mail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 They are at a disadvantage when you consider at its core the CRJ is still just a corporate jet on viagra and Embraer is comming to the table with a plane built from the ground up for this purpose and this purpose alone. Bombardier could have held on to it's leadership position, but they pulled a "McDonnell" and decided to let the competition pass them by rather than invest in the future in the name of "increasing shareholder value" The A318 and 717 are not really enough smaller than the 319 to justify the moderate loads that are to big for the CRJ but to small for a big jet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Sowsun Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Is it true that the A318 and 717 both have a maximum certified seating capacity over 110 seats? Are they therefore not included in the 76-110 seat category? Mike Sowsun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 From the Airbus website: The A318 seats 107 passengers in a typical two-class cabin layout over a range of up to 3,250 nm/6,000 km, powered by CFM56-5 or PW6000 engines. http://www.airbus.com/product/a318_introduction.asp Seems it's in the running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 "107 passengers in a typical two-class cabin layout" is not equal to "maximum certified". But is that key? Is "typical" seating capacity the marker? Someone said the 318 is overpowered, but I'm not so sure there is such a thing... Can't ya just use a little less throttle and save some gas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Sowsun Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 According to the websites, both the B717 and the A318 have 117 seats with an all economy arrangement and 32" pitch. http://www.airbus.com/product/a318_cabin_layouts.asp http://www.boeing.com/commercial/717/717technical.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 And to keep things in perspective.... The BAe 146-300 can have either 100 seats (5 abrest) or 112 seats (at 6 abrest). Does anybody in North America fly with max certified seats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Does anyone have any figures with respect to performance and cost RPM 318 vs 319? Seems to me that there isn't a "great" advantage here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 112 6 abreast...............the aisle would not fit the people in the North American market. Have to walk down it sideways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Sowsun Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 "Does anybody in North America fly with max certified seats? " Of course. Many low cost or charter aircraft are configured to the max. But that doesn't change the fact that the wording is 76-110 maximum certified seating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 When is Air Canada going to get rid of those peices of junk? I was told by someone that the lessor doesn't want them back ever and Air Canada is basically getting them for free. How accurate is that? When I see one of those pull up to the gate my heart just sinks. It seems Rapid Air A319's are being sub'd with 146's alot these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Another issue to take into account is the unions would go balistic if Air Canada (or anyone else) tried to put the 717 or 318 into the regional fleet. Since AC's intention is for these new small jets to be opperated by Jazz, if Jazz started flying what are obviously mainline jets it will be like Frank Lorenzo and Charlie Bryan came to town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 OI! "peices of junk"? No airplane deserves that kind of slander! They may be odd looking mini-Antonovski-ish-too-many-engined-wierd-birds, but not even the lowliest of but-ugly buckets of tin could ever be "junk", as long as it flew. Especially not one maintained by the AC team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrick Bergen Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I second this opinion. Using more phrases such as "reliability challenged" or aircraft that "must have a good personality" would be more suitable. The BAe 146 was a great idea it is just they never built the full version to replace the 1/4 scale model. (Kidding) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 A piece of junk ?!? It's obvious that you've never had the pleasure of riding in one. Passengers love this airplane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 My mother is one of those people who would rather drive anywhere. Even when it is more expensive to drive. When I got her on a plane a while ago, it was supposed to be an A319, the flight was downgraded to a 146. It was loud, and she was esspecially re-assured when the pilot annouced the vibrations and high pitched whail were perfectly normal and not a cause for alarm. I may never get her on another plane! The best (non-obscene) thing I ever heard the 146 called is "Honey I Shrunk The Starlifter" Another thing I heard said about it in England was "The best and the brightest went to Airbus, the blokes left behind built this" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JC Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Hi Mitch Good post. Now when are you going to refer to those "little jets" (RJ's) as sports cars as opposed to buses. Then again I don't have to crawl into those small spaces and the cockpit fits as I'm a pretty small person. (height and weight that is!) cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Yes, I believe you are right. Too bad, Guess Air Canada just won't be happy until the whole thing is in the tank.....then what? The ones that are gone will be happy flying a Cessna 172 for $500.00 a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Why does your heart sink? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I can't stand it! You are either joking or a complete ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Now I am laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Re: "(height and weight that is!)" Valid distinction. RJ's... Sports cars? ... I've heard "Ski-Doo's", "Sleds" and a few other things mechanics call them, but you know what.... I don't remember hearing from guys who fly them what they're like to fly. They do have a pretty sporty look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrick Bergen Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 "AC's intention is for these new small jets to be opperated by Jazz" Is this the case or speculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 For your comparison, If you ignore the PSA accident, you'll find the 146, is comparable to the 320s safety record. Brett from http://www.airsafe.com/ Fatal BAe146/Avro RJ100 Events The following events are those involving at least one passenger death where the aircraft flight had a direct or indirect role. Excluded would be events where the only passengers killed were stowaways, hijackers, or saboteurs. 7 December 1987; Pacific Southwest Airlines BAe146-200; near San Luis Obispo, CA: A recently fired USAir employee used his now invalidated credentials to board the aircraft with a pistol and apparently killed his former manager and both pilots (USAir had recently purchased PSA). All five crew members and the 37 other passengers were killed. 20 February 1991; LAN Chile BAe146-200; Puerto Williams, Chile: The aircraft overran the runway on landing and sank in the nearby waters. Twenty of the 65 passengers were killed. 23 July 1993; China Northwest BAe146-300; Yinchuan, China: The aircraft had a rejected takeoff and overran the runway. One of the five crew members and 54 of the 108 passengers were killed. 25 September 1998; Paukn Air Bae 146-100; in Moroccan territory near Melilla, Spain: The aircraft was on approach to Melilla airport on a flight from Malaga when it crashed in a mountainous area about 7.5 miles (12 km) from the airport. All four crew members and 34 passengers were killed. 24 November 2001; Crossair Avro RJ100; near Zurich, Switzerland: The aircraft was on a flight from Berlin, Germany to Zurich, Switzerland when it crashed into a wooded area about two miles (3.2 km) from the runway during a night approach to Zurich's airport. Three of the five crew members and 21 of the 28 passengers were killed. 8 January 2003; Turkish Airlines RJ100; Diyarbakir, Turkey: The aircraft had departed from Istanbul and crashed shortly before landing in Diyarbakir, a city near Turkey's border with Iraq. Four of the five crew members and 71 of the 75 passengers were killed in the crash. Fatal Airbus A320 Events The following A320 events involve at least one passenger death where the aircraft flight had a direct or indirect role. Excluded would be events where the only passengers killed were stowaways, hijackers, or saboteurs. 26 June 1988; Air France A320; near Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport, France: The aircraft crashed into trees during an air show maneuver when the aircraft failed to gain height during a low pass with the gear extended. Three of the 136 passengers were killed. 14 February 1990; Indian Airlines A320; Bangalore, India: Controlled flight into terrain during approach. Aircraft hit about 400 meters short of the runway. Four of the seven crew members and 88 of the 139 passengers were killed. 20 January 1992; Air Inter A320; near Strasbourg, France: Aircraft had a controlled flight into terrain after the flight crew incorrectly set the flight management system. Five of the six crew and 82 of the 87 passengers perished. 14 September 1993; Lufthansa A320-200; Warsaw Airport, Poland: Aircraft landed with a tail wind. Landing performance and aircraft design led to a late deployment of braking devices. Aircraft overran the runway. One of the 6 crew and 1 of the 64 passengers were killed. 23 August 2000; Gulf Air A320; Near Manama, Bahrain: The aircraft was making a third attempt to land at the Bahrain International Airport after a flight from Cairo when the aircraft crashed into the sea about three miles (4.8 km) from the airport. All eight crew members and 135 passengers were killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JC Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Mitch Coming from a girl who flew mostly corporate jets.... the RJ is a great airplane in regards to technology. We get pictures telling us what is right or wrong. Can it get any better than that? (Pilots and Pictures) When at base without our AC ame's we rely on phone conversations, and yes we will crawl into those spaces on "your request". Hmm..... could we actually be on the same page? I'd love to meet you online some day! cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.