Liberal Party wins, Bombardier wins
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like BFTC & Engineering caught up a lot of the delay to bring the CS300 Certification much closer to the original timetable. Great effort. chaps!
Nothing like success to breed more success:
Airbus and Boeing's greatest threat just arrived - Yahoo Finance
Airbus and Boeing's greatest threat just arrived - Yahoo Finance
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight deck crew of a new operator of the C series managed to flub the switching order of a system panel during the after start procedure which eventually lead to a self-inflicted system issue that required the aircraft to RTB.
Bombardier's faulty product or new operator oopsy? Thank gawd the aeroplane doesn't have lithium batteries.
Remember the wisdom forecast in this thread earlier about Bombardier's imminent demise? Well...
Boeing to take a $2.1 Billion 2Q hit across 787, 747-8, and KC-46 programs
Money from the multitude of B-737 Maxs' sold won't be in Boeing's coffers for a few more years. Quarterly losses like this at a company the size of Boeing with the sales figures and military contracts it holds cannot be sustained over multiple quarters. Yet not many on here seem willing to acknowledge they are under immense financial stress and are moving closer to the edge than ever before where failure of this company is possible. A $2 Billion loss in any quarter with the sales figures this company has racked up is by no means the end of Boeing any more than an infusion of $2 Billion (from ANY backer) into Bombardier's future means their demise is any more imminent either.
The duopoly is under siege. Good luck to Bombardier moving ahead.
Willie
Bombardier's faulty product or new operator oopsy? Thank gawd the aeroplane doesn't have lithium batteries.
Remember the wisdom forecast in this thread earlier about Bombardier's imminent demise? Well...
Boeing to take a $2.1 Billion 2Q hit across 787, 747-8, and KC-46 programs
Money from the multitude of B-737 Maxs' sold won't be in Boeing's coffers for a few more years. Quarterly losses like this at a company the size of Boeing with the sales figures and military contracts it holds cannot be sustained over multiple quarters. Yet not many on here seem willing to acknowledge they are under immense financial stress and are moving closer to the edge than ever before where failure of this company is possible. A $2 Billion loss in any quarter with the sales figures this company has racked up is by no means the end of Boeing any more than an infusion of $2 Billion (from ANY backer) into Bombardier's future means their demise is any more imminent either.
The duopoly is under siege. Good luck to Bombardier moving ahead.
Willie
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FliteAware's weekly review has a link to Airways Magazine's article on the CS100's first revenue flight. It makes very positive comparisons between the CS100 and the aircraft it will be replacing, the Avro RJ100.
Willie
Last year, Boeing took a billion USD write-off, due mainly to issues with the KC-46 tanker and reduced demand for the 747-8, and still netted over $5 billion on sales of over $96 billion. Even after another multi-billion write-off this year, they are still projected to net over $5 billion (the timing of the 787 write-off is interesting - they've known for years that the l/n 4 and 5 787s couldn't be refurbished and sold profitably).
Last year Bombardier lost over $5 billion on the aircraft business - swamping the half billion they made from their other divisions - on total revenue of a bit over $18 billion. Bombardier is projected to lose another $5 billion in 2016.
And you're suggesting Boeing is in trouble?
In other words, Boeing just had a bad quarter - Bombardier is having a bad decade
Last year, Boeing took a billion USD write-off, due mainly to issues with the KC-46 tanker and reduced demand for the 747-8, and still netted over $5 billion on sales of over $96 billion. Even after another multi-billion write-off this year, they are still projected to net over $5 billion (the timing of the 787 write-off is interesting - they've known for years that the l/n 4 and 5 787s couldn't be refurbished and sold profitably).
Last year Bombardier lost over $5 billion on the aircraft business - swamping the half billion they made from their other divisions - on total revenue of a bit over $18 billion. Bombardier is projected to lose another $5 billion in 2016.
And you're suggesting Boeing is in trouble?
In other words, Boeing just had a bad quarter - Bombardier is having a bad decade
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes very positive comparisons between the CS100 and the aircraft it will be replacing, the Avro RJ100.
well hope so!!!Ryanair reckon their 737 Max will deliver fuel savings alone of 16% versus the 738 as well as 8 extra 'free' seats. Over a typical airframe life of 20 to 30+ years, the savings from new generation aircraft are invariably several orders of magnitude greater.
It's called technological progress.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer
"And you're suggesting Boeing is in trouble?"
Yes. I am. They might even have to cancel their B-747 program.
So, is that a good sign or a bad sign? A sign of financial strength?
I don't think it is, frankly. But then, I don't run Boeing. It may just be a sign of necessary market realities.
Willie
"And you're suggesting Boeing is in trouble?"
Yes. I am. They might even have to cancel their B-747 program.
So, is that a good sign or a bad sign? A sign of financial strength?
I don't think it is, frankly. But then, I don't run Boeing. It may just be a sign of necessary market realities.
Willie
"And you're suggesting Boeing is in trouble?"
The fact is the 737 'Y' seat is only 17" wide, against the A320 at 18" wide and the C Series at 19" (with a wider aisle than both competitors), Boeing will likely have to face up to a clean-sheet replacement for their single aisle products in the not-so-distant future.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course Boeing isn't the only one navigating "trouble" these days.
Quote-
"The UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has launched an investigation into allegations of "fraud, bribery and corruption" in the civil aviation business of Airbus.
The allegations relate to irregularities concerning third party consultants.
The France-based aircraft manufacturer said it was co-operating with the probe, which was launched last month.
In April, UK authorities froze export credit applications by Airbus.
The SFO was asked to look at documentation provided by the company about its use of overseas agents.
Export credits are used by many governments to support exporters, often by underwriting bank loans offered to overseas buyers of UK products.
Last year Airbus used export financing for 6% of its deliveries.
The main parts of Airbus commercial aircraft are made in France, Germany and the UK.
Britain usually provides export support to Airbus in partnership with the other two nations.
Germany and France joined the UK in halting export credit."
- BBC UK
Willie
Quote-
"The UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has launched an investigation into allegations of "fraud, bribery and corruption" in the civil aviation business of Airbus.
The allegations relate to irregularities concerning third party consultants.
The France-based aircraft manufacturer said it was co-operating with the probe, which was launched last month.
In April, UK authorities froze export credit applications by Airbus.
The SFO was asked to look at documentation provided by the company about its use of overseas agents.
Export credits are used by many governments to support exporters, often by underwriting bank loans offered to overseas buyers of UK products.
Last year Airbus used export financing for 6% of its deliveries.
The main parts of Airbus commercial aircraft are made in France, Germany and the UK.
Britain usually provides export support to Airbus in partnership with the other two nations.
Germany and France joined the UK in halting export credit."
- BBC UK
Willie
And you're suggesting Boeing is in trouble?"
Yes. I am. They might even have to cancel their B-747 program.
So, is that a good sign or a bad sign? A sign of financial strength?
I don't think it is, frankly. But then, I don't run Boeing. It may just be a sign of necessary market realities.
Yes. I am. They might even have to cancel their B-747 program.
So, is that a good sign or a bad sign? A sign of financial strength?
I don't think it is, frankly. But then, I don't run Boeing. It may just be a sign of necessary market realities.
GF
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you take a company like Boeing and try to compare them with any other company out there building aeroplanes in terms of success or failure. It's safe enough to say or even think Boeing's success speaks for itself. It's a very successful company.
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. My remarks are about trouble. Not success or failure. Trouble. The kind that can place any company, including Boeing, on the road to ruin.
Both Boeing and Airbus are having trouble right now as reported in numerous industry magazines and financial reports. I'm not making this up. Yet many have singled out Bombardier as the one most likely to fail. Personally, I doubt it.
Both A and B have so many undelivered units it's likely to spell even more trouble in the months ahead. Neither A nor B will pocket huge sums of money from future aircraft deliveries until those aircraft are delivered and paid for. This is precisely what the doomsdayers were saying about Bombardier not that long ago.
Boeing has gone from paying Collins on receipt to 120 days. That's cash flow trouble no matter how you want to spin it. Now Airbus are under investigation for fraud.
Trouble? In my estimation, yes.
Are Boeing about to file for Chapter 11? I wouldn't know but I doubt it. I also know lots of large corporations have. Some are no longer in business.
If cash flow becomes too big of a problem for Boeing their suppliers could refuse to deliver parts. No parts, no aircraft. No aircraft to deliver to the customer, no income. No income, debts mount, bye bye Boeing.
If my reference to Boeing is your irritation, then substitute Boeing for any other OEM out there.
I just think it's ridiculous to single out Bombardier without paying attention to the other players.
Willie
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. My remarks are about trouble. Not success or failure. Trouble. The kind that can place any company, including Boeing, on the road to ruin.
Both Boeing and Airbus are having trouble right now as reported in numerous industry magazines and financial reports. I'm not making this up. Yet many have singled out Bombardier as the one most likely to fail. Personally, I doubt it.
Both A and B have so many undelivered units it's likely to spell even more trouble in the months ahead. Neither A nor B will pocket huge sums of money from future aircraft deliveries until those aircraft are delivered and paid for. This is precisely what the doomsdayers were saying about Bombardier not that long ago.
Boeing has gone from paying Collins on receipt to 120 days. That's cash flow trouble no matter how you want to spin it. Now Airbus are under investigation for fraud.
Trouble? In my estimation, yes.
Are Boeing about to file for Chapter 11? I wouldn't know but I doubt it. I also know lots of large corporations have. Some are no longer in business.
If cash flow becomes too big of a problem for Boeing their suppliers could refuse to deliver parts. No parts, no aircraft. No aircraft to deliver to the customer, no income. No income, debts mount, bye bye Boeing.
If my reference to Boeing is your irritation, then substitute Boeing for any other OEM out there.
I just think it's ridiculous to single out Bombardier without paying attention to the other players.
Willie
Willie
Boeing has annual revenue of ~100 Billion USD, with an operating margin approaching 10%. While certainly undesirable, they can weather the occasional multi-billion dollar hiccup. Yes, cashflow is a bit of a problem because they are dumping billions into three new aircraft programs at the same time (737 Max, 777X, and 787-10) but their credit rating is top notch and their stock is near historical highs.
Bombardier has annual revenue of ~20 Billion, with negative operating margin and lost ~$5 Billion last year and is expected to lose a similar amount this year. They readily admitted they had to sell to Delta below cost. How long to you think they can keep that up without large infusions of taxpayer funds? Even if they get their act together in the next six months, how long would it take to just earn back the $10 billion they lost in 2015-16? The entire C-series backlog is less than six months production for either Boeing or Airbus.
Oh, and Embrear is already complaining that the taxpayer infusions violate WTO rules...
Boeing has annual revenue of ~100 Billion USD, with an operating margin approaching 10%. While certainly undesirable, they can weather the occasional multi-billion dollar hiccup. Yes, cashflow is a bit of a problem because they are dumping billions into three new aircraft programs at the same time (737 Max, 777X, and 787-10) but their credit rating is top notch and their stock is near historical highs.
Bombardier has annual revenue of ~20 Billion, with negative operating margin and lost ~$5 Billion last year and is expected to lose a similar amount this year. They readily admitted they had to sell to Delta below cost. How long to you think they can keep that up without large infusions of taxpayer funds? Even if they get their act together in the next six months, how long would it take to just earn back the $10 billion they lost in 2015-16? The entire C-series backlog is less than six months production for either Boeing or Airbus.
Oh, and Embrear is already complaining that the taxpayer infusions violate WTO rules...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing has had decades of taxpayer funding courtesy of the U.S. Government's military contracts or war participation, which seems acceptable to you, but is somehow disastrous, unacceptable or distasteful for Bombardier and Canadian aerospace?
Canada is 1/10th the size of America so I'd think ~10 billion dollars isn't bad for a company fighting for its survival.
I think Embraer is grasping at straws. Bombardier is every bit WTO compliant, same as Boeing and Airbus. (Cough, cough)
Willie
Canada is 1/10th the size of America so I'd think ~10 billion dollars isn't bad for a company fighting for its survival.
I think Embraer is grasping at straws. Bombardier is every bit WTO compliant, same as Boeing and Airbus. (Cough, cough)
Willie
Ah, the old canard Boeing is subsidized by the DOD. If true, how come they are, in your words, in trouble in KC-46 program to the tune of nearly a billion. Yes, Boeing has had many military contracts, not nearly as many as Lockheed, GD or MacAir. They have never received a direct subsidy as BBD, Airbus or Embraer has.
GF
GF
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things as I see them.
Aviation Week long ago reported on the KC-46 Tanker program cost of roughly 4 billion. While the USAF said the contract signed with Boeing was for 2 billion and that they have no intention of ante-ing up the difference. 4 take away 2 is 2 billion. To me, that suggests Boeing will have to eat the 2 billion dollar cost overrun. That's a lot of money by any measure. They're not my numbers, they're the numbers reported by a credible source, Aviation Week.
In my opinion, US military contracts are very much tax payer dollars. Not USAF dollars.
Those tax payer dollars are given to Boeing by the USAF to develop new aircraft, purchase aircraft, or to fund other Air Force programs.
What you're suggesting is preposterous. Would you prefer I said Boeing receives INDIRECT tax payer subsidy?
Willie
Aviation Week long ago reported on the KC-46 Tanker program cost of roughly 4 billion. While the USAF said the contract signed with Boeing was for 2 billion and that they have no intention of ante-ing up the difference. 4 take away 2 is 2 billion. To me, that suggests Boeing will have to eat the 2 billion dollar cost overrun. That's a lot of money by any measure. They're not my numbers, they're the numbers reported by a credible source, Aviation Week.
In my opinion, US military contracts are very much tax payer dollars. Not USAF dollars.
Those tax payer dollars are given to Boeing by the USAF to develop new aircraft, purchase aircraft, or to fund other Air Force programs.
What you're suggesting is preposterous. Would you prefer I said Boeing receives INDIRECT tax payer subsidy?
Willie
The US taxpayer paying Boeing for product isn't a subsidy, it's a purchase for goods. A much-needed cash infusion when the Quebec/Federal taxpayer won't have so much as one plane is a subsidy.
The clear difference is the USAF gets a fleet of refuelers; the Quebec taxpayer gets a stack of IOUs that may or may not pay off.
GF
The clear difference is the USAF gets a fleet of refuelers; the Quebec taxpayer gets a stack of IOUs that may or may not pay off.
GF
Sorry, the US taxpayer is indirectly subsidizing Boeing by covering significant overhead costs (through military production programs) and R&D through DARPA, NASA and other research programs. Non-US/non-European companies cannot rely on their national resources for such aid.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombardier cuts CSeries delivery forecast, adjusts revenue outlook
TL;DR: Growing supply chain troubles at Pratt & Whitney adding to Bombardier's headaches with delivery cuts affecting both CS100 and CS300.
Plus P&W will prioritize its larger clients (mainly Airbus) so Bombardier doesn't have much leverage here. CSeries firm orders represent less than 10% of P&W's geared turbofan engines so P&W will focus on delivering the 90%.
Additional subsidy (oh sorry, "investment") from Ottawa (oh sorry, "Canadian taxpayers") might come sooner than later.
Read the rest from: Bombardier cuts CSeries delivery forecast, adjusts revenue outlook | Business | Reuters
Plus P&W will prioritize its larger clients (mainly Airbus) so Bombardier doesn't have much leverage here. CSeries firm orders represent less than 10% of P&W's geared turbofan engines so P&W will focus on delivering the 90%.
Additional subsidy (oh sorry, "investment") from Ottawa (oh sorry, "Canadian taxpayers") might come sooner than later.
Bombardier cuts CSeries delivery forecast, adjusts revenue outlook
MONTREAL (Reuters) - Bombardier Inc BBDb.TOBDRBF.PK sliced in half the 2016 delivery forecast for its CSeries aircraft on Tuesday and said it expected full-year revenue to be at the lower end of its previously announced range.
The setback is the latest for the CSeries program, which took years to get off the ground and has been hit by production delays and cost overruns, causing the Montreal-based plane and train maker to agree to a C$1 billion ($774 million) investment from the Quebec government.
The company remained in talks with the Canadian federal government about possible funding, and some analysts said the delays could add to concerns about its financial strength.
"Bombardier has a lot of debt, limited financial flexibility and these kind of setbacks, even when they are modest and transient, can heighten concerns", said one transport analyst who asked not to be named.
MONTREAL (Reuters) - Bombardier Inc BBDb.TOBDRBF.PK sliced in half the 2016 delivery forecast for its CSeries aircraft on Tuesday and said it expected full-year revenue to be at the lower end of its previously announced range.
The setback is the latest for the CSeries program, which took years to get off the ground and has been hit by production delays and cost overruns, causing the Montreal-based plane and train maker to agree to a C$1 billion ($774 million) investment from the Quebec government.
The company remained in talks with the Canadian federal government about possible funding, and some analysts said the delays could add to concerns about its financial strength.
"Bombardier has a lot of debt, limited financial flexibility and these kind of setbacks, even when they are modest and transient, can heighten concerns", said one transport analyst who asked not to be named.