Liberal Party wins, Bombardier wins
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Up and away in the mountains of Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I mentioned earlier it seems other nations are taking exception to the Liberals penchant for subsidizing Bombardier.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...suppor-431096/
Yes as Trudeau is off signing all the trade agreements possible, the rest of the world is awakening to the methods being used by the Liberals. TPP will enable comac to sue over the bombardier bailouts also, wait for the inevitable WTO challenges from the PRC.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...suppor-431096/
Yes as Trudeau is off signing all the trade agreements possible, the rest of the world is awakening to the methods being used by the Liberals. TPP will enable comac to sue over the bombardier bailouts also, wait for the inevitable WTO challenges from the PRC.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
td
I appreciate and understand your scepticism.
I guess you'll just have to wait and see for yourself how low the C series fuel burns are.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to immature remarks.
I've flown both aircraft (NG and CS100) and can confidently say, the fuel burn is as close to 50%, of those aircraft I mentioned, as damn is to swearing.
BTW
You might pick up this week's Flight magazine and read their flight test report on the C series. I can assure you, it's no confidence booster for those who've already bought the MAX.
Grizz
I think Flight are simply reporting on Brazil's whining, not siding with them. If the Cdn government are breaking the rules, it's reasonable that Brazil should sue the sh*t out of 'em. I doubt in this day and age the Cdn government and Bombardier haven't learnt from the past pissing contests with Brazil.
Enjoy AUH.
Willie
I appreciate and understand your scepticism.
I guess you'll just have to wait and see for yourself how low the C series fuel burns are.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to immature remarks.
I've flown both aircraft (NG and CS100) and can confidently say, the fuel burn is as close to 50%, of those aircraft I mentioned, as damn is to swearing.
BTW
You might pick up this week's Flight magazine and read their flight test report on the C series. I can assure you, it's no confidence booster for those who've already bought the MAX.
Grizz
I think Flight are simply reporting on Brazil's whining, not siding with them. If the Cdn government are breaking the rules, it's reasonable that Brazil should sue the sh*t out of 'em. I doubt in this day and age the Cdn government and Bombardier haven't learnt from the past pissing contests with Brazil.
Enjoy AUH.
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 11th Nov 2016 at 21:09.
The RJ also burns about half the fuel of a 737... it also carries less people. The CS100 carries less people, so it should burn less fuel. What really matters is fuel per seat mile... is that number 50%?
Last edited by Mostly Harmless; 12th Nov 2016 at 23:33.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did some research to back up my claim of 50%.
I looked at some comparisons. This is what I found.
The cost per Aircraft Mile for a 500 NM mission.
Bear in mind, the CS100's direct competition is the A318 and 737-700 (which are both out of production)
The CS100 is reported to be $7.00 ASM = $3500.00
The A318 is reported to be $8.60 ASM = $4300.00
The B737-700 is reported to be $9.25 ASM = $4625.00
Another source generated this:
Compared to the average Turbofan-powered Narrow-body Commercial Passenger Plane, which costs $14.22* per nautical mile and 14.45¢* per seat per nautical mile to operate, the Bombardier CS100 is:
$7.17 cheaper per nautical mile (a 50% margin)
7.92¢ cheaper per seat per nautical mile (a 55% margin)
Compared to the average fuel costs for all Commercial aircraft, which are $15.32* per nautical mile and 13.38¢* per seat per nautical mile, the Bombardier CS100 costs:
$8.27 less per nautical mile (a 54% margin)
6.85¢ less per seat per nautical mile (a 51% margin)
*Assumes a $6 cost per gallon of jet fuel
1 Nautical Mile = 1.15 Miles
You can make of it what you will but I can find no similar reference figures for either the A318neo (if there are any) or the 737-700Max (if there are any).
Simply stated, C series wins.
Willie
I looked at some comparisons. This is what I found.
The cost per Aircraft Mile for a 500 NM mission.
Bear in mind, the CS100's direct competition is the A318 and 737-700 (which are both out of production)
The CS100 is reported to be $7.00 ASM = $3500.00
The A318 is reported to be $8.60 ASM = $4300.00
The B737-700 is reported to be $9.25 ASM = $4625.00
Another source generated this:
Compared to the average Turbofan-powered Narrow-body Commercial Passenger Plane, which costs $14.22* per nautical mile and 14.45¢* per seat per nautical mile to operate, the Bombardier CS100 is:
$7.17 cheaper per nautical mile (a 50% margin)
7.92¢ cheaper per seat per nautical mile (a 55% margin)
Compared to the average fuel costs for all Commercial aircraft, which are $15.32* per nautical mile and 13.38¢* per seat per nautical mile, the Bombardier CS100 costs:
$8.27 less per nautical mile (a 54% margin)
6.85¢ less per seat per nautical mile (a 51% margin)
*Assumes a $6 cost per gallon of jet fuel
1 Nautical Mile = 1.15 Miles
You can make of it what you will but I can find no similar reference figures for either the A318neo (if there are any) or the 737-700Max (if there are any).
Simply stated, C series wins.
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 13th Nov 2016 at 15:29.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Up and away in the mountains of Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I've read. PM Trudashian is about to gift a billion to BBD for who knows what. Quebec based business gets the $, the rest just get the bill, Liberals.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one.
"Quebec based business gets the $, the rest just get the bill, Liberals."
You don't seem to be very aware of just how interdependent the entire aerospace industry is in this country....
No one squawked when millions were given to the auto industry yet every time the word 'Quebec' is uttered, it MUST be disastrous for the rest of Canada. Really?
In Canada, there are hundreds of companies, big and small who either work with or do work for, Bombardier. It's not just Quebec. (where did you get that idea?)
Ontario's Flying Colours. Alberta's Avionco. Nova Scotia's IMP, for example all do work for Bombardier in varying capacities. They all employ Canadian taxpayers. Any 'investment' (keyword) in Bombardier, public or private, will have an impact on Canadian aerospace and (by default) Canadian aerospace taxpayers who are all very much interested and aware of just how fragile things are, not just for Bombardier.
My neighbour's (small aerospace) company does work for Bombardier. They do interiors for corporate aeroplanes, not all of them Bombardier products. He had to layoff 7 employees last week and if the engine problem with Pratt doesn't get resolved soon, he says his company will have to shut down. While Pratt expects to resolve the GTF delivery delays by 2020, it seems to me that that could be too late for many of our Canadian aerospace companies.
The winners aren't exclusively in Quebec because the impact on the Canadian aerospace industry is enormous.
Galaxy
... or, I could work for a fairly popular simulator manufacturer with access to a variety of aircraft models. Maybe I'm retired? I might also be a hack. But yes, I am biased based on my experience with, exposure to, and knowledge of a number of aircraft models, which allows me to formulate my opinion. But, relax, it's only an opinion.
Willie
"Quebec based business gets the $, the rest just get the bill, Liberals."
You don't seem to be very aware of just how interdependent the entire aerospace industry is in this country....
No one squawked when millions were given to the auto industry yet every time the word 'Quebec' is uttered, it MUST be disastrous for the rest of Canada. Really?
In Canada, there are hundreds of companies, big and small who either work with or do work for, Bombardier. It's not just Quebec. (where did you get that idea?)
Ontario's Flying Colours. Alberta's Avionco. Nova Scotia's IMP, for example all do work for Bombardier in varying capacities. They all employ Canadian taxpayers. Any 'investment' (keyword) in Bombardier, public or private, will have an impact on Canadian aerospace and (by default) Canadian aerospace taxpayers who are all very much interested and aware of just how fragile things are, not just for Bombardier.
My neighbour's (small aerospace) company does work for Bombardier. They do interiors for corporate aeroplanes, not all of them Bombardier products. He had to layoff 7 employees last week and if the engine problem with Pratt doesn't get resolved soon, he says his company will have to shut down. While Pratt expects to resolve the GTF delivery delays by 2020, it seems to me that that could be too late for many of our Canadian aerospace companies.
The winners aren't exclusively in Quebec because the impact on the Canadian aerospace industry is enormous.
Galaxy
... or, I could work for a fairly popular simulator manufacturer with access to a variety of aircraft models. Maybe I'm retired? I might also be a hack. But yes, I am biased based on my experience with, exposure to, and knowledge of a number of aircraft models, which allows me to formulate my opinion. But, relax, it's only an opinion.
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 13th Nov 2016 at 17:48.
Now those are more informative numbers.
I did. And loudly. Same can be said for any banks that received handouts. I am staunchly against all corporate welfare.
The primary problem with your argument is that while nothing has been done to help the 100,000+ people who have lost their direct and indirect jobs from the energy industry, you are talking about favouring one industry over another. An industry that does not employ 100,000+ people on it's best day in this nation. A company that is busy outsourcing jobs off shore before any strings come attached with that money. I have large issues with hypocrisy and favouritism as well as corporate welfare. Money for one, money for all. Capitalism is a harsh landscape but where one company fails, another rises to take it's place. Not pleasant but necessary to avoid Zombie companies dragging your economy into the grave.
I actually hope this is a big seller for BBD.... but I don't want to support it with my tax dollars. Blended Federal/Provincial tax rates are already over 50% of your income in 6 out of 10 provinces. Now, add in municipal, sales and hidden taxes and see where you are at. For every 1 dollar you take home, you need to earn $2 to $2.50. If you don't see that as an issue... I see it as a death spiral for our nation. You don't have any money to save for retirement. This makes you dependant on the government in your elder years. Because more people are dependant on the government in retirement, the government needs to raise revenues (taxes). This means that the next generation saves even less becoming even more dependant on the government. The cycle repeats until nearing 100% tax rates... then what happens?
No one squawked when millions were given to the auto industry
Any 'investment' (keyword) in Bombardier, public or private, will have an impact on Canadian aerospace and (by default) Canadian aerospace taxpayers who are all very much interested and aware of just how fragile things are, not just for Bombardier.
I actually hope this is a big seller for BBD.... but I don't want to support it with my tax dollars. Blended Federal/Provincial tax rates are already over 50% of your income in 6 out of 10 provinces. Now, add in municipal, sales and hidden taxes and see where you are at. For every 1 dollar you take home, you need to earn $2 to $2.50. If you don't see that as an issue... I see it as a death spiral for our nation. You don't have any money to save for retirement. This makes you dependant on the government in your elder years. Because more people are dependant on the government in retirement, the government needs to raise revenues (taxes). This means that the next generation saves even less becoming even more dependant on the government. The cycle repeats until nearing 100% tax rates... then what happens?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did some research to back up my claim of 50%.
Data from Leeham News (1000nm sectors):
CS300: 1.85 L/100 km
A319Neo: 1.93 L/100 km (+4.3%)
737 MAX-7: 1.94 L/100 km (+4.8%)
E.g. vs. the A319Neo that is less than 4.3% fuel cost per seat mile advantage, and only 5.1% trip fuel cost advantage:
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Up and away in the mountains of Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Mostly Harmless, amen!
The case for solvent business enterprise which can survive without govt. handouts is solid, the case for BBD is not close to sound in it's current form.
I also was one who complained heavily when the auto manufacturers were bailed out. What has happened to those jobs since? Many have since left for the nether regions never to return.
@ Willie, Every business with a good product which can survive without a govt. handout is penalized by having some of their taxes used to reward (in this case) bad decisions and risks beyond the ability of the business to mitigate. BBD has in 2 generations of the nepotistic family control, gone from a small business making recreational products to a rail & aerospace conglomerate. The story would be far more convincing if the hands out to the taxpayer were not an integral part of their business model. If their business model was sound enough, capital could be raised without the need for govt. involvement. The composition of their board says far more about the prospects than many can fathom, if you need a career Liberal (past auditor) with zero aerospace knowledge and many family members who also have zero real world aerospace credibility, your business model may be flawed. But hey, the economy will take care of itself, albeit at 300% more deficit than a certain trust fund, teacher campaigned on not too long ago! 1 & done, the mess from this kid will take a decade or 2 to undo.
The case for solvent business enterprise which can survive without govt. handouts is solid, the case for BBD is not close to sound in it's current form.
I also was one who complained heavily when the auto manufacturers were bailed out. What has happened to those jobs since? Many have since left for the nether regions never to return.
@ Willie, Every business with a good product which can survive without a govt. handout is penalized by having some of their taxes used to reward (in this case) bad decisions and risks beyond the ability of the business to mitigate. BBD has in 2 generations of the nepotistic family control, gone from a small business making recreational products to a rail & aerospace conglomerate. The story would be far more convincing if the hands out to the taxpayer were not an integral part of their business model. If their business model was sound enough, capital could be raised without the need for govt. involvement. The composition of their board says far more about the prospects than many can fathom, if you need a career Liberal (past auditor) with zero aerospace knowledge and many family members who also have zero real world aerospace credibility, your business model may be flawed. But hey, the economy will take care of itself, albeit at 300% more deficit than a certain trust fund, teacher campaigned on not too long ago! 1 & done, the mess from this kid will take a decade or 2 to undo.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peekay4
Thanks.
I've looked around the same Leeham charts for data. 500 nm seemed reasonable. Anything over a 1000 nm sector, the others would likely be too embarrassed to publish figures. Maybe that's why I can't find them?
As I've previously stated, data on NEO and Max is sparse, so I couldn't include them. Certainly fuel isn't the only factor in an aircrafts' operating costs. Can you show me a chart that doesn't show C series number one or ahead of the aircraft you're using to illustrate your point?
Grizzzz
Out with the old and in with the new. I hope.
I agree with many of your comments about Bombardier, except to add this. Their new management seem to have lots of aerospace expertise and experience. So far, they've done what's been needed, tough as its been and hopefully they'll soon get a few bucks from the sale of Learjet (and possibly other divisions) to help further stabilize things. The board still has many of the former members (unfortunately) but my sense is that a couple of more positive quarters and management can tell JT to FO with his money and political pork barrel.
Whether we like it or not, Aerospace is a protected industry (and Brazil, among others, know that). A jewel in any governments' crown. Our governments (Feds and Provincial) are no different. Whether or not we like it, whether or not we agree, money will pour in when needed. I don't believe Bombardier went seeking any government handout. I am aware they went seeking investors with excellent products and a sound business plan, just like any other risk taking enterprise.
Mostly Harmless
I'm not convinced about global warming. I fully support the oil sands and our need to continue to be self sufficient in oil. David Suzuki should stick to his insects.
Much of the environmental hoopla is nothing more than scare mongering IMHO.
Bombardier goes beyond Canada. It's an international company with divisions in other countries and not all of the work that is done is aerospace. As such, employment requirements vary from site to site and country to country. It's hard to see the majority of layoffs in Canada, I agree. But like the energy industry, the auto industry and others, it ain't that simple. Neither is there a one solution for all problems.
Willie
Thanks.
I've looked around the same Leeham charts for data. 500 nm seemed reasonable. Anything over a 1000 nm sector, the others would likely be too embarrassed to publish figures. Maybe that's why I can't find them?
As I've previously stated, data on NEO and Max is sparse, so I couldn't include them. Certainly fuel isn't the only factor in an aircrafts' operating costs. Can you show me a chart that doesn't show C series number one or ahead of the aircraft you're using to illustrate your point?
Grizzzz
Out with the old and in with the new. I hope.
I agree with many of your comments about Bombardier, except to add this. Their new management seem to have lots of aerospace expertise and experience. So far, they've done what's been needed, tough as its been and hopefully they'll soon get a few bucks from the sale of Learjet (and possibly other divisions) to help further stabilize things. The board still has many of the former members (unfortunately) but my sense is that a couple of more positive quarters and management can tell JT to FO with his money and political pork barrel.
Whether we like it or not, Aerospace is a protected industry (and Brazil, among others, know that). A jewel in any governments' crown. Our governments (Feds and Provincial) are no different. Whether or not we like it, whether or not we agree, money will pour in when needed. I don't believe Bombardier went seeking any government handout. I am aware they went seeking investors with excellent products and a sound business plan, just like any other risk taking enterprise.
Mostly Harmless
I'm not convinced about global warming. I fully support the oil sands and our need to continue to be self sufficient in oil. David Suzuki should stick to his insects.
Much of the environmental hoopla is nothing more than scare mongering IMHO.
Bombardier goes beyond Canada. It's an international company with divisions in other countries and not all of the work that is done is aerospace. As such, employment requirements vary from site to site and country to country. It's hard to see the majority of layoffs in Canada, I agree. But like the energy industry, the auto industry and others, it ain't that simple. Neither is there a one solution for all problems.
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 14th Nov 2016 at 20:25.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you show me a chart that doesn't show C series number one or ahead of the aircraft you're using to illustrate your point?
(Source: Leeham News)
The above graph shows 600nm trip assuming a realistic 70% average load factor. Per Leeham's analysis the E2-190 just edges the CS100 on both per-trip and per-seat fuel costs. The larger E2-195 outperforms the CS100 and equals the CS300.
But really, the incumbents (Embraer, Airbus, Boeing) don't have to beat the CSeries fuel numbers. They just have to get close enough -- say within 5% -- before other costs like introducing an additional type outweigh the advantages of a more efficient plane.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leeham's editorial is almost 3 years old, here
Meanwhile, Cseries beat the brochure. Of course, in service cost is not only about fuel consumption. Cseries is only better, as example airfield performance, the freedom of departing from a regional airport or city center. Hence, small airport charges, short boarding and taxi, number one for takeoff or landing, then more trips per day, also smaller fees for CO2 emissions and noise. In addition best passenger experience, the generous interior, CSeries 3.28m vs E195-E2 2.74m, large windows and large over-bins, largest lavatory, the slickness of flight, the time-saving and delightful trip.
https://youtu.be/GpjoVdRSj14
Meanwhile, Cseries beat the brochure. Of course, in service cost is not only about fuel consumption. Cseries is only better, as example airfield performance, the freedom of departing from a regional airport or city center. Hence, small airport charges, short boarding and taxi, number one for takeoff or landing, then more trips per day, also smaller fees for CO2 emissions and noise. In addition best passenger experience, the generous interior, CSeries 3.28m vs E195-E2 2.74m, large windows and large over-bins, largest lavatory, the slickness of flight, the time-saving and delightful trip.
https://youtu.be/GpjoVdRSj14
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leeham's editorial is almost 3 years old
More recently (June 2016) Embraer provided a program update and they're still projecting the E2-195 to offer 10% per seat savings vs. the CS100. That is the same as the 2014 projection.
The other big announcement came from Boeing, with the 737 MAX 7 stretch redesign, which obviously doesn't impact the CS100 vs E2 positioning.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone,
I have the figures I need to support my 50% claim. So I'm good. The rest are just out of date numbers or numbers of convenience. Thanks.
FE Hoppy
If your company had listened to BBD when they configured their interiors, you wouldn't have to f**k around with ballast fuel. But then, you already know that.
galaxy flyer
C series has a very typical, bog standard CofG envelope. I'll refer you to my previous comment.
peekay4
Really? Embraer analysis using Regional jets? (hey, you picked them, I didn't)
The Embraer E2 is out of scope as is the MRJ. Plus, the Regional airlines are shrinking so fast, they'll soon be all but extinct. Then what?
I think you'd be better off saying 'Bombardier concludes the C Series has better trip/CASM costs than the competitors.'
My earlier remarks were focused on 3 OEMs, for those following this. Because there are essentially only 3 aircraft models (2 of which are out of production... for obvious reasons) in the market seating capacity range I'm looking at. Of course, there are overlaps and competition within this market. If you prefer to go into the overlaps at either end of this market, instead of the middle, then okay, C series may not necessarily be the better aircraft.
I think we're having nothing more than a "my dog's bigger than your dog" exchange here and for that reason, this whole thread is off the rails taking more and more cars with it.
Willie
I have the figures I need to support my 50% claim. So I'm good. The rest are just out of date numbers or numbers of convenience. Thanks.
FE Hoppy
If your company had listened to BBD when they configured their interiors, you wouldn't have to f**k around with ballast fuel. But then, you already know that.
galaxy flyer
C series has a very typical, bog standard CofG envelope. I'll refer you to my previous comment.
peekay4
Really? Embraer analysis using Regional jets? (hey, you picked them, I didn't)
The Embraer E2 is out of scope as is the MRJ. Plus, the Regional airlines are shrinking so fast, they'll soon be all but extinct. Then what?
I think you'd be better off saying 'Bombardier concludes the C Series has better trip/CASM costs than the competitors.'
My earlier remarks were focused on 3 OEMs, for those following this. Because there are essentially only 3 aircraft models (2 of which are out of production... for obvious reasons) in the market seating capacity range I'm looking at. Of course, there are overlaps and competition within this market. If you prefer to go into the overlaps at either end of this market, instead of the middle, then okay, C series may not necessarily be the better aircraft.
I think we're having nothing more than a "my dog's bigger than your dog" exchange here and for that reason, this whole thread is off the rails taking more and more cars with it.
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 15th Nov 2016 at 20:46.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scope clauses are irrelevant here.
Although dubbed "regional jet" the E2-195 is aimed for mainline and overseas carriers competing directly with the CS100.
You may have an argument about the smaller -175 but that's not what we're discussing here.
Although dubbed "regional jet" the E2-195 is aimed for mainline and overseas carriers competing directly with the CS100.
You may have an argument about the smaller -175 but that's not what we're discussing here.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an impatient investor, I fear the Bombardier CS jetliner programme may become another Vanguard/ YS-11/BAe ATR fiasco.. Those P&W geared fans can come on-line soon enough..
We can only hope..https://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/20...assures-pratt/
We can only hope..https://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/20...assures-pratt/
Last edited by evansb; 19th Nov 2016 at 19:06.