July 1, 2018. Airbus now owns a 50.01% majority stake in C Series Aircraft Limited

[Hussar 54]

Although I can agree with most of what's being said, I just wonder what and / or from where AB will produce a Silver Bullet to increase the already reasonably good sales of the C Series without an expensive redesign of FBW systems and crew interface, because without those any attempt to sell 'commonality' with other AB products is most likely a non-starter.

So good as the C Series might be, it's still going to have to be sold as a stand alone model in the AB catalogue to existing AB operators.

Maybe AB have seen an opportunity to improve production rates as the deal clincher as far as they're concerned.

[er340790]

I strongly suspect that the C-Series / A317(?) is to Airbus what the MD-80 / B717 was to Boeing...

It will be kept going for a few years for primarily political reasons, allowed to wither on the vine, then will be quietly consigned to the aeronautical dustbin of history. Bit like the Dassault Mercure too.

Pity as it's a nice aircraft, but there you go.

[Ben_S]

Unlikely. The MD80 was already years old at that point. This is a new beast and supposedly good so it's not going to be binned off any time soon.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Ben_S

Unlikely. The MD80 was already years old at that point. This is a new beast and supposedly good so it's not going to be binned off any time soon.

The MD-95/717 wasn't even certified at the time of the Boeing/MacDac 'merger' (legacy Boeing people have a different, less polite term) - it was a brand new product (which admittedly had roots in the 1960s). Boeing basically didn't believe that the long term market justified the continued investment to keep the 717 production viable. It's not exactly inconceivable that Airbus will come to the same conclusion about the C-Series.
The biggest advantage to the C-series that Airbus brings is their world-wide customer support network and some economies of scale (i.e. AB has more leverage to force lower prices out of the suppliers).
Flight deck commonality and common type rating is not going to happen - it would be cost prohibitive (think $billions) to make the C-Series flight deck like an A320 - it's just not something you can "retrofit" into an existing design - even the FBW control laws would need to be redone.

Airbus is basically in a no-lose situation - they don't have any real skin in the game. If the naysayers are wrong and the C-Series is a commercial success, they stand to make lots of money. If the C-Series continues to lose money hand over fist in excess of what the Bombardier and the Canadian Government have already agreed to cover, they can just shut it down with no real loss since the real AB investment is minimal.

[Bidule]

Originally Posted by er340790

I strongly suspect that the C-Series / A317(?) is to Airbus what the MD-80 / B717 was to Boeing...

It will be kept going for a few years for primarily political reasons, allowed to wither on the vine, then will be quietly consigned to the aeronautical dustbin of history. Bit like the Dassault Mercure too.

I do not understand the reference to Dassault Mercure. It was never considered to be acquired by Airbus, almost no existing at that time. The failure of the Mercure was an inadequate design for the intended mission, mainly cruise/VMO speeds too high requiring stronger/heavier structure, too short range almost limited to Continental France destinations, without stating the three crew cockpit when the B737 (starting about 4-5 years before the Mercure) was only two men cockpit.

Whilst Dassault was successful in military aircraft and mainly in business jets - both areas where the economics may not be the most important criteria for selection -, it never made success in the commercial aircraft since the 60s.
Do you even remember the name of the Dassault Hirondelle?

[Torquelink]

It will be kept going for a few years for primarily political reasons, allowed to wither on the vine, then will be quietly consigned to the aeronautical dustbin of history.

Having worked closely on the evaluation of the CS300 and flown in it many times, I think it will be a great success - not on the scale of the A320 or 737 families perhaps but certainly in comparison to E Jets and even the CRJ series. Airbus concluded that the economics of the aircraft are genuinely superior to the A319neo and that the seat/sector cost was even within a few percentage points of the A320neo. And wait until you fly in it - seat width, window size and noise levels make you realise just how 20th century the A320 and, particularly, the 737 are. To get into such a programme for free and knowing that they can take up to 50% cost out of supplied equipment while adding sales to jack up the production rate - thus further reducing cost - was a no-brainer. Flight deck commonality would have been great but, in the overall scheme of things, not that important.

[Carbon Bootprint]

Do you even remember the name of the Dassault Hirondelle?

No, and most people wouldn't since it was a "one and done." However, I believe it helped out with the design of the Falcon 10, which was far from a flop. Though again, that was part of Dassault's niche -- fast jets and biz jets, not commercial aircraft.

Sorry for the thread drift, since your original comment questioned the reference to the Mercure. I don't think that was an appropriate comparison, either. I've not flown a C series, but it looks interesting if for no other reason than it's received so much attention here.

[msbbarratt]

Originally Posted by Torquelink

Having worked closely on the evaluation of the CS300 and flown in it many times, I think it will be a great success - not on the scale of the A320 or 737 families perhaps but certainly in comparison to E Jets and even the CRJ series. Airbus concluded that the economics of the aircraft are genuinely superior to the A319neo and that the seat/sector cost was even within a few percentage points of the A320neo. And wait until you fly in it - seat width, window size and noise levels make you realise just how 20th century the A320 and, particularly, the 737 are. To get into such a programme for free and knowing that they can take up to 50% cost out of supplied equipment while adding sales to jack up the production rate - thus further reducing cost - was a no-brainer. Flight deck commonality would have been great but, in the overall scheme of things, not that important.

It certainly has all the marks of being the deal of the century in the aviation business, Airbus acquiring a stake of the C series. Boeing's corporate strategy now looks ridiculous in comparison to Airbus's. To catch up Boeing are going to have to do something pretty spectacular (the C Series is indeed very good), and they're going to have to pay for it one way or other. They've just pumped several billion into a merger with Embraer. They're still not making the right noises about properly competing over the long term against the A321neo + whatever variants Airbus dreams up, and yet that's another whole development program Boeing have got to pay for.

Boeing have let Airbus have another very easy ride, just like they let the A320 have a very easy ride over the past 25, 30 years. Somehow in this sector at least Airbus seems to not have to spend hardly anything and yet ends up with the best planes, whereas Boeing seem hell bent on not spending anything at all and are inevitably ending up with the worst planes.

I am mystified as to why the Boeing company has been allowed to be a miserable failure in its corporate strategy. Is it a symptom of short term share price concerns trumping all other considerations? Probably. Pride? Certainly Airbus seems to have had zero corporate cultural problems in admitting that another company has made a superior product, and Boeing seemingly didn't make the same admission and accept the implications when Bombardier offered them a share some while ago. Lack of cash? I mean, had Boeing back in 1995 set out to make an aircraft better than the A320, there would not now be any A320s flying today or being built and sold for a profit.

If they carry on like that for a few more decades, the USA is going to wake up one day and find Boeing is no longer there...

[Torquelink]

I am mystified as to why the Boeing company has been allowed to be a miserable failure in its corporate strategy

I agree with respect to their narrowbody line-up - they should have bitten the bullet when the neo was launched and gone ahead with an all-new single-aisle. At the time, however, they were stretched on the 787 and couldn't persuade Chicago they should do it - something Airbus counted on at the time.

However, having finally got he 787 rocking, they are determined to strangle the A330neo at birth and may actually manage it judging by the aggressive terms they are putting out at present. Of course RR's troubles are playing into their hands too. While the A350-900 is a clear success, the 787-8 (newly re-invigorated to match the -9) through to the -10 is likely to dominate the mid-size widebody market for years to come. The 777X is a different story though - as is the A350-1000.

[underfire]

C series renamed to A200?

[VacantStand]

Airbus has formally redesignated the Bombardier CSeries as the A220, complementing its larger A320 single-aisle range.

Its smaller sister aircraft, previously known as the CS100, will be called the A220-100.

flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-cseries-renamed-as-airbus-a220-450072/

[Heathrow Harry]

It wasn't just the 787 issues that stopped Mr B replacing the 737.. they also had issues with the 747 programme and their tanker for the USAF and they were looking again at the 767/757 replacement

the 737 was selling well.. it would have been a brave man to turn off that cash flow by announcing a new design.....

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry

the 737 was selling well.. it would have been a brave man to turn off that cash flow by announcing a new design.....

The other issue was the Boeing was caught a bit off-guard by the A320 NEO. Boeing really wanted to launch a brand new 737 replacement (I knew people who were working on it) - but when Airbus launched the NEO it was selling like hotcakes, totally outclassed the existing 737-7/8/900 and being little more than a re-engine it would come to market years before an all new replacement aircraft. Worse, it would take years more to bring the new aircraft production up to the ~50-60/month rate that was possible with the A320/737. That would have meant basically conceding a several thousand aircraft market to Airbus until Boeing could bring their new aircraft to market - something that was simply unthinkable.

What going to be really interesting to watch is what happens with the Boeing NMA - rumor mill says it'll be launched by the end of the year. IF it's a really good aircraft it could take over the upper end from the A320 series, while perhaps providing a baseline for an eventual 737 replacement.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by VacantStand

Airbus has formally redesignated the Bombardier CSeries as the A220, complementing its larger A320 single-aisle range.

Its smaller sister aircraft, previously known as the CS100, will be called the A220-100.

flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-cseries-renamed-as-airbus-a220-450072/

So is the CS300 the A220-300 or the A220-200? Do tell.

[rationalfunctions]

CS300 is the A220-300 https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/pass...20-family.html

[VacantStand]

JetBlue taking 60 A220-300s + 60 options to replace its Embraer 190 fleet.

[Heathrow Harry]

This weeks Flight has a big article on the NMA. They reckon if is launched now it might be in service by 2026. Problem is that by that time the 757 767 numbers left will be small and many will have been replaced already by Airbus & Boeing products.

It really has to something v new and transformative and that depends on a v new engine ..... and that is a serious unknown

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by VacantStand

JetBlue taking 60 A220-300s + 60 options to replace its Embraer 190 fleet.

This is indeed a major order

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-billion-order

Couple of weeks before Farnborough, maybe surprising they didn't wait, but also may surprise us all if they get the Farnborough demo aircraft into the paintshop and into Jet Blue livery.

Also a big downer for its direct competitor from Embraer, where they are not only replacing their current E190s but Jet Blue were seen as one of the forthcoming New Generation Embraer's potential largest purchasers, given they are one of the largest users of the current type.

[Torquelink]

the 737 was selling well.. it would have been a brave man to turn off that cash flow by announcing a new design.....

Indeed and they'll still make shedloads out of it even if the market share settles at 60:40 in Airbus' favour. But, in any event, they'll likely be forced into an earlier replacement than Airbus will - possibly, as TDracer says, on the back of the NMA.

[twochai]

I wonder if the Boeing board recognises that the HQ move to Chicago was a big mistake - the ivory tower is too far from the heart of the company and they're out of touch from the operations.