July 1, 2018. Airbus now owns a 50.01% majority stake in C Series Aircraft Limited
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
July 1, 2018. Airbus now owns a 50.01% majority stake in C Series Aircraft Limited
The closing of the previously announced C Series transaction between Airbus SAS, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Airbus SE (EPA: AIR), Bombardier Inc. (TSX: BBD.B) and Investissement Québec came into effect on July 1, 2018.
Airbus now owns a 50.01% majority stake in C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership, while Bombardier and Investissement Québec own approximately 34% and 16% respectively. CSALP’s head office, primary assembly line and related functions are based in Mirabel, Québec.
Airbus now owns a 50.01% majority stake in C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership, while Bombardier and Investissement Québec own approximately 34% and 16% respectively. CSALP’s head office, primary assembly line and related functions are based in Mirabel, Québec.
According to Wirtschaftswoche, the German FT equivalent, the purchase also includes $925MM government launch aid, $225MM 2018 launch cost recovery and a further $700MM prospective aid for future sales.
Airbus clearly drove a very hard bargain. I'm stunned that neither Boeing nor the Chinese were willing to at least keep Airbus honest.
Airbus clearly drove a very hard bargain. I'm stunned that neither Boeing nor the Chinese were willing to at least keep Airbus honest.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Islas Baleares
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent news. I hope the partnership is very successful. The CSeries is a fantastic aircraft and I've really enjoyed all my flights on them. Fingers crossed that they become more and more common.
Wouldn't that program have been a great airplane for Boeing's lower size?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm stunned that neither Boeing nor the Chinese were willing to at least keep Airbus honest.
Boeing looked at the deal as well. Dont know why they did not offer. AB beat them on a great deal. Now it will be made in the US in Alabama.
Boeing trying to do the same with Embraer, but without much success.
Name is said to be changed to "A200"
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Down East
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A300 became a game changer when AB went out of their way to make a deal with Eastern Air Lines. Boeing shunned EAL , due to their dire financial situation , and AB took a risk and became the mighty competitor that they are today.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAA had a few A300s on internal services. Passenger comfort was dire and cramped so those of us who had to get to Durban from JNB chose to schedule those meetings for wednesdays when the A300 was in for a weekly service and SAA put one of their 747-SPs on the Durban run. The SP had more legroom in cattle class than the A300 had in business class.
[QUOTE][Wouldn't that program have been a great airplane for Boeing's lower size?/QUOTE]
Yes, but Boeing was too arrogant.
When P&W originally offered the Geared Turbo Fan (GTF) to the industry as a potential game changer, Boeing ignored the opportunity as being unworthy of their consideration - after all, the bottom end of the market was not of serious interest to them, so the 60 year old 737 modernised as the 737MAX7 could handle any orders that might fall into their hands.
Also with only 50 units sold after four years of sales effort of the A319NEO, AB accepted that it would not sell and 'bought' the 'nice little C Series' as a complement to the A320-A321 offerings. Bombardier had the only product with 5 wide Y class seating, versus 4 wide on the E-Jets and 6 wide on the 737 and A319.
Airbus is now in a market niche of its own with a new clean sheet product in the 100-150+ seat space, seating 5 wide and offering, superior passenger comfort, superior seat mile costs and reduced fuel burns. It nicely complements the 170-180 seat A320NEO and the 210 - 230 seat A321NEO.
Boeing was in the same position with the B737-MAX7, but could not bring themselves to recognise what the market was telling them. A huge strategic miss on the part of Boeing, which will take them 6-8 years to catch up, with or without Embraer.
Yes, but Boeing was too arrogant.
When P&W originally offered the Geared Turbo Fan (GTF) to the industry as a potential game changer, Boeing ignored the opportunity as being unworthy of their consideration - after all, the bottom end of the market was not of serious interest to them, so the 60 year old 737 modernised as the 737MAX7 could handle any orders that might fall into their hands.
Also with only 50 units sold after four years of sales effort of the A319NEO, AB accepted that it would not sell and 'bought' the 'nice little C Series' as a complement to the A320-A321 offerings. Bombardier had the only product with 5 wide Y class seating, versus 4 wide on the E-Jets and 6 wide on the 737 and A319.
Airbus is now in a market niche of its own with a new clean sheet product in the 100-150+ seat space, seating 5 wide and offering, superior passenger comfort, superior seat mile costs and reduced fuel burns. It nicely complements the 170-180 seat A320NEO and the 210 - 230 seat A321NEO.
Boeing was in the same position with the B737-MAX7, but could not bring themselves to recognise what the market was telling them. A huge strategic miss on the part of Boeing, which will take them 6-8 years to catch up, with or without Embraer.
If Airbus injects any technology into the C Series, it will be around production/manufacturing techniques rather than anything for the operators to get excited about.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more likely marketing and finance heft.... they can alsooffer a full range to mix n match....
Airbus could well make improvements to Bombardier's customer support, too, but that isn't either.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A logical step for the CSeries as an "A210" and "A230" would be to commonize the flightdeck with an upgraded A320neo Plus in order to bring it in line with the A350 and to provide common type rating between the families.
It is worth to mention that other manufacturers are working on the "red herring" too with the new 75 seat "MC-21-75" (also called SuperJet 75) where they are working on bringing it in line with the MC-21-200 and -300. I.e. similar operating procedures, flightdeck and so on.
Commonality is an excellent solution and there are no good reasons *not* to do it (especially not if it ends up with one manufacturer, different flight control systems such as mechanical on some models, FBW on others, different layouts on the flightdeck, different engine manufacturers and different maintenance procedures and so on and so forth).
Airbus did have the AE316 and 317 in development to address the CSeries market but shelved the project. The idea was good otherwise - commonality with the A320 family but with a 3+2 cabin.
There are major benefits to gain from commonality and other manufacturers are following a similar path (look at the Tu-204 and Tu-334 with commonized flightdecks or the CRAIC CR929 that will be commonized with the C919 in that department and so on).
Airbus CCQ (Cross Crew Qualification) is an excellent concept, as is their thinking of all their aircraft as belonging to a common family with similar procedures and handling etc.
The examples you quote above have the advantage that commonality is, or has been, an objective when one, if not both, types are/were at the design stage.
That's nothing new, of course, it's almost 40 years ago that we were first getting excited about the 757 and 767 having a common type rating.
But here we're talking about two independently developed products from different manufacturers, both already certificated and in service. Trying to reverse-engineer any meaningful commonality between the current Airbus narrow-body family and the C Series would be both hugely expensive and ultimately have very little point to it. Not what most would describe as a "logical step".
That's nothing new, of course, it's almost 40 years ago that we were first getting excited about the 757 and 767 having a common type rating.
But here we're talking about two independently developed products from different manufacturers, both already certificated and in service. Trying to reverse-engineer any meaningful commonality between the current Airbus narrow-body family and the C Series would be both hugely expensive and ultimately have very little point to it. Not what most would describe as a "logical step".
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A logical step for the CSeries as an "A210" and "A230" would be to commonize the flightdeck with an upgraded A320neo Plus in order to bring it in line with the A350 and to provide common type rating between the families.
Commonality is an excellent solution and there are no good reasons *not* to do it (especially not if it ends up with one manufacturer, different flight control systems such as mechanical on some models, FBW on others, different layouts on the flightdeck, different engine manufacturers and different maintenance procedures and so on and so forth).
Commonality is an excellent solution and there are no good reasons *not* to do it (especially not if it ends up with one manufacturer, different flight control systems such as mechanical on some models, FBW on others, different layouts on the flightdeck, different engine manufacturers and different maintenance procedures and so on and so forth).
I give less than 5% chance of CSeries being developed into an Airbus family-compatible aircraft any time soon.
According to Wirtschaftswoche, the German FT equivalent, the purchase also includes $925MM government launch aid, $225MM 2018 launch cost recovery and a further $700MM prospective aid for future sales.
Airbus clearly drove a very hard bargain. I'm stunned that neither Boeing nor the Chinese were willing to at least keep Airbus honest.
Airbus clearly drove a very hard bargain. I'm stunned that neither Boeing nor the Chinese were willing to at least keep Airbus honest.
Various reports of what the fbw tech is like suggests that it's very good indeed, so we could see future Airbus products adopting it.
I suspect Boeing saw it as something to buy and kill, rather than an opportunity. China would have liked to own the tech and design but were likely not making the right noises. Reportedly the Bombardier family shareholding still has some sway over the company, and the combination of Boeing's attempted trade war against Bombardier and a then-secret overture of the right sort ("we like tha plane and we want to help you make thousands of them") from Airbus is probably what made the deal stick.