Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

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

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

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

Reply

Old 2nd Jul 2018, 21:19
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,708
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.

underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 01:19
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 331
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.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 10:49
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Islas Baleares
Posts: 17
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.
BewareOfTheSharklets is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 10:56
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hundred above
Posts: 348
Wouldn't that program have been a great airplane for Boeing's lower size?
Less Hair is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 12:09
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,708
I'm stunned that neither Boeing nor the Chinese were willing to at least keep Airbus honest.
Boeing did try, that was the whole 300% tariff that was overturned by the Courts.

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.
underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 14:49
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 271
I wonder how long before the C Series changes its name to the A317......
Hussar 54 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 14:59
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hundred above
Posts: 348
Name is said to be changed to "A200"
Less Hair is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 16:23
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 8,458
"C Series" always was a daft name.

I wonder why they haven't renamed the CS100 as the A100, and the CS300 as the A300.

Oh, hang on ...
DaveReidUK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 19:15
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Down East
Posts: 100
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
"C Series" always was a daft name.

I wonder why they haven't renamed the CS100 as the A100, and the CS300 as the A300.

Oh, hang on ...
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.
tsgas is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 00:40
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Hershey, PA
Age: 57
Posts: 29
AB finally has a good looking plane.
climber314 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 00:51
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 73
Posts: 961
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.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 01:42
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the lake
Age: 76
Posts: 643
[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.
twochai is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 05:36
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 48
Posts: 1,122
I already posted about this in the tech section but I'm really curious to see what changes they will bring to get more commonality.
atakacs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 06:34
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 8,458
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
I already posted about this in the tech section but I'm really curious to see what changes they will bring to get more commonality.
Commonality is a complete red herring.

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.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 08:12
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Commonality is a complete red herring.

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.
more likely marketing and finance heft.... they can alsooffer a full range to mix n match....
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 10:03
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 8,458
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
more likely marketing and finance heft.... they can also offer a full range to mix n match....
Yes, they can. But those aren't what's generally understood by "commonality".

Airbus could well make improvements to Bombardier's customer support, too, but that isn't either.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 13:05
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Commonality is a complete red herring.

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.
I guess the whole Airbus CCQ is a red herring and the whole "common flightdeck" idea they have been following since the A320 is another "red herring"... Poor Airbus to go down that route when you can have different procedures for each product series (i.e. the Boeing path).

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.
AVR4000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 14:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 8,458
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".
DaveReidUK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 14:45
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Land of beautiful EASA
Posts: 759
Originally Posted by AVR4000 View Post
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).
There is one big one and it's called money. The cost of modification to the Airbus family standard would I imagine be quite close the cost of a completely new design. Not to mention it would the existing customers would not be able to order additional airframes a decade later, unless Airbus would continue to offer both CSeries and "A200" at the same time, which would probably drive the costs for Airbus even higher.

I give less than 5% chance of CSeries being developed into an Airbus family-compatible aircraft any time soon.
FlyingStone is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2018, 17:48
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
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.
I don't know about it being a hard bargain for BBD to swallow. They're getting 49.9% of what could easily be a massive production run, without having to scale up the production line themselves. If it works out they're in a good place.

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.
msbbarratt is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service