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

Why Bombardier selling spree?

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

Why Bombardier selling spree?

Old 2nd Jan 2020, 19:17
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why Bombardier selling spree?

It's now almost every week that I see news about Bombardier selling their aviation assets. They sold aerostructures division to Spirit, they sold the wiring facility, Belfast, Morocco. Have I missed something? Is Bombardier getting out of aviation business?
UltraFan is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2020, 20:06
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by UltraFan View Post
It's now almost every week that I see news about Bombardier selling their aviation assets. They sold aerostructures division to Spirit, they sold the wiring facility, Belfast, Morocco. Have I missed something? Is Bombardier getting out of aviation business?
Yes you did

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/26/b...ets/index.html
rattman is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2020, 20:20
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Same with their surface transport divisions

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thund...offs-1.5350676
WHBM is online now  
Old 2nd Jan 2020, 22:07
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Age: 65
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is the fallout from Boeing's anti-competitive attempt to block the C-series sale to Delta which was ultimately ruled unfair.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry...as-bombardier/

Nothing wrong with competition, but when it gets this nasty, it is yet another reason not to fly on a Boeing. Unfortunately the ruling in favour of Bombardier was too late, the C-series had already been sold to Airbus.
dash34 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2020, 23:12
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,803
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by dash34 View Post
This is the fallout from Boeing's anti-competitive attempt to block the C-series sale to Delta which was ultimately ruled unfair.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry...as-bombardier/

Nothing wrong with competition, but when it gets this nasty, it is yet another reason not to fly on a Boeing. Unfortunately the ruling in favour of Bombardier was too late, the C-series had already been sold to Airbus.
No, Bombardier bailing on the commercial airline business has little to do with Boeing's unfair trade complaint.
It has everything to do with the C-Series development nearly bankrupting Bombardier, with little hope that the program would become cash-flow positive for many years.

Turns out building and selling large commercial jetliners profitably is hard - really hard. So hard that only two companies in history have made money building and selling jetliners larger than 100 seats.
tdracer is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 00:02
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old joke:

"How do your create a billion-dollar aerospace company? Invest a trillion dollars!"
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 00:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
No, Bombardier bailing on the commercial airline business has little to do with Boeing's unfair trade complaint.
It has everything to do with the C-Series development nearly bankrupting Bombardier, with little hope that the program would become cash-flow positive for many years.

Turns out building and selling large commercial jetliners profitably is hard - really hard. So hard that only two companies in history have made money building and selling jetliners larger than 100 seats.
LOL... From the guy from Everett Washington.

Although I would not put all the blame on Boeing for Bombardier's financial problems (because of the C Series), it had to do a lot with it.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 01:01
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Alaska
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does anyone understand why the C Series wrecked Bombardier? They already had a series of successful airliners under their belt. Does the C incorporate a lot of new, untested tech?
Caboclo is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 01:37
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Caboclo View Post
Does anyone understand why the C Series wrecked Bombardier? They already had a series of successful airliners under their belt. Does the C incorporate a lot of new, untested tech?

Many cost overruns because of poor management for sure, new tech aircraft with new cockpit avionics, FBW and totally new engines that had major problems during their own development which actually delayed the aircraft for a year.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 02:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,803
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Caboclo View Post
Does anyone understand why the C Series wrecked Bombardier? They already had a series of successful airliners under their belt. Does the C incorporate a lot of new, untested tech?
Yes, lots of new tech/features (and virtually nothing in common with their previous regional/bizz jets). Billions of dollars over budget, without the reserves and cash flow to absorb the hit.
Which apparently is now Boeing's fault
tdracer is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 04:22
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would be really beneficial for all manufacturers to start installing Garmin avionics. By working with Garmin on certification for larger aircraft types they would save a fortune and have highly capable systems. Instead they choose to go their own way or pay Rockwell/Honeywell billions on proprietary tech that is so far behind the times. This would be a massive cost and time saving for training pilots and allow the industry to create fit for purpose solutions without worrying about compatibility. What Garmin has done in terms of avionics standardisation is way better than Boeing/Airbus or Rockwell/Honeywell. It's a shame these relationships are politically bound together.
Superpilot is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 07:24
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Superpilot View Post
This would be a massive cost and time saving for training pilots and allow the industry to create fit for purpose solutions without worrying about compatibility. What Garmin has done in terms of avionics standardisation is way better than Boeing/Airbus or Rockwell/Honeywell.

You're joking, right? Let's say Airbus use Garmin avionics in their next product. This would probably kill off any chance of a fairly simple CCQ from other Airbus FBW aircraft and vice versa. Don't see where the cost savings would come from...
FlyingStone is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 08:00
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jet Jockey A4 View Post
Many cost overruns because of poor management for sure, new tech aircraft with new cockpit avionics, FBW and totally new engines that had major problems during their own development which actually delayed the aircraft for a year.
So, a lack of MBAs and the transition away from steam-power broke Bombardier. OTOH, the opposite is true for Boeing

Last edited by Maninthebar; 3rd Jan 2020 at 08:03. Reason: insert smiley
Maninthebar is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 16:22
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The C series was overpriced (why buy a hundred seater for the same price as a 37/320?) and the company couldn’t make a meaningful sale, no rev coming in. The US scope clause ruled out regional airlines who had done previous business with the company, these same previous partners felt their product (CRJ) had been shelved and neglected (true) and left for the far superior ERJ line of aircraft.
cappt is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 17:45
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the C series was never meant to compete with regional aircraft. It filled a much needed space. The -300 has no comparable, and the -500 will compete with the 737 market with a new aircraft.
E2's are old designs rehabbed. Not really competition and not really selling.
turbidus is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 17:54
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cappt View Post
The C series was overpriced (why buy a hundred seater for the same price as a 37/320?) and the company couldn’t make a meaningful sale, no rev coming in. The US scope clause ruled out regional airlines who had done previous business with the company, these same previous partners felt their product (CRJ) had been shelved and neglected (true) and left for the far superior ERJ line of aircraft.
BBD and EMB both thought the US scope clause would change, and it did not, laying waste to their business plans and driving both to seek buyouts. Airbus had its foot on BBD's neck just as hard as Boeing did. Airbus's choice to use the PW GTF on A320neo largely undermined the market for BCS, and of course Airbus fought for every sale it could against BCS. BBD asked Boeing to look at the books for BCS twice and make an offer, and both times Boeing said thanks but no thanks. I still wonder what they saw that made them so skiddish. Airbus only bought in to BCS when offered half of the program for $1. While it is a nice aircraft BCS is not very compatible with A320, and I doubt Airbus is as ready to walk away from the A320 gold mine as many seem to suggest.
ElectroVlasic is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2020, 00:42
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Whanganui, NZ
Posts: 253
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ElectroVlasic View Post
While it is a nice aircraft BCS is not very compatible with A320, and I doubt Airbus is as ready to walk away from the A320 gold mine as many seem to suggest.
This is true and makes Airbus' next steps plain - announce (and build) a new A32x series:
  • The A325 as an A320+, long enough for 200 pax in LCC single-class layout
  • The A327, an A321 with a new CFRP wing and centre-wing-box allowing a taller undercarriage, and
  • The A329, a stretched A321 with room for 250 pax in 2- or 3-class layout and the new wing (the taller legs to make this variant OK for tail-strike protection)
All of them have a new cockpit based on the A220, and common type rating with the A220. They also have PIPed engines, plus maybe some aerodynamic clean-ups to offer in total a small but significant fuel-burn advantage per seat
And launch the A220-500, to cover the gap at the bottom of the new range caused by the absence of replacements for the A319neo and A320neo
Keep producing the A320neo, A321neo and A321XLR (at ever-increasing price, of course) for as long as airlines want to value commonality with their existing fleets above anything else.

Kick Boeing while they are down, make them either commit to an FSA half an engine generation too soon, or be faced with a completely uncompetitive B737MAX for the best part of a decade
kiwi grey is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2020, 01:08
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,803
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
The A320 flight deck has considerable commonality with the A330 and A350, and there are literally thousands of A320 series aircraft currently flying worldwide.
Why in the world would Airbus throw that away to base a new narrow body around the C-Series?
tdracer is online now  
Old 4th Jan 2020, 01:24
  #19 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I appreciate the responses, but I must have formulated my question unclearly. I understand that Bombardier is moving out of the commercial aircraft segment. And I understand why... or I think I do. But even for their private jets they still need aerostructures and wiring. And they sold both of those. Or do they have more somewhere? It looks like a fire sale of all aviation assets. Is Bombardier closing its aviation business altogether? Or just shrinking and concentrating it?
UltraFan is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2020, 08:48
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 703
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
They might just desperately need the money?

And who nows what A220 rate increases are brewing behind the scenes? This might be the same supply chain getting readied and needing expansion, therefore requiring major investments and new buyers?
Less Hair is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.