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?
|
Originally Posted by UltraFan
(Post 10652273)
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?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/26/b...ets/index.html |
|
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. |
Originally Posted by dash34
(Post 10652355)
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. 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. |
Old joke:
"How do your create a billion-dollar aerospace company? Invest a trillion dollars!" |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10652384)
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. 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. |
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? |
Originally Posted by Caboclo
(Post 10652449)
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. |
Originally Posted by Caboclo
(Post 10652449)
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? Which apparently is now Boeing's fault :confused: |
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.
|
Originally Posted by Superpilot
(Post 10652511)
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... |
Originally Posted by Jet Jockey A4
(Post 10652460)
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.
|
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by cappt
(Post 10652939)
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. |
Originally Posted by ElectroVlasic
(Post 10653019)
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.
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 |
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? |
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?
|
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? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.