Possible CSeries routes?

[RVR6000]

We would be extremely foolish to give it up, ‘only 5 q400 out of the island’ remember that. Carry on with status quo, no need to give up anymore till 2024.

[yycflyguy]

We would be extremely foolish to give it up, ‘only 5 q400 out of the island’ remember that. Carry on with status quo, no need to give up anymore till 2024.

If there is no Global Economic/War crisis and AC continues to fill planes at record numbers, I will be expect MUCH more than status quo. The last two re-openers have been an embarrassment during times of global pilot demand and company riches. If that means ALPA, bring it on.

[Level Change]

Aaahh the CS. There is an interesting subject. First off, I don't think AC management could tell you what routes it will be flying, if any, let alone anyone on this forum. It must be remembered that the CS was never part of the business plan until it became evident that if they placed an order, the AVEOS law suit would quietly go away. Oh yes, no shortage of political prop ups when it comes to Bombardier. Four billion in Canadian taxpayer money given to Airbus. Your welcome.

One thing I do not see happening at AC is four different NB types.

[Gino Under]

If the Swiss, Air Baltic and Delta pilots are any indication of the C series reception into an airline's fleet, Air Canada will have a home for the CS300 and are likely going to use it wisely. At 134,000 lbs, this is NOT a regional aircraft type by any stretch nor is it likely to ever see service with a Regional in North America anytime soon. If you're not familiar with this aircraft, it's time you took a look.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Air Canada isn't going to buy an aircraft that doesn't fit into its future fleet planning if it isn't going to make money. If anything, this aircraft could potentially kill the regional airline idea all together, if the will was there. It is certainly going to shrink them.
FWIW, C series memory items? There are none.

Gino Under
(Remember, C series lists for around $75 million USD) Now think about the AVEOS lawsuit and ask yourself how much sense your remark makes? If ACA picked up this aircraft for around $30 million USD per, the math comes out to just over a billion (1.3) U.S. by the time all 45 are delivered. Do you really think it's about making a lawsuit go away? ... quietly?

[Victory]

They're only charging $30 million USD for a CS300? lol no wonder Boeing is so mad. That's the same they were asking for a CL-415.

[fish4life]

They're only charging $30 million USD for a CS300? lol no wonder Boeing is so mad. That's the same they were asking for a CL-415.

United paid between 20-25 million per 737 they just bought from Boeing

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.busines ... ion-2016-3

[Gino Under]

The reality is simply that no one knows "for sure" what Air Canada will pay for their CS300s. My 'speculative' suggestion that at $30 million per aircraft (if we're to believe Boeing's math) the sum upon full delivery of 45 aircraft to AC is still no small number. I doubt an airline like Air Canada is going to toss 1.3 billion USDs at an aircraft, some suggest, they don't want just to "make the AVEOS law suit go away". We'd better hope AC management has more on-the-ball than that.
Besides, a frivolous lawsuit like Boeing's is simply that. Frivolous. But I get why they can't just sit back and watch. With the present "America First" mentality in D.C. it isn't going to end well for Bombardier and fairness or trade agreements will have nothing to do with the verdict.

Gino Under

[rudder]

They're only charging $30 million USD for a CS300? lol no wonder Boeing is so mad. That's the same they were asking for a CL-415.

United paid between 20-25 million per 737 they just bought from Boeing

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.busines ... ion-2016-3

That 737-700 order was converted/deferred. Pricing also did not include engines.

When you get a great deal on a plane that is old technology and inefficient it really was not much of a deal. When you get a great deal on the next generation of aircraft, you look like a genius.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/201 ... order.html

[Gino Under]

The U.S. International Trade Commission has asked Boeing for details on its plan to acquire/partner with Embraer in light of their dispute with Bombardier. Boeing doesn't seem to think it's relevant. The ITC does. This debate could get interesting before any end of the month decision.
Gino Under

[Level Change]

The reality is simply that no one knows "for sure" what Air Canada will pay for their CS300s. My 'speculative' suggestion that at $30 million per aircraft (if we're to believe Boeing's math) the sum upon full delivery of 45 aircraft to AC is still no small number. I doubt an airline like Air Canada is going to toss 1.3 billion USDs at an aircraft, some suggest, they don't want just to "make the AVEOS law suit go away". We'd better hope AC management has more on-the-ball than that.
Besides, a frivolous lawsuit like Boeing's is simply that. Frivolous. But I get why they can't just sit back and watch. With the present "America First" mentality in D.C. it isn't going to end well for Bombardier and fairness or trade agreements will have nothing to do with the verdict.

Gino Under

Gino. Before AC actually placed an order for the CS they publicly stated they had no intention of buying that airplane. Then they got sued for selling off AVEOS and suddenly, out of thin air, a CS order was announced and the suit dropped. Coincidence? You must remember that Bombardier has always been at the center of political string pulling. Look at the TTC streetcar order and the YQT Streetcar factory with subsequent law suits. If you look at the current NB fleet plan at AC, it makes no sense. Way too many types, even without the CS. Will they keep it? They claim to be and have already assembled an aircraft introduction team, so my guess now is, likely.

I am not sure why some people think the Boeing lawsuit is frivolous. Not trying to stir up an argument or anything, I just don't see it. Getting direct cash injections from the government is exactly what a subsidy is. Both companies have received government contracts but to my knowledge, Bombardier is the only player selling airplanes that has been getting direct cash injections to subsidize a specific aircraft program. Both Trudeau and Bombardier share this "we are above the law" attitude.

[Sharklasers]

The reality is simply that no one knows "for sure" what Air Canada will pay for their CS300s. My 'speculative' suggestion that at $30 million per aircraft (if we're to believe Boeing's math) the sum upon full delivery of 45 aircraft to AC is still no small number. I doubt an airline like Air Canada is going to toss 1.3 billion USDs at an aircraft, some suggest, they don't want just to "make the AVEOS law suit go away". We'd better hope AC management has more on-the-ball than that.
Besides, a frivolous lawsuit like Boeing's is simply that. Frivolous. But I get why they can't just sit back and watch. With the present "America First" mentality in D.C. it isn't going to end well for Bombardier and fairness or trade agreements will have nothing to do with the verdict.

Gino Under

Gino. Before AC actually placed an order for the CS they publicly stated they had no intention of buying that airplane. Then they got sued for selling off AVEOS and suddenly, out of thin air, a CS order was announced and the suit dropped. Coincidence? You must remember that Bombardier has always been at the center of political string pulling. Look at the TTC streetcar order and the YQT Streetcar factory with subsequent law suits. If you look at the current NB fleet plan at AC, it makes no sense. Way too many types, even without the CS. Will they keep it? They claim to be and have already assembled an aircraft introduction team, so my guess now is, likely.

I am not sure why some people think the Boeing lawsuit is frivolous. Not trying to stir up an argument or anything, I just don't see it. Getting direct cash injections from the government is exactly what a subsidy is. Both companies have received government contracts but to my knowledge, Bombardier is the only player selling airplanes that has been getting direct cash injections to subsidize a specific aircraft program. Both Trudeau and Bombardier share this "we are above the law" attitude.

I am not sure why this is debated at all? We bought the CSeries so Quebec would drop the lawsuit.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/quebec- ... -1.2781633

Here is a article that says just that, management does not hide the fact that it was amoung the motivating factors and say so at the road shows. I have literally heard Eddy Doyle say that right to my face.

[Gino Under]

Interesting.
If Air Canada bought a fleet of 45 aeroplanes they didn’t want, just to end a lawsuit, what does that tell you about their confidence in winning? I’d really have to question the ability of an Air Canada management team, who chose instead NOT to have their day in court in favour of such a simplistic, cost ineffective solution as buying so many unwanted aircraft. It just doesn’t make sense, so I’ll simply hold onto my own theories.
Air Canada had been looking at C series for awhile before any sale was announced. I’d speculate that when the thought occurred to them leverage in pricing might come from dealing with the AVEOS mess they twisted some arms and forced a better deal on the aeroplanes than they might have otherwise received. Yes. They were interested in this aeroplane before the lawsuit became a bargaining chip in the deal. They’ll do some serious damage to the Canadian regionals with that fleet.

If you think the TTC lawsuit doesn’t have two sides to it, then your bias is showing. You neglected to mention that Bombardier’s counter suit against the TTC also has merit.
Inaccurate, inadequately designed panels from Bombardier Mexico destined for the YQT assembly plant however, is on Bombardier. Just as the incomplete, undelivered 2017 batch of C Series aircraft due to undelivered engines, is on Pratt and Whitney.

Boeing’s complaint is totally ridiculous. To use “the Donald’s” often used word, they’re a bunch of “losers”. But also in the world of “Make America Great Again”, we all know Bombardier is going to be “the bigger loser”.

Clearly, everyone has an opinion on this.

Gino Under

[Gino Under]

ITC sides with Bombardier

Quote, “Not a single commissioner was willing to buy Boeing’s arguments,” he said. “I think ‘America First’ is a policy of the White House and the Commerce Department,” he said. “But it’s not the policy of an independent agency (like the ITC).”

I didn't see that coming. I'm speechless ...

This clears the way for “on time” deliveries to Delta.

Gino Under

[Fanblade]

ITC sides with Bombardier

Quote, “Not a single commissioner was willing to buy Boeing’s arguments,” he said. “I think ‘America First’ is a policy of the White House and the Commerce Department,” he said. “But it’s not the policy of an independent agency (like the ITC).”

I didn't see that coming. I'm speechless ...

This clears the way for “on time” deliveries to Delta.

Gino Under

Pretty sure Boeing will appeal based on their comments.

The mobile Alabama plant is still going to be needed. Likely the end result is still delivery delays to Delta.

[Fanblade]

Gino. Before AC actually placed an order for the CS they publicly stated they had no intention of buying that airplane. Then they got sued for selling off AVEOS and suddenly, out of thin air, a CS order was announced and the suit dropped. Coincidence? You must remember that Bombardier has always been at the center of political string pulling. Look at the TTC streetcar order and the YQT Streetcar factory with subsequent law suits. If you look at the current NB fleet plan at AC, it makes no sense. Way too many types, even without the CS. Will they keep it? They claim to be and have already assembled an aircraft introduction team, so my guess now is, likely.



Here is a article that says just that, management does not hide the fact that it was among the motivating factors and say so at the road shows. I have literally heard Eddy Doyle say that right to my face.

The key word in your second to last statement is AMONG.

Does AC need a 319/190 replacement? Yes
Does a single fleet type make more sense? Yes

Does the Cseries beat the Max 7 economics. Yes on both purchase price and operation.
Does the economics difference justify a new type? No idea. But it certainly helps.
Does placing the CS300 at Rouge somewhat mitigate the costs of a separate type? Probably yes.

Does the economics of the Cseries plus the dropped law suit make more economic sense than the Max 7? Apparently yes.

Would the purchase have made sense without the law suit getting dropped? We will never know. But I’m thinking there is a strong possibility IF the CS300 is planned at Rouge.

Either way. Two birds with one stone.

[TheStig]

When you look at where AC's fleet is going to be in the 2020's, I'd say that the 737 is the odd duck, not the C Series as the newer A320's and A321's aren't going anywhere soon. With the way scope seems to get negotiated every 4 years it's hard to say where they're going to end up, if the price is as low as rumoured and looking at the specs, they'd be a great replacement for the A319's at ML and rouge.

[Gino Under]

IMHO, I think that it would be in Boeing’s best interest if they simply moved on. They should probably focus on damage control right now. There’s a lot of negativity within industry toward Boeing over this ITC case so don’t be surprised if Boeing DOESN’T appeal this decision. A 4-0 vote pretty much says it all.

Gino Under

[rudder]

The key word in your second to last statement is AMONG.

Does AC need a 319/190 replacement? Yes
Does a single fleet type make more sense? Yes

Does the Cseries beat the Max 7 economics. Yes on both purchase price and operation.
Does the economics difference justify a new type? No idea. But it certainly helps.
Does placing the CS300 at Rouge somewhat mitigate the costs of a separate type? Probably yes.

Does the economics of the Cseries plus the dropped law suit make more economic sense than the Max 7? Apparently yes.

Would the purchase have made sense without the law suit getting dropped? We will never know. But I’m thinking there is a strong possibility IF the CS300 is planned at Rouge.

Either way. Two birds with one stone.

I see the CS300 as a mainline aircraft with a two class configuration. It is a suitable replacement for both the mainline 190 and 319 fleets.

I also see Rouge as optimized when the fleet is Airbus only (319/320/321/330). Perhaps AC/ACPA could look at a CCQ arrangement using status pay at the higher Rouge WB pay scale for all Rouge pilots.

The 737 was an odd fleet choice given AC’s existing Airbus infrastructure. But purchase price can be an attractive incentive and was a major factor in both the MAX and C series fleet decisions. AC has gone all-in so there will be a fleet of at least 61 MAX aircraft.

[Fanblade]

The key word in your second to last statement is AMONG.

Does AC need a 319/190 replacement? Yes
Does a single fleet type make more sense? Yes

Does the Cseries beat the Max 7 economics. Yes on both purchase price and operation.
Does the economics difference justify a new type? No idea. But it certainly helps.
Does placing the CS300 at Rouge somewhat mitigate the costs of a separate type? Probably yes.

Does the economics of the Cseries plus the dropped law suit make more economic sense than the Max 7? Apparently yes.

Would the purchase have made sense without the law suit getting dropped? We will never know. But I’m thinking there is a strong possibility IF the CS300 is planned at Rouge.

Either way. Two birds with one stone.

I see the CS300 as a mainline aircraft with a two class configuration. It is a suitable replacement for both the mainline 190 and 319 fleets.

I also see Rouge as optimized when the fleet is Airbus only (319/320/321/330). Perhaps AC/ACPA could look at a CCQ arrangement using status pay at the higher Rouge WB pay scale for all Rouge pilots.

The 737 was an odd fleet choice given AC’s existing Airbus infrastructure. But purchase price can be an attractive incentive and was a major factor in both the MAX and C series fleet decisions. AC has gone all-in so there will be a fleet of at least 61 MAX aircraft.

That would mean possibly 3 narrow body types at mainline. (321/Max8/CS300) The oldest 321’s are about 17 years ish old. 5 are very new. Something will eventually replace them ( max10 or NEO) but I don’t see a need on the near horizon. I also don’t see AC operating without a narrow body the size of the 321.

Add that mess to the 319 at Rouge which is essentially another biddable type. 4 narrow body biddable aircraft. 8 narrow body positions.

It is highly unlikely the CS300 will be split between mainline and Rouge. Unless they are insane.

The 319, although doing better at Rouge’s cost structure, is not an ideal aircraft to compete with the 737-800. Even worse against the Max8. I don’t see the 319 with a long term future. Really the 319 aircraft choice was never made based on best fit. It was simply what AC had on hand at the time.

Currently most of the 319’s are at Rouge which the CS300 is targeted to replace. If you look at all the 319/190 together. Currently they are split about 50/50 between mainline and Rouge.


The CS300 can be flown at Rouge in a two class configuration. Rouge’s mandate has also changed in the last contract. It can fly anywhere AC sees fit. In other words it doesn’t have to be at mainline to do mainline flying. Ideal for regional repatriation and fending off ULCC’s with its lower cost structure.

I could see the Rouge 319 and 321’s replaced by the CS300. Maybe a CS500 in the future. The 319’s back to the lessor and the 321’s migrate to mainline.

2 narrow body types at mainline. Possibly 1 type in the future if they go max10. 1 narrow body type at Rouge.

[Fanblade]

...