Bombardier....lost cause??

THEICEMAN · Post by **THEICEMAN** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:30 pm

What is going on with Bombarider these days?

My uncle, who is a marketing manager at Pratt Whitney Canada, told me that (yet again) Bombardier was being blasted by many clients at a conference last week.
Apparently a lot of clients are disappointed with their products!

Relatively speaking, Bombardier seems to be very behind! Not only are they getting their ass kicked ROYALLY by Embraer, now they might be too late in the MID size jet market. What is the hold up on the Cseries program?
The Embraer E-Jets (also know as Shit Jet) are selling. Meanwhile Sukhoi (with the help of Boeing) just released the superjet 100.

The market for 90-130 seats is really picking up! What the heck are the waiting for!
This CRJ-1000 only has 38 orders, and it's exactly what many operators don't want!
Yes it has better economics then the E-190, but the E-190 is much better for comfort.
The RJ is so tight inside!

Apparently Bombardiers reputation has dropped over the past couple of years. The 50 seat-jet market is not what it used to be.
What’s next!
Apart from selling Challengers and Learjets, all Bombardier really has is the CRJ-700/900 program.

The situation with the Q400 does not help. I hope it's Menasco's fault with their landing gears!

WJflyer · Post by **WJflyer** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:49 pm

It is because the Canadian government has babied and coddled Bombardier with handouts for so long. They got used to the handouts, didn't bother to innovate, and take risks. It is no surprise that Bombardier is not doing that well right now. Take a look at some parts of the US arms industry. The recent wins of some European firms in contracts, say for the US-101 to replace the POTUS helicopters over the Sikorsky S-92 is perhaps the most significant of the fact that AgustaWestland took a risk and developed an entirely new helicopter as they needed to break into the international market, while Sikorsky took a more conservative approach and reused some parts from the S-70 Black Hawk.

PilotFlying · Post by **PilotFlying** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:06 pm

(also know as Shit Jet)

How do you figure?

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:55 pm

To be fair, the C-series was on the drawing board in 2000, then 911 happened and everything tanked: sales plummeted, the stock dropped from $25 to 2.50, the Global was having teething problems, the parts backup system was non-existent, Dash 8 sales tanked because of the RJ and numerous companies that had ordered RJs were going to the wall and cancelling orders or putting a slug of used jets on the market, undercutting the new price. They have sold 1200 or so RJs...

So some of it was exogenous, like 911, some was poor management (Bob Brown "5% growth per year", followed by that CN dork who sold off the recreation products division because it was profitable!) and the train division that was in litigation with Amtrak, Bombardier has been transformed into a follower from an instigator. Even the 605 is only an avionics suite.

Bombardier pioneered the RJ which was such a success that others got into it too, the problem is that B. has so many irons in the fire that they have to get their heads above water before they can round up the huge amounts of capital needed to build a new 'plane.

I don't know why I'm defending them as I really don't give a RA anymore, but I do find a certain amount of pride in Canadian Aerospace, even if the RJ is a flying torture chamber.

Vickers vanguard · Post by **Vickers vanguard** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:00 am

who is so naive to think that Embraer doesn't get piles of government subsidies ??

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:52 am

It is because the Canadian government has babied and coddled Bombardier with handouts for so long. They got used to the handouts, didn't bother to innovate, and take risks. It is no surprise that Bombardier is not doing that well right now. Take a look at some parts of the US arms industry. The recent wins of some European firms in contracts, say for the US-101 to replace the POTUS helicopters over the Sikorsky S-92 is perhaps the most significant of the fact that AgustaWestland took a risk and developed an entirely new helicopter as they needed to break into the international market, while Sikorsky took a more conservative approach and reused some parts from the S-70 Black Hawk.

It's well known that the aerospace sector of any country's economy can't move forward effectively and be competitive without government funding and anyone who thinks that programs that involve US military equipment or the replacement of helicopters by European firms aren't DEEPLY dependant on government handouts just doesn't know when they are talking about.

Smitty · Post by **Smitty** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:24 am

Read the book: Airbus Versus Boeing.

It gives a good insight into the economic side of commercial aircraft including launch costs, risk and even dependence on the government teat. The commercial aircraft industry is no doubt a brutal one and not for the faint of heart.

The impression I get is that the regional jet market was a bit of an accident. The original RJ was simply a modified bizjet, so production and development costs were quite low. It must have really taken Bombardier by surprise when the orders started rolling in and it's easy to understand why they simply rested on their laurels and watched the money flow.

I hope the C-Series isn't too late to compete in the growing 110-130 seat market.

WJflyer · Post by **WJflyer** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:15 pm

CID wrote:
It is because the Canadian government has babied and coddled Bombardier with handouts for so long. They got used to the handouts, didn't bother to innovate, and take risks. It is no surprise that Bombardier is not doing that well right now. Take a look at some parts of the US arms industry. The recent wins of some European firms in contracts, say for the US-101 to replace the POTUS helicopters over the Sikorsky S-92 is perhaps the most significant of the fact that AgustaWestland took a risk and developed an entirely new helicopter as they needed to break into the international market, while Sikorsky took a more conservative approach and reused some parts from the S-70 Black Hawk.
It's well known that the aerospace sector of any country's economy can't move forward effectively and be competitive without government funding and anyone who thinks that programs that involve US military equipment or the replacement of helicopters by European firms aren't DEEPLY dependant on government handouts just doesn't know when they are talking about.

The problem becomes when you pay extraordinarily high amounts of money for work that is not needed of questionable value and quality. And that is what we are doing with Bombardier.

dashx · Post by **dashx** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:29 pm

Mon dieu!

Thank God for Pratt and Whitney.

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:56 pm

The problem becomes when you pay extraordinarily high amounts of money for work that is not needed of questionable value and quality. And that is what we are doing with Bombardier.

Thats pretty subjective. I think that Bombardier makes a pretty good product for the most part.

Any company is subject to the types of risks that you are alluding to.

goingmach_1 · Post by **goingmach_1** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:24 pm

Duh! Its all about money! You piss off the shareholders and their going to let the board members know. Ya, they are behind the eight ball and its time to move along, but their here to stay.

As far as hadouts go, I think thats BS. But it seems everyone everybody gots their hand out in Aerospace. And if its free for the asking, why not!

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:54 pm

Reasons I don't fly Air Canada

#1 Crappy service

#2 The RJ which leads back to #1

WJflyer · Post by **WJflyer** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:41 pm

CID wrote:
The problem becomes when you pay extraordinarily high amounts of money for work that is not needed of questionable value and quality. And that is what we are doing with Bombardier.
Thats pretty subjective. I think that Bombardier makes a pretty good product for the most part.

Any company is subject to the types of risks that you are alluding to.

See Jean Chretien's sole-sourced purchase of a pair of CC-144 Challenger executive jets for $35 million dollars when the existing jets were perfectly serviceable.

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:58 pm

Doesn't the Embraer just sell more volume because the Brazillian government gives a better finance rate than our gov gives on Bombardier products?

Side note, you're right about lack of comfort in some of those CRJ's. Ever sat against the wall and had to endure an entire flight with your head cocked at a 45 degree angle to the side because of the wall? I'm not even 6' tall!

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:39 am

CID wrote:
The problem becomes when you pay extraordinarily high amounts of money for work that is not needed of questionable value and quality. And that is what we are doing with Bombardier.
Thats pretty subjective. I think that Bombardier makes a pretty good product for the most part.

Any company is subject to the types of risks that you are alluding to.

Obviously you've never had much to do with their RJ products..

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:33 am

During the half dozen or so flights that I've been a passenger on the RJ, I have witnessed at least one person brain themselves(my wife and I included) on the overhead bins. Can't say I'm a fan, even the 705.

THEICEMAN · Post by **THEICEMAN** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:07 am

On the balance sheet, the 705 and 900 is soo much better then the E-jets! Can't say the same for comfort!

Bombardier is a way better quality aircraft then Embraer. Both got blasted for the 50 seat < CRJ and ERJ. Primarily because of fuel prices and comfort. I believe it's not their fault since airlines knew what they were getting themselves into!
Only big difference is that Embraer developed the E-170/190 family......perfect concept that is selling. Only problem is that you get Embraer quality!

According to a network planning manager at AC, the E jets are starting to break down a lot. The company is starting to get worried anout these aircraft. They are stage 1 and already having trouble.
Rumour has it that they want to bring the daily operations of the E-jets down to 10.5 hours from 12 +.

This Cseries better get going! Sukhoi (along with Boeing) already got it going! Embraer already has it going!

Now Bombardeir wants to wok with the Chinese???? I think they need new management...but that's just me?
Keep the Chinese as clients not partners!

tsgas · Post by **tsgas** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:20 am

It's great to have a Canadian aerospace company make quality products.. Some of you must of been supporters of John Diefenbacker.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:22 am

Obviously you've never had much to do with their RJ products..

twotter, show me a company that makes nothing but perfect airplanes that please everyone.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:43 pm

I understand that when people in the upper echelon of both Bombardier and Embraer die, they are treated like Saskatchewan farmers.
They are buried 3 feet deep.
That way they can still get their hands out.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:21 pm

CID wrote:
Obviously you've never had much to do with their RJ products..
twotter, show me a company that makes nothing but perfect airplanes that please everyone.

That's a lame argument.

Torn · Post by **Torn** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:48 pm

Dust Devil wrote:Reasons I don't fly Air Canada

#1 Crappy service

#2 The RJ which leads back to #1

If it wasn't for Air Canada Regina wouldn't have an airport at all.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:21 pm

Torn wrote:
Dust Devil wrote:Reasons I don't fly Air Canada

#1 Crappy service

#2 The RJ which leads back to #1
If it wasn't for Air Canada Regina wouldn't have an airport at all.

still doesn't change the fact

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:00 pm

That's a lame argument.

Why's that?

PilotFlying · Post by **PilotFlying** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:16 pm

According to a network planning manager at AC, the E jets are starting to break down a lot. The company is starting to get worried anout these aircraft. They are stage 1 and already having trouble.
Rumour has it that they want to bring the daily operations of the E-jets down to 10.5 hours from 12 +.

That's very interesting. First I've heard of it, actually. I'd be very interested to hear more on this.

I've heard - also from a reliable source - that the Embraers actually have a better dispatch reliability than the 320s when they were first introduced to the fleet.

New airplanes - in particular new software and new systems - take time to be perfected. It's very difficult to compare airplanes that have been operating for 2 years with airplanes that have been operating for 15 years. These teething problems are true of all manufacturers - be it Bombardier, Embraer, Airbus - and, yes, even Boeing.

Regards,