Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
Bombardier firms up CSeries order, reveals undisclosed customer
Bombardier firmed up a large order for the CSeries with Russia’s Ilyushin Finance Corp., which previously signed an MOU for up to 42 of the new aircraft design. BBD also revealed a long-standing, undisclosed customer, Gulf Air, which had signed a firm order for 10+6 CS100s.
The Toronto Globe and Mail has this story.
Reuters has this story.
BBD now has firm orders for 177 and total commitments for 388 CSeries. It wants 300 firm orders by entry-into-service, slated for a year from now. First flight is planned for the end of this month.
Meantime, launch customer Swiss (via its parent Luthansa Group) sees a need for a larger CSeries, the oft-talked about CS500.
Golf Air has long been the suspected carrier for this previously announced order. Apparently they will operate the CSeries out of London City, as can be seen in the following 2010 Flightglobal article.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/2010/11/artists-impression-of-gulfair.html
The above should read Gulf Air. There is a new picture on Wikipedia of FTV1 with the flaps and slats fully deployed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/CS100-FTV1.jpg/1280px-CS100-FTV1.jpg
That’s a beautiful machine.
I think everybody, including Boeing and Airbus anticipated a Cseries further stretch to cover segments bulls eye, 150 seats in 2 classes. The premium section of a 5 abreast is efficient, you have to give up 1 seat only per row.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4020486/
The pressure up was so strong Bombardier stretched the CS300 a bit already, IMO BBD will move ahead when the CS300 & supply chain are stable.
Glad to see that the C-Series seems to be working out for BBD. I spoke to their then head of UK operations in 2008, and he was very excited about the impending launch. I also look forward to flying on this plane out of City Airport. The E195s of LH have already been a massive improvement over the BAe 146, and looks like things can only get better now.
In the Globe and Mail article it says the following:
“Ground testing has been completed, which means it is up to the flight test crew to decide when the plane will take to the skies for the first time, above suburban Montreal.”
That leaves more than three weeks for the crew “to decide” when they will take the plane to the skies, before the month ends. If ground testing is indeed finished, but we have no confirmation of that, it would mean that the CSeries might actually be slightly ahead of the A350. For sure the smaller airplane will not make a fly-by at PAS; but if it is true that they are done with ground testing that bodes well for a first flight before, or during, the air show
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bombardier-names-gulf-air-as-mystery-c-series-buyer/article12333991/
Normand, I think you mix some things up there. That they finished ground testing does not mean that they are ahead of the A350. It is a matter of definition. I think that BBD and Airbus do not count the taxi tests and engine runs into the ground testing. I think that for both ground testing is more fuselage and tank pressure testing, electrical power-on, hydraulic system testing, general system testing, load calibration and ground vibration testing. Then, after that, the first engine run is performed and taxi tests can start (low speed, high speed, and rejected take-off). There is already a video out showing the A350 taxiing under its own power. I haven’t seen anything like from the C-Series. For the moment, the A350 is clearly ahead!
The Globe & Mail wrote:
– “Ground testing has been completed, which means it is up to the flight test crew to decide when the plane will take to the skies for the first time…”
I interpret this to mean that the airplane is ready to go as far as engineering is concerned.
I wrote:
– “If ground testing is indeed finished, but we have no confirmation of that, it would mean that the CSeries might actually be slightly ahead of the A350.”
– “…but if it is true that they are done with ground testing that bodes well for a first flight before, or during, the air show.”
@CRORpower:
Please note that everything I wrote is conditional. Emphatically so. Before I read the article I had the impression that Airbus might be ahead by a few weeks. And as you suggest it might still be the case, based on the available “evidences”. BBD appears to be even more secretive than Airbus, which makes it difficult to properly assess the situation.
But if someone mixed things up it could very well be the Globe & Mail reporter.
Scott, I’m a bit confused about the numbers of orders. In your post it says:
174 firm
388 total commitments (sure that’s not a typo?)
Do the total commitments include the firm orders or are they additional?
Boeing started the “commitment” game with the MAX when it was trying to boost it against NEO. “Commitments” includes orders, options, LOIs, MOUs, purchase rights and wishful thinking.
Hehe. Thanks. So the total of orders, options, LOIs, MOUs, purchase rights and wishful thinking is 388. 🙂
Nope, BBD has been announcing “commitments” since the start of the program… think about Lufhansa’s “letter of Interest” (which eventually got firmed) and Eznis Air of Mongolia (which has never been mentioned again), if you cast your mind back to about 2008-09. Airbus has long announced MOUs and LOIs, since the late 90s at least, then they re-announce them when they get firmed up. Particularly at air shows. Embraer has similarly announced MOUs and LOIs. If you really want to get into announcing “commitments” just look at the Chinese and Russians. Their whole order book is what would be termed “commitments” by western standards. Boeing simply came into line with what the rest of the industry was doing.
Fair enough, Howie.
The distinction imho was that Boeing tried to present “commitments for an undefined product” as on par with ratified orders as announced from competitors.
Neither BBD nor Airbus have stepped there yet.
If I’m not mistaking, All the original Max “Commitments” are now “Firm” Orders… Would that be accurate Scott?
Don’t know if 100% Max commitments have been converted to firm orders but it is close.
Whilst it is good to see the C series accumulating orders It still has to really break into B/A territory. This latest order is for a niche application rather than a mainstream one.
Yeah, but what a niche! Bombardier will probably sell more than a thousand CSeries out of a narrowbody market of more than ten of thousand, over the next decade. They will be happy to own that niche.
I think the CSeries will be a bit slow to get started because airlines are awash in recent, good quality, A319s and 737-700s, at rock bottom prices. Once those planes are out of the system, the CSeries will will find a ready market with airlines who have no interest in upguaging to bigger A320s and 737s.
I’ve got a question that is off on a related topic.
Does anyone know where and when the terms upgauging and downgauging (rather than eg upsizing and downsizing) came into use please?
Apart from the misspelling… Maybe something to do with railroad tracks? Wide gauge versus narrow gauge?
Like wire, upgauge refers to diameter. Going from an A320 to an A330 is an upguage. Going from an A320 to an A321 is an uplength.
When I said niche I was think in terms of operations from LCY. I can’t see Bombardier selling a thousand frames to do that!
As a non native reader an offer:
up/down gauging is “changing what you use” ( and something you change in distinct steps )
up/down sizing is “changing the amount you use” ( and linearly adjustable )
Thanks for the replies all. I still find it perplexing to use a term based on width. For example, how would an airline in the late 60s have termed things if they switched from a 707-320 to a 737-200? Or one in the early 90s going A310 to A340?
Look beyond railway gauges.
See forex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge
( distinct steps in size, originally derived from the number of drawing steps
done to a wire. )
It is a decission about the basic “material” you select for a job. You do
that once and you then will be constrained by that decission.
Now contrast with changing seating arrangements, number of flights per day, ..
that are finely adjustable and potentially undoable.
Based on the number of A319NEO and 737-7s sold, it looks like B/A still have yet to really break into that region of B/A territory.
Bombardier will be competing directly with Airbus at London City, as BA is already operating the A318 from LCY to JFK. And if I was Chet Fuller I would make an offer to BA to buy back their fleet of A318 in return for an equivalent CS100 order. BBD would obviously not make much money on the deal, but the prestige of securing a BA order in replacement for an Airbus product would reflect on the programme as a whole.
The CSeries is going to wipe the floor with the A318. The A318 is just such an inefficient airplane, and the CSeries is going to be pretty good. Certainly more than 20% better economics. The little A318 just carries too much junk in the trunk from being a double shrink of the A320.
The A318 is visibly lighter than the A320 to A319 weight difference per change in length would predict. . And as an industry standard now a lot of gains are taken from engine sfc improvements. ( While the other very large gain factor is changing seat numbers 😉
Right Uwe… That’s why the A318 has had such a stunning record of success and has such a huge backlog.
Slightly better than the 737-600 😉
Then you make a pretty colourfull statement of absolute superiority
where the superiority is largely derived from generational engine sfc gains.
Anyway and to help you understand the premise look at
A318/737-600 deliveries, then look at A319/737-700 deliveries
and finally note the numbers for the larger siblings.
The smaller models have continuously over time lost out to the bigger models.
How much cheaper to operate must a new small NB be to recreate
airline interest in that segment.?
More pictures of the CSeries are available from archive.com:
http://airchive.com/blog/2013/06/04/a-big-day-for-the-bombardier-cseries/
Replacing the fleet of BA A318s (if you can call 2 a fleet!) or even wiping the floor with the A318or the 737-600 would not be an achievement to shout from the rooftops. The time for fanfares will be when the C-series starts replacing some of the big A319/737-700 fleets and I don’t think that is a foregone conclusion yet.
Luring away potential new customers for the A319/737-700 is well within reach of the CS300. But to replace an existing fleet, even if it’s only two aircraft, would indeed be considerably more difficult. That is why to have BA replace its two A318s by the CS100 would be quite a coup for Bombardier.
I don’t think the airlines are yet convinced of this. The CS300 will still be a high density configuration in those ranges, that might appeal to some,but not all the airlines that operate the A319/737-700. Now the story might be completely different if BBD launches the CS500.
The CS300 in high density configuration sits 160 passengers (A320/737-800 territory). The standard version sits 135 (A319/737-700 territory). The purported CS500 should start at 150+ and will most likely be designed to compete directly with the A320 and 737-800; and should do so in standard configuration.
With the A320 I guess, the 738 is a few rows longer..
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/CSeries100300500FakeAirlinerscom.jpg
Yes the 738 has a few more rows and that can make a difference; and is what actually keeps the 737 relevant fifty years after its introduction. But the A320 remains in the same territory. And if the A320 is in the same territory so should be the CS500, relatively speaking.
The comparison between the CS100, 300 and 500 should now be revisited because the CS300 has since been stretched (which ads a row) and also reconfigured inside (like the CS100). I would imagine this to have an impact on the future design of the CS500 and bring it closer to the A320 and 738.
In terms of capacity I would rank the contenders as follow:
1- 738
2- A320
3- CS500
The possibility that the CSeries would make its first flight during PAS is not excluded according to The Gazette:
– Fuller did not exclude a maiden flight for the future airliner during the trade show at Le Bourget, outside of Paris, between June 17 and June 23.
– Bombardier Aerospace spokesperson Marc Duchesne said he “cannot say either whether or not it will happen during Le Bourget. It will be by the end of June.”
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Window+CSeries+maiden+flight+tightens+weeks/8484115/story.html
Could the CS100 do JFK-LCY with 32 lie-flat J class seats? I guess so, but don’t know for sure. I don’t see BA getting CS100s to replace the A318s, unless they order the C series in larger volumes for other operations out of LCY or other airports. But for LCY, they are getting new Embraers for the LCY job, why would they ditch them?
As for competing with the lower end of the A/B offerings (I exclude the 318 here, since it is essentially dead, pity, but there we are), I guess it depends on where the centre of activity lies for an airline. Taking BA as an example, if you want to cover a range from 126 – 184 seats in normal density (seat pitch 31″), with the core being around 150-160, you maybe better off taking a hit on the smaller plane efficiencies, rather than operating two familes? Essentially if you are taking the risk of building up a second fleet, you are taking a punt that fuel prices will stay where they are.
The CS100 can do JFK-LCY non-stop in a low configuration, but more to the point it can do LCY-JFK non-stop, eliminating the tech stop required for the A318 westbound.
I’m surprised about that, given the runway length and requirements at LCY, I would not have thought they’d be able to take sufficient fuel for the trip? The runway is only 1.08km, and the steep take-off would presumably eat into fuel consumption as well? It’s already quite exciting taking off in an E-195 going to FRA, I wonder what it’s gonna be like in a tanked-up CS100 to JFK… Longest flight at the moment is to Ibiza, 875 miles.
How about CS100 vs reengined long E-jets?
“We believe that the range that is being offered by the CSeries is not needed for the majority of airlines,” said Silva, president and CEO of commercial aviation at Embraer. “Therefore, having our lighter aircraft is more efficient.”
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Rival+Embraer+takes+shot+Bombardier+CSeries/8350874/story.html#ixzz2VQ3D8evf
The CS100 can fly LCY-JFK direct, skipping the Shannon stopover required to refuel the A318. BA may soon have competition on this route. If I am not mistaken there is an operator who wants to acquire the CSeries to offer direct flight over the pond from London City.
I’d still fly BA if that were a route I’d go on. 1) FF status and 2) I’d rather be processed for immigration in SNN, rather than spending 2 hours in a line in JFK.
LCY’s runway length is actually 1,508 m. An article at flightglobal states that the CS100 will be able to do LCY-JFK non-stop in a premium configuration.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/privatair-signs-for-up-to-10-cs100s-367155/
We’re both wrong. It’s 1,319m.
http://www.lcacc.org/operations/
But I see Bombardier has confirmed this, so no reason to doubt it.
WP::EN: Take off run at MTOW CS100 1,463 m (4,800 ft) CS300 1,890 m (6,200 ft)
WP::DE: Startstrecke ISA, SL, MTOW CS100 1,509 m CS300 1,872/ER 1,890 m
How much derate for 100m ( or is it 200m ) less available runway ?
Well since not all the 1,319m is useable for a plane (you’ll lose a bit at the starting point, and my guess is you’re not gonna plan to use every last metre at the end of the runway), I guess you’re looking at 250m less than the 1,509m. Height and temperature shouldn’t be an issue, it’s London, so always miserable weather, and it’s just above sea level.
The whole Neo/Max war was started by AA wanting to replace mostly MD-80’s and the CS will serve the same markets quite nicely. If the CS had a track record at that time there may have been a very different competition. And the intra-continental market is quite large.
However, it is likely that CS sales will follow the A320 history vs. the 737 – slow at first and many to smaller airlines but then hitting a tipping point when a major airline (for instance United purchasing the A320) breaks the market open. I’m sure there were some key non-US carriers that preceded that, but that is the one that forced the development of the 737NG.
I’m not convinced BBD could have provided the number of planes AA needed, the finance AA needed, and the range of capacity across the family that AA needed.
So I doubt the competition would have been very different.
I agree with you, with the possible exception of range and capacity. What I meant by “track record” is several years of service and build up of production rates. In a few years the CS will likely have that and it would make for a different competition for AA v 2.0
And what will it take to force the development of the NSA?
The force of a new kind of engine is needed.
The only “new kind” of engine available for the next twenty years is the Pratt & Whitney GTF. It is efficient, clean and quiet. But above all it is practical. And it is here, as in “the future is here”.
Production at the Bombardier Transportation (rail) factory in India is under totally jeopardy as the management fails to convince the 250 workers who have gone on strike since the last Monday. Although the Passenger division of this green field site (at Savli near Baroda in India) which came into operation in 2009 has currently no major workload, the survival of this factory seems difficult with the workers threatening to intensify their agitation against the termination letter and show-cause notice issued to them by the company against their complaints/grievances pertaining to the ill treatment and poor facilities provided by the company during their deputation assignment at New Delhi (where Bombardier is still taking care of the service aspect of the metro trains delivered for DMRC project order). The workers seem to have an upper edge considering the fact that their grievances seems to be quite justified and that ill treatment and verbal abuse by their supervisors and management can in no way be neglected. They have also been supported by a well known Union, which is known to have always got away with the cake in such scenario. No marks in guessing what would be the outcome of this scenario, for Bombardier will now surely have Unions. What needs to be seen is whether these terminated workers are successful in preventing the 100 other workers who are working for the Bogies division to enter the factory on next Monday. Bogies division which forms a part of this factory incidentally is working on an important project order and has an approximate strength of 150 including 100 workmen. Pierre Beaudoin, hope your associates have updated you regarding this !!