Odds and Ends: Some FAS leftovers–a big CSeries order?; EMB lands 60; and more

Farnborough Air Show leftovers:

Big CSeries order coming? Flight Global reports that lessor Macquarie Airfinance is about ready to sign a deal for 50 Bombardier CSeries. If true, this would be a major departure for the lessor, which historically hasn’t placed speculative orders–and it would be a major boost for Bombardier. The Flight Global report doesn’t say if this would be 50 firm or a combination of firm and options. BBD and MAF didn’t comment for Flight. We reached out to MAF and received this response:

“The Flightglobal release was concocted on a rumour and we don’t comment on rumours. You know how it is with lessors. We’re constantly considering every aircraft type that could provide us with value-adding opportunities.”

Bombardier has been selling the CSeries in small numbers, often to second or third tier, and even start-up carriers, a path Boeing took in the early days of the 737-200 program. Airbus relied heavily on lessors for early A320 orders. Boutique lessor LCI was a launch customer for the airplane, and Falko Regional Aircraft Leasing became a customer at FAS.

BBD now has 513 orders and commitments for CSeries.

Embraer, China sign E-Jet deal: It was announced Thursday but we missed it: Embraer and China signed deals for 60 E-190s. ICBC signed for 10+10 E190-E2s and Tianjin Airlines signed for 20 E1s and 20 E2s.

Pratt & Whitney GTF gain: PW announced that the GTF engine for the Airbus A320neo will have PIPs that give it 2% more fuel efficiency than today’s GTF. AINonline has the story.

Airbus v Boeing, wide-body strategies: Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times has a good article with interviews from key leaders from Airbus and Boeing explaining their respective wide-body strategies. The article is illustration with this:

Seattle Times illustration.

 

65 Comments on “Odds and Ends: Some FAS leftovers–a big CSeries order?; EMB lands 60; and more

  1. Aircraft length:
    – B787-9: 63m
    – A350-900: 66.8m
    – B787-10: 68m
    – B777-8: 69.5m

    Assume that the cabin length will be proportional with the fuselage length, thus

    1) how can there are just 2 seat gap b/w B787-9 & A350-900 for a difference of 2.2m b/w them?
    2) How can 1.2m b/w A350-900 & B787-10 be put an additional 33 seats?
    3) How can 1.5m b/w B787-10 & B777-8 just generate 2 more seats? Note the B787 is 9 abreast aircraft whereas the B777 is 10 abreast one.

    • I agree. If the 777-8 is mostly used on 12-16 hour flights, maybe they’ll keep it at 9 across in the back, with around 300 seats total.

  2. The A350-900 cabin is significantly larger than the 787-9. For example, the distance between the centreline on doors 1 and 4 is 45.7 m on the A350-900, 45.11 m on the A330-300 and 43.36 m on the 787-9. Yet, Mark Nowlin of the Seattle Times manages to largely eliminate the difference in cabin size by portraying the 789 as a “313-seater” and the A359 as a “315-seater” in a like-for-like, apples to apples comparison. For sure, this looks more like what you’d expect Randy to cook up than what you’d assume to be coming from an impartial source. Perhaps Mr. Nowlin was just a little bit “lazy” and passed on some marketing material he got from Boeing. 😉

  3. The planes on this list that will continue to sell in large numbers, I believe, are the A330-900 NEO, the A350-900, the A350-1000, the 787-9, 787-10 and 777-9X. The smallest variants of these models will sell less well because airlines have the option of upgauging to more seats to sell with a relatively low trip cost penalty

    The 777-9X. is in a category of its own without a direct competitor. The other models cover the middle ground more or less equally for each airframe manufacturer. although their models have different strengths. So if you are looking for a smaller plane with less range you might go for the A330-900 but for a bigger model take the 787-10. If you need the range, the best smaller model would be the 787-9 or the A350-900, 1000 or the 777-9X if you need to carry more passengers.

    • Bregier said something about the A350-1100: “We don’t envisage to do it, at least mid-term”. Maybe still before the 777-9X.

      Air New Zealand will operate their new 787-9 on the following routes:
      Auckland to Perth, Shanghai and Tokyo. Range is less, far less than 6,000 nm.

      “The option of upgauging to more seats” could also lead to other options: switching from single aisle to low cost widebody aircraft.

      • I concur with @Birdy that we will probably see a trend towards the larger twin aisles. The B787-8 will probably have a shorter life than the -9, and I don’t see a big future for the A330-800.
        “Small” widebodies are still a huge distance from largest single aisle and – more importantly – are more costly to operate on a per seat basis (when flying single aisle distances).

  4. To compete with Boeing, Airbus doesn’t need to offer the same product range.
    The 757 and the 767 have been killed by smaller (A321) and bigger (A330) airplanes, and Airbus has never been forced to launch a competitor to the 757.
    Time will tell if a 350-1100 is really needed but :
    1. Airbus has plenty of time to think of it in 2017 or after
    2. People have forgotten but before being a big commercial success, the 777-300ER sales were not so terrific at the beginning : less than 60 airplanes sold in 2000 (year of launch), about 10 in 2001 and 2002, only 4 in 2003, and 28 in 2004 (including the famous sale to Singapore Airlines with the buy-back of brand new A340). Airbus ihas many reasons not to be too nervous about the A350-1000 market situation.
    3. Everybody seem to be focused on the 777X and the so-called absence of Airbus competitor but on the single-aisle market the dominance of Airbus, especially with the A321 is IMO a much more important fact when one compares Boeing and Airbus range of products.
    4. The last time Airbus has listen to the buzz created by Boeing, it was about the A350 Mk1 and Airbus shouldn’t have canceled their plan (the A330neo is not very different from what the A350 Mk1 could have been).

    • Airbus did not listen to the buzz created by Boeing. The A350 is less an A330 replacement but rather more an attack on the 777.

      Also I want to remark that the 777X will be absent from the market for more than 6 years before entering into service after 2020.

      • I disagree with mhalublaub: The A350 splits the market between the two (787 and 777) 777 was always set to grow if desired by Boeing. For better or worse Boeing elected to wait until Airbus commited to the -1000 specs.

        • A350-1100 is also designed to grow, but won’t until Airbus see a market, Airbus have admitted that much.

    • The A350 Mk 1 had an all new composite wing. That would have added significantly to the development cost.

    • Why throw money on a stretched version of the 350-1000? The 350-1000 isn’t exactly setting the world on fire as it is today. What would have to be done to make the putative -1100 both (a) a real family member (commonality for parts/training), and (b) a capable stretch (new empennage, wing, wing box, engine)? I think they’re stuck at 97K engines on the wings they’ve designed, and can’t easily stretch again and get more than 6,500nm of range.

      They’ve had supposed weight challenges on the -1000 and have only sold around 50 or so in the past 2 years or so.

        • While you may be on to something, I am a skeptic on that point. Why wouldn’t the series be designed, like the 787/777/A380 ultimately for the larger version to be the most efficient of the range? If so, it wouldn’t make sense that 5 years after launch customers are still not ordering the -1000, but favoring the -900.

          Similarly, you don’t see droves of orders for 788’s now, or 358’s, (or even carriers splurging on A338)…but more to the point; if EK had (in a similar vein) wanted to upgauge to -1100’s eventually they probably confidentially have been told by now enough to realize that (especially in hot/high conditions/longer ranges) is not going to be what they want to do. Ipso facto 777X mega order.

          Anyway, if the 351 is not a smashing success, there’s no reason to think a 350-1100 is going to work real well.

    • Having decided to go with the A330 NEO in the near term I wouldn’t be surprised if any A350-1100 has been put off until next gen Advance engines are available. Then we could see the same engines put on the 900 and 1000 afterwards. Trent is old tech and Airbus have a history of re-engining as needed, and will be even more happy to de early re-engine programs now given the success the first A330 NEO, in 1999, when they put Trent 700s on it.

  5. One year ago at Paris Air Show, Boeing presented the following graphic, in which the seat claims are about 25 units lower for the 787-9 and 787-10 relative to the Seattle Times graphic above. See: http://oi44.tinypic.com/vympoh.jpg

    I understand why Scott is encouraging readers to ignore the manufacturer seating claims. The fluidity of the claims makes them difficult to regard seriously. At the end of the day, all current A&B widebody products are very efficient, and the airlines will order plenty.

  6. Why does the chart say Airbus may launch an A330neo, when it already has?

  7. To claim the 787-10 will carry typically 33 more seats then the A350-900 is amazing.

    Also the notion the 777-9x will carry 407 seats in a less dense 3 class configuation shows the author didn’t care to check seatguru on how the slightly shorter 777-300ERs are configured these days.

    A330 and 787s can be configured 9 and 10 abreast, A350s and 777s at 9 or 10 abreast. You can assume 48 or 60 or 80 inch for business class. Introduce different standards for different aircraft and you can influence them in any direction you prefer. And then compare fuel efficiency (per seat..) on them.

    Congrats Randy, some folks are so easy to convince.

    • “A330 and 787s can be configured 9 and 10 abreast”

      – I think you meant 8 and 9…

      • A330 is 9 across for LCCs like AirAsiaX. Cebu Pacific put 436 seats on their A330s, or 100 seats more than the exit limit on a B788. What’s the exit limit on the B789 anybody?

  8. Re seat counts I suspect one of Airbus’ strengths is the ability to offer 18″ to airlines at acceptable CASM and a really nasty 16.5″ for LCCs. Boeing now can only offer the one 17.2″ for everybody.

    • It’s the airlines that decide the seat width. With the 787 they get the choice of 8 or 9 across seating. The A330’s narrower fuselage, is a weakness not a strength.

      • Trouble with 787 with 8 seats across is that CAMS is not good and no one except Japanese carriers are using that configuration. Whereas 330 with 8 seats is the default option and only LCC are not using it. So the default seating in 330 seat is nicer. Of course that does not by itself sell the planes, but if 330neo CAMS is acceptable 8 across compared 787 9 across to then I’ll prefer 330 it as a customer:)

        • Seat width is a specious argument. coach class travel is a utilitarian product. does it get me where I want to go, when I want to go for a good price

          ticket purchase priorities for 99% of travelers are:
          1. price
          2. schedule
          3. price
          4. layovers/stops
          5. price
          6. no prop jobs
          7. price
          8. seat PITCH (LEGROOM, getting in and out of the aisle, using a laptop)
          9. price
          10. airline/reward points
          11. price
          12. boeing/airbus (more people care about the maker of the plane than the seat width)
          13. price
          …..
          100. seat width (the only thing that 99.9% of customers know about seat width is that unless you upgrade to business class, it will suck, regardless of airline, aircraft manufacturer or other factors. Unless you are a total aircraft dork like all of us on this forum, you aren’t even aware that Airbus planes typically are configured with wider seats than Boeing)

        • Why then are Jetstar Australia load factors now below 70%? Sorry but above only worked until 2012, and you can’t re-configure a B787 or 777-X with wider seating if expectations keep changing.

        • Bilbo: While I agree with you mostly, I think airlines are taking a (perhaps calculated) risk when they dense up cabins ad absurdum. I think many of Air Canada’s frequent flyers, for instance, feel that a promise has been broken, that they are effectively being betrayed, when put in a 450-seat 777-300ER. During a transition period, when ticket buyers still are expecting a comfortable flight, the tactic will probably generate profits temporarily, but when its reputation is at the bottom of the Mariana Trench the airline will need to cut prices further to maintain load factors. When passengers deboarding its airplanes feel that: “Unless absolutely necessary, I don’t want to go through that experience again, ever”, the airline will have difficulty sustaining operations in the medium to long term.

        • in the US, the most hated airline and the most preferred airline _both_ are pure Airbus A320 fleets, with luxurious 18″ seat widths. Spirit and Jet Blue. both, however, are very profitable and have very high load factors. what do people hate about Spirit? seat pitch and extra fees for everything. why do people still fly on Spirit? PRICE PRICE PRICE

          by the way, the second most favored airline, Southwest, is pure 737 17″ seats.

          seat width is meaningless as a customer differentiator in coach class as anything less than 24″ is going to be uncomfortable, and the degree of reduction of discomfort between 17 & 18″ seats is in the noise.

        • “the most hated airline and the most preferred airline _both_ are pure Airbus A320 fleets, with luxurious 18″ seat widths. Spirit and Jet Blue. both, however, are very profitable and have very high load factors.”

          – Nice of you to bring up Jetblue who have even more pitch than the “No. 2 ranked” Southwest. Forget Spirit – they are a ULCC that you can’t really love for anything other than price. And…these airlines are short haul.

      • “With the 787 they get the choice of 8 or 9 across seating. The A330′s narrower fuselage, is a weakness not a strength.”

        – The 8 across on the 787 is about as relevant as the 7 across on the A330 from now on. That option from Boeing has pretty much been a market failure and died too quickly. Only the 2 Japanese carriers have it, but one of them is already moving towards 9 across as well.

        The A330 however still keeps it at 8 across for most premium carriers and offers 9 across as an option – a realistic one – for the LCCs, a lot of them already use it. Contrary to what you wrote, Boeing is stuck with a frame that is not as versatile in configurations as the A330/A350.

      • Initially the 787 was presented as a comfy 8 across.
        that arrangement now would be completely uncompetitive against an 8 across hamstrung A330 😉

  9. It looks to me like Boeing is selling a lot of 777 and 777X, as well as 787s.

    Airbus is selling a pretty good number of A350-900 and decent 1000 as well as the “we will see on the A330″ but at least 200, maybe 350” and with Hazy on board who knows how many he will order (grin)

    Neither is selling too good in 747 and A380.

    And they can only make them so fast. Some of that sales depends on what is available when. Boeing probably has slots open on 787.

    Airbus only gets the A330-900 in 3 years and the 1000 is further out. Still can get an A330CEO if you need it.

    Both have products in areas the other does not and that allows optimized (or close to optimum) setup for any given operation . A330 owners will stay with A330NEO if it works for the routes.

    Pretty much means rant and rave between them and Boeing delivers more wide aisles for a while and they are matched up on single aisle deliveries (Airbus sells more but not delivering lots more, some but not lots). Airbus slowly catches up on the twin aisles when A350 production gets rolling (and ramp up will be interesting so stay tuned on that one as massive structural changes after number 17 A350).

    Some and some unless and until someone comes up with something to shift the dynamics which does not look to happen in a major way. 787 will keep getting refined.

    Boeing still has to pull the trigger sooner on 737RS. Thats the next big item and how soon. Maybe happy to limp along in a fairly close second place as Airbus will have to on the 777X.

    • “and ramp up will be interesting so stay tuned on that one as massive structural changes after number 17 A350.”

      IMU the “massive” changes are for cabin outfitting parts that have been significantly slimmed down.

      “Airbus only gets the A330-900 in 3 years and the 1000 is further out.”

      A350-1000 XWB is slated for mid 2017.
      A330NEO was announced for 2017Q4.

      • 2017 will be a busy year for Airbus. It will be interesting to see if they can complete their flight test programs and changes required for certification for both these programs in the space of six months. It will also be an indicator of big available engineering recourses etc if it does go to plan, and a warning to Boeing not to fall behind in resource development.

      • Uwe:

        No, something around 70% of the wing and structure are being re-done (changed). Thats been well documented in Av Week. Not much attention paid to it.

        Its one of the major questions on how aircraft are certified. You change that much but all your certification tests are done on the non standard previous structure.

        Boeing did the same thing on the 747 upgrades. A 747-8 has zero to in common with a 747-100 other than shape. Its a huge hole in the system. At some points its an all new aircraft and should be certified as such.

        • 70 percent?

          You’ve got to be kidding. Airbus will not be doing any changes to the center wing box, but the wing span will be extended by 3.7 m and the outer wing will be strengthened to handle the 5 tons of additional weight. In addition, there will be a slight change in the wing twist, or similar to what was was done with the A380 wing on all models post MSN-095. However, that’s about it. This is IMJ not going to be another 748-type delay plagued programme where too few resources were allocated to the first major re-design of the 747 wing.

          The 747-8 wing was not only re-twisted (i.e. a relatively easy thing to do) but re-lofted as well, which BTW is a whole different undertaking. The re-lofting was done primarily in order to modernise the wing by making it “supercritical”. The partly “new wing” on the 747-8 was outfitted with double-slotted inboard and single-slotted outboard trailing-edge devices which replaced the 747-400s triple-slotted flaps — and raked wingtips were added as well. However, the basic wing planform and the centre wing box remained the same so that much of the existing wing production tooling could be re-used.

        • “No, something around 70% of the wing and structure are being re-done (changed). Thats been well documented in Av Week. Not much attention paid to it. ”

          – Unless you can provide the actual source for this, that is a ridiculously distorted statement.

          Here are the actual quotes from Av Week related to the changes:

          “The A350’s cabin is one major area in which upgrades are going to be made. From MSN17 on, 40% of cabin parts will be changed, industry officials say. Airbus neither confirms nor denies that figure. The redesign includes cabin bracketing—the way the interior is attached to the fuselage—and the air-conditioning system, as well as other interior components…Other areas that will see significant modification are structural and wing components. ” – http://aviationweek.com/awin/airbus-aims-keep-a350-schedule-batches Aug 27, 2012

          “The most significant changes to the aircraft are made as a result from batch 2 to 3. Many of them are related to the cabin, but wing components and structural parts of the fuselage are also affected. Most of the cabin work is being performed by Diehl Aerosystems.” – http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/airbus-reports-large-charge-a350-program Feb 26, 2014

        • Addendum

          OK, so you were referring to the A350. Anyway, as nyx is pointing out “70 percent” is far beyond the realm of reality.

  10. “Pratt & Whitney GTF gain: PW announced that the GTF engine for the Airbus A320neo will have PIPs that give it 2% more fuel efficiency than today’s GTF.”

    It seems what was expected years ago is materializing. PW concentrated on the geared fan and was conservative on hot temperatures, high pressures, advanced shapes and materials. Now they start catching up in these areas and e.g. introduce e.g. a carbon fan/ fancase, CFM and the Boeing 737 MAX have a red alert, and it isn’t going away.

    I’m waiting for the first signs of CFM Ziganator648 Technology, or whatnever they’ll name their geared turbofan.

    BBD, Embraer, MHI Airbus and Irkut foresaw years ago.

    • OK, the AINonline story says,

      “Pratt & Whitney on Sunday announced that is has managed to reduce fuel burn on the PW1100G-JM for the A320neo family by another 2 percent.”

      Correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression that the 2% improvement has already been achieved and is different to the 3% one that will be made available after 2019.

    • From your link:
      “Top executives from Tier 1 suppliers to both Boeing and Airbus tell Aviation Week they estimate Boeing will have to deliver 850-1,000 787s before it starts making money on the jet, […]”
      Not so much space for pricing offense.

      • Boeing has 1043 on firm order (and 6 more on MOU). These aircraft have already agreed upon prices (contracts), and would Not be subject to future competitions.

    • From that article:
      [Tom Williams, executive vice president of programs] argues that the A330-900 will be on par in terms of operating costs with the 787-9 but will be available at 25% lower capital costs.

      That has some interesting implications for Boeing claims of the 787-10 competing with the A330-900. It basically means the 787-10 would have 50% higher capital costs than the A330-900.

      There may be some number twisting involved into Airbus claim. But I don’t see how such a vast gap could be closed. The seat count difference 787-9 vs 787-10 is only about 20%, so only 20% more potential revenue. The airlines will have to offset the remaining 30% by higher yields and the small difference in operating costs to compete against a A330-900.

      Bye-bye 787-10?

      How do I get to that number ? I take Boeing list prices as base. I assume Boeing will give similar discounts (in percentage) on the list prices of the 787-9 and 787-10. Subtract 25% from the list price of the 787-9 (Airbus claims its 25% cheaper) and compare the result against the 787-10 list price. The end result is a delta of 50%.

      • Tony Fernandes of AirAsiaX said something about 15% less 787-9 on DOC.
        http://youtu.be/Ko2RyVtY8pU?t=3m

        According to my calculations an A330-900 should be “just” about 35 % cheaper compared to a B787-10.
        Price for a 787-10 = 787-9 * 1.16 (according to Boeing’s list prices)
        Therefore
        A330-900 = 787-9 * 0.75
        = (787-10/1.16) * 0.75
        = 787-10 * 0.65
        = 787-10 * (1 – 0.35)

      • How does the much heavier airplane with a sooner fatigue life and an essentially 25 year old wing (and aerodynamics) end up with the same operating costs? Is Tom Williams expecting every 787 to catch on fire at some point in its service life or is he leaving gas out of the operating cost equation? And if that Tom William’s claim is true, then why wouldn’t the stillborn A350-800 with its lighter composite body and new wing have fantastically lower operating costs than the A330-900 and therefore also the 787-9?

        • Would you please quantify the differences!
          The irritation stems from taking Boeing PR at face value and assuming
          that noone else can be as good as Boeing.
          What proof is there that Boeing really got the aero better than a 20 years older Airbus design or that the 787 can actually bring all that marketing pedigree to bear 😉

  11. With the popularity seatguru and sites which rate various seats, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the width of seats become a listed and more commonly known attribute of aircraft seats.

  12. No one has discussed the Boeing nuclear option. I.e. a different wing for a short to mid range regional 787. Lighter gear is its enough of an advantage.

    Obviously not a cheap solution, but a lot cheaper than a new aircraft (or a 767 complete upgrade and could an NEO on that avoid a new wing?)

    Probably on the -9 fuselage (though Boeing has done a lot of wing shifts so if there was a market for a -8 or even a -10 )

    As the range is all in the wing and not the fuselage (some water and lav issue aside and not a problem to go to small tanks).

    That would seem to take all the advantages the 787 should have over an A330 plus an optimized wing (and de-rated engines and those are a wash as the A330NEO is using 787s engines)

    It would keep a major system in common and give maintain commonality through the various route segments allowing an airline to keep one fleet type.

    Obviously timing is a issue but if its viable, long term it could cut the A330NEO production down (not entirely as existing operators with all A330s probably maintain enough economics not to switch.

    If the fuel efficiencies are good enough, then Airbus could cut the A330NEO price all they want as fuel returns that investment quickly.

    And it would be the “latest” buzz and keep Boeing on the tech high ground and interest as well as the uncertainty factor in an older aircraft and keep the wing design guys tuned up for the 737RS.

    • “No one has discussed the Boeing nuclear option. I.e. a different wing for a short to mid range regional 787.”

      This was called the 787-3. We saw how well this did.

      • so you don’t think that a 787-8 sized aircraft optimized for 3000 mile routes with a 4200 mile max range and ~380klbs MTOW (Boeing projected 365k/~3000miles for 787-3) that fits D gates doesn’t have a market?

        Boeing over-optimized the -3 for Japanese Domestic markets, paying little to no attention to US Transcon/East coast to western Europe/intra-europe or other intra-asia markets, and still they cancelled the -3 mainly because they were having so much trouble with the -8.

        trimming the wings for D-gates, lighter landing gear, de-rated engines, 380k MTOW vs 440k MTOW for “A330R”…. seems pretty attractive to me.

      • Cutting a long range machine’s wings, reduce MTOW doesn’t make it a good regional IMO. Empty weight does.

        • If fuselage is comparable, then the weight is in the wing and fuel. Engines add to that as they need to be powerful enough to get it all off the ground hot.

          But as stated, the engines are a wash as A330NEO is using a derived engine not one designed and optimize fan size, weight wise and thrust wise for a lighter aircraft.

          Or troll P&W and see if they are interested in an optimized and EXLUSIVE engine for the 787-7 (my term, it has a nice ring)

          Ergo, rather than the so called de-paper option (though an auto system would seem to have merit so Boeing got paid for any excess use) then you simply have a wing that is optimized for shorter range and simply cannot carry the fuel for the long and super long range

          As Airbus is using a slightly modified A330 wing, Boeing with a specif design wing and vastly less fuel should able able to beat them soundly performance wise (and they have a wing desing for the -3 to use as a starting point) .

          That does not mean Boeing has the guts to do it, but if you are going to loose 500-600 sales it would seem to be worth it as you have an aircraft that is far newer and more appeal (supposedly anyway)

          Clearly there is a market there.

      • Was the range long enough to pick off the same percentage routes that the A330NEO is shooting for?

        The listed for two class seating seems too short range.

        “two-class short-range version with a fully loaded range of 2,500 to 3,050 nautical miles.” I.e. Japan only market, to narrow focus.

        Would it be possible to build a table, listing all the variations we are talkign about with (your seating) and range? Percentages differences (it won’t import into the site).

        Getting to the point my mind is cross wired with all the combinations.

        I would put in the 787-3, in there, A330CEO and NEO and the 787-8/9/10

        Also fuselage length and width (wing diemtiosn and engine size not needed) . Sometthing like This and not thought out how to do the percentge between the direct competitors (or as close as they get).

  13. When I worked at BBD we were told and believed that Embraer was a third world basket case who couldn’t built planes.Fast forward a few years later and management were fearful that the competition was a threat. In all my years there, I have witnessed things that made me sick to my stomach. When the Ejets first entered service the Embraer bashing fell silent. Maybe there is such a thing as kharma.

  14. Pingback: Odds and Ends: Bombardier signs Macquarie Airfinance for 40+10 CS330s; 787 fire suppression | Leeham News and Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.