June 18, 2015, Paris Air Show: It was one of the most hotly contested campaigns in Europe, for a triple-digit order from the Hungarian low
cost carrier, Wizz, for either the Boeing 737 MAX 200 or the Airbus A320 family.
For Boeing, a win was sorely needed for a second customer for the 737 MAX 200. It would also mean displacing Airbus as the incumbent supplier to Wizz.
For Airbus, it didn’t want to be displaced and winning this deal would increase the A320neo family lead over the MAX and keep a thumb on the MAX 200.
In a deal signed just 10 minutes before the scheduled press conference of a “customer announcement,” Airbus won and Boeing lost.
The win allowed Airbus to claim victory over Boeing at the Paris Air Show, where Boeing had put in a
surprisingly strong showing this year, ending with about 310 orders and commitments. Wizz put Airbus over the top at 421 orders and commitments, valued at $57bn. (At this writing, Boeing hadn’t issued its end-of-show tally that would include a valuation.)
The 737 MAX 200, a 200- seat aircraft in high density, 28-inch seat pitch, has only one customer to-date, launch customer Ryanair. According to Market Intelligence that is now a few months old, Boeing offered the 200 to Wizz for $35m. This price was unconfirmed and no more recent information was available. Airbus’ best and final counter offer price for the A321neo, in 239 seat high density configuration, is also unavailable.
Engines have not been selected.
John Leahy, Airbus chief operating officer-customers, was clearly jubilant at the win over Boeing with Wizz and the last minute win for the Air Show. Leahy crowed at the A320neo family market share over the 737 MAX being 60%, now with a backlog of more than 4,000 orders. Boeing’s MAX backlog is just under 3,000.
Most noticeable for me from this show were the strong orders for A321 rather than NEOvsMAX competition. The show definitely increased the lead of A321 over MAX9. Boeing must hurry up with Max 9 replacement.
Are we not witnessing one of the last major contracts with more than 100 copies of a single aisle to put 239 people in a metal container worthy of a sardine can ? All studies show that the passenger experience , ie the cabin, is what distinguishes one from another airline . One day, the low price of a ticket will not be enough to endure his neighbour to only an inch from ourself …
…and until that day, passengers will continue to lead themselves by the nose into ever higher density configurations because they have shown themselves to be driven by seat price above all other considerations.
If you want to pay more, then there is more on offer. The airlines aren’t forcing cattle-class onto anyone.
Easyjet, Ryanair, Wizzair and the likes didn’t become billion € companies all by themselves.
People are getting exactly what they pay for. [and in the case of Ryanair, if they wanted anything more, they damn sure pay for it.]
Yes, but 239 people in a small tube ? Really? For how long?
2 to 3 hours max. The longest flight to Dubai 5+ hours from Central Europe….
@CapitaineScarlet, do you really think it’s worse than 458 people in a slightly larger tube (777-300ER HD) for 13 hours or more?
My intention was rather to say this: how long will the people accept also travel close together than others? This model will he persist even 5 years, 10 years ? I personally believe that one day there will be carriers who agree to make traveling less people asking for more for the price of a ticket. Currently , in my case , I refuse to travel, for example, Montreal- Paris, with Air Canada, with 777 which includes indeed 450 people. For 30 years of traveling and since I note that there are more passengers, more anxiety and impatience rising and flight attendants become vigilant, and can become more stressed themselves of anxiety engines. I say the future in aviation is not exclusively reserved for the mass transportation…
The 321NEO is turning out to be quite a star for Airbus. Like it’s larger sister the A330, they are gathering large orders and are now way ahead of the 737-900 and 767/757.
Boeing’s future MOM has to aim directly at the 321NEO. With the NEO coming out in 2018 and the MOM in 2025, it looks like Boeing has been caught napping. Too much hubris, methinks
Nice one John… A nice end to a rather bland show (externally). It would be nice to see the interior of a 189/239 spaceflex a230series cabin with new bins etc. That is… See all the improvements in one image
I was also thinking… In terms of the 321LR… The no.2 emergency exit should be replaced with a full size door to allow for double-door boarding and disembarkment and quicker turn-around. Aligns better to a LR type.
Are airlines still chosing 737 aircraft because they can get them quicker than a320 family? Or does the 737 still have a pax adantage?
Or is it still just down to ‘better the devil you know’ syndrome.
im highly surprised airbus hasnt put a one frame stretch on the 320 to directly compete with 738 head on.
And by the 737 having an advantage, im fully aware that the 320 family are 60% ahead in the orders war, but was just pondering why the 737 is kinda keeping pace if the 320 is that much more efficient.
a couple of mill of list price is great, but its peanuts over a 20 year + lifespan where efficiency is more crucial.
Yep, Airbus version of the 747 of so long ago.
We have it and you don’t.
If Airbus stretched the A320 by a few frames to go head to head with the -8, then:
(a)Airbus would have to further hike production rates to keep up with demand.
(b)Boeing would have no choice but to go ahead with NSR.
(c)this would make the rates for (a) unsustainable.
(d)It would also mean Airbus having to undergo the same development process for A30X.
The current status quo suits them, they have Boeing their foot at Boeing’s throat in the single-aisle sector and are lifting their foot just enough to allow them to breath, bit like Intel and AMD.
Airbus just shifts to making stretch A320 instead of current (or a mix) and then the head to head with 737 gets dicey as 737 looses out.
Of course at offers of 35 million an aircraft can anyone make money?
Not sure stretching the A320 is such a great idea, as it is it is the closest economicaly viable replacement for A319CEO, A320CEO and B737-700/7MAX. Fair sort of a market and moving it up to 738 size might give Boeing a look in, esp as Airbus would need ot cover development costs.
unintentionally funny headline is funny
airbus beats boeing in a “hot wizz competition” snort…
The Hungarians needed to check more closely the possible meanings, especially in English, of their brand.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that whilst the A321Neo is selling increasingly well, the A320 Neo is selling much the same as the 737-8Max, and the inference seems to be from this and some previous deals that it is actually Boeing doing the aggressive pricing to try to retain its market share. However, even if Airbus stretched the A320 slightly to match the 737-8 I think you’d still see around 50 market share. Airbus is definitely now in the driving seat in this segment of the market and will have the luxury of being able to respond at leisure once Boeing settles on a MOM design, and could wait a few years out for improved technology.
John Leahy has been invited by Bombardier to visit the C Series in Paris.
Leahy: “They have a nice little airplane but there is nothing to worry about”. He said that Pierre Beaudoin had invited him along with Fabrice Brégier to visit the CS100. He added “we went a few days ago. I have been impressed by the interior, it’s very nice. I have been particularly impressed by the size of the seats.”
The Airbus seats are between 17.5″ and 18″ while the 737 seats are 17″. The C Series seats are 18.5″ (19″ for the middle seat).
Leahy: “If you ask me what the difference is between 17″ and 18″, I can tell you it’s quite evident.”
Here Leahy is using the C Series to put down the 737 smaller seats. Nice move. But not surprising coming from the best salesman in the business.
Earlier this week Ray Conner said that the CS500 would fall directly into the Boeing market segment and would therefore represent new competition. He added, with a big smile, “we are eagerly waiting such an opportunity with great enthusiasm.”
John Leahy said today (Thursday) “I don’t want to insult the people from Montréal in any way, but I have not seen much competition from the C Series in the last few years.” Patrice Bregier added “How many orders have they obtained?”
I took the above from an article that appeared in French today in the the newspaper La Presse and I translated into English what has been reported in that article.
@norman: this is an accurate account. I was there.
A bad move and words in business. This is the delirium of omnipotence. Without CSerie indeed, what would the word of the day Leahy 320ceo to sell ? The technology is not mature enough ? Our single-aisle are very profitable ? And Bregier would have been a headache to make the decision to invest 10-15 billion dollars equivalent to Neo. Besides the fact that it would have had to beg for subsidies for French and European governments. Bombardier makes him a good manager . And you, Mr. Conner, please visit later Bombardier when the CS500 will be 15-20% more efficient than the 737max8 . The enthusiasm of the people of Bombardier who want this competition is also in place for some years.
This was not a bad move nor bad words. On the contrary. And it was certainly not delirium. You have to keep in mind that Bombardier is a little mouse, perhaps a Mighty Mouse but a mouse nevertheless, compared to the elephant Airbus and the Mammoth Boeing. In that context those words could actually be interpreted as high praise. That is simply the language of Big Business. If you read between the lines you will see that they are unable to say anything bad about the C Series except the obvious: it does not sell in great numbers like the neo and MAX do. I would go as far as saying that the presence of the CS100 and CS300 at the Paris Air Show has humbled Airbus and Boeing.
He’s just a salesguy and very careful with his words so as to not give BBD something to use against him when it comes to sales pitches.
And what does Boeing compete with a C500 on other than price?
And Airbus trying to kill an aircraft that does not threated their real market, pretty odd.
C100/300/500 creates growth that feeds 737 and A320 true markets, they should be cheering.
I expect the CS500 to be very close, in range and capacity, with the A320. Which is itself close to the 737-8. The only major difference is that the CS500 will be considerably more efficient than both. I will leave it to Leeham to estimate by how much exactly, but I would say a solid 12% easily. I like to see the CS100 as a 120 passenger airplane and the CS300 as a 140 passenger airplane. Therefore I expect the CS500 to be a 160 passenger airplane (32″ pitch).
The question is how far you can stretch the C series?
I don’t think that far but will see.
I also fail to see where the MOM gets Boeing when its a step above the A321 both in size and range when the need is something much closer to the A321
Failure to replace the 737 after the 300-500 series, that was the drop it time.
Only an extension for the CS500, for it remains a pretty (nice ?) small plane in the eyes of competition but will nibble it slowly but surely. Otherwise, a CS700 and / or a CS900 is a new aircraft with new wings , landing gear , etc. A CS1000 would possibly another new aircraft in the category of 321 or even 757. Most importantly, perhaps, is that Bombardier may get away for a budget below $ 10 billion for a complete family of six models ( 100, 300, 500, 700 , 900, 1000) and that, it would be remarkable ! And Bombardier is not Icarus, son of Daedalus, known to be dead after flying too close to the sun as he escaped the labyrinth with wings of wax created by his father…Bombardier is still alive…
The Icarus wings were not made of wax but were attached to his body with wax. He would quickly have failed the 150% static load test. Resin Transfer Infusion is much better than wax. 🙂
Definitely ! Bombardier could even sell wings to who would be closer to the sun! The poet René Char said that , lucidity , was the injury ( pride ) closest to the sun!
The CS300 arrives in Belfast.
That’s why the phone was so quiet today!
The CS300 came to pay tribute to the Belfast employees who build the C Series fantastic wings. And in return they pay tribute to the aircraft. Isn’t that beautiful!
No tribute for the Chinese company that builds the fuselage?
After all the trouble its caused I suppose, better left unsaid.
Just to remind readers: Shenyang, who normally produce fighter aircraft, including unlicensed copies, were supposed to build all three fuselage sections , plus empennage, center wing box.
Other manufacturers had to step in to build a short run of some of its work share, back in 2012 they said it wouldnt affect first flight!
Surely they should have known, the MD80 derivative they are building with Xian and Shanghai, has essentially gone nowhere since its first flight in 2008.
“Shenyang, who normally produce fighter aircraft, including unlicensed copies, were supposed to build all three fuselage sections , plus empennage, center wing box.”
The empennage has always been the prerogative of Alenia, who incidentally manufactures a similar empennage for the 787 Dreamliner.
The fuselage is currently being built here in Belfast as well.
So far, not much evidence yet that it’ll be done right anytime soon in PRC.
“The question is how far you can stretch the C series?”
Here is what Rob Dewar had to say to Reuters about this: “It’s a possibility, yes,” Rob Dewar, vice president of the C Series, told Reuters when asked about a CS500. “The platform has the capability to be a larger aircraft.” The C Series’ wings performed better in tests than expected, Dewar said, implying a larger C Series model could be developed without major new expense as a complete wing redesign would not be required. “That wing, if we ever did the 500, of course would be used and modified to do that,” he said. Customers have already shown an interest in a larger CS500 version, Dewar said.
Based on those comments by a man who knows a few things about the C Series, we can assume that the CS500 could easily accommodate an additional 20 passengers. Anything below that figure would not be worth the effort. On the other hand anything more than 20 would likely require a new wing.
“Failure to replace the 737 after the 300-500 series, that was the drop it time.”
That is something Boeing understands better than ever. Bombardier can thank heavens that Boeing is too busy right now with other projects. Which also gives a respite to Airbus.
I just do not see the C series as direct completion, Boeing and Airbus are moving up the size chain, that leaves a void
I.e. I simply do not see Boeing realistically (or Airbus) having aircraft in that space.
will see of course
“Boeing and Airbus are moving up the size chain, that leaves a void.”
Yes, a void that is about to be filled by Bombardier. For Nature abhors a vacuum. Big Mistake.
I just had a second thought about what you say. Let’s suppose that Airbus and Boeing stay in that category: 150-200 seats. Airbus continues to refine the venerable A320 but the MAX sales have started to evaporate because the old 737 platform is now perceived as an antiquated design. As a consequence Boeing can no longer keep up with A&B (Airbus and Bombardier). They have no choice but to launch a new single-aisle. For a change let’s call it the ASA (Advanced Small Airliner). It’s a Boeing, so it has to be very high tech: the state 0f the art. It’s planned to cost 12 billion dollars to develop. But costs escalate (what’s new). In the end the bill raises to 15 billion. But it’s a fantastic aircraft. Nothing compares to it.
Boeing salesmen go around the world to find buyers. They have to because the buyers are not exactly rushing to Seattle or Chicago. So Boeing decide to lower their prices. But they soon find out that Airbus and Bombardier systematically undercut them. Boeing cannot follow because they have to cover the cost of development while Bombardier has by that time started to be cash flow positive on its early models. And their cost of manufacturing continu to decline because the aircraft are sold in US dollars while they are manufactured in Canadian dollars, which by that time is at $0.65 like it was at the turn of the millennium. For Airbus it’s a bit more complicated because the Euro is now at $1.85 while the price of oil is lower than ever because the world has started to move away from fossil fuels.
Unrealistic scenario? I don’t think so.
Fabrice Bregier said it right at the Press conference.. Boeing should thank Airbus for launching the NEO. Without it, B would be spending unnecessary money on a clean sheet NSA. Now they have 3000 Max orders for relatively small fry and counting. Ray, write the letter.
The MAX was not a response to the neo. It was a panic reaction to a pending lost sale. To not proceed with the NSA was for Boeing like borrowing money on a credit card. Sooner or later you will have to pay it back. Unless you go bankrupt.
I just can’t see how all of these airlines can take all of these NB aircraft.
The Airbus Global Market Forecast predicts a need for 22,927 NB aircraft over a twenty year period. At annualised compounding growth of 2.5% this equates to a requirement for 75 new narrow bodies per month in 2015 and 120 narrow bodies per month in 2034.
Unless the GMF factors in an anomaly such as airlines migrating from NB to WB aircraft or the proliferation of alternative means of transport (i.e. Very Fast Trains) at the end of the reporting period the current planned production rates of 50 to 60 aircraft per month by each manufacturer in 2018 cannot be sustained over the longer term.
Something has to give!
I suspect the 50-60 per month production rates are a smoke screen for the OEMS’s trying to double sell current production slots.
To give this greater perspective with just on 10,000 NB aircraft needed over the next ten years (as per the Airbus GMF and annualised growth of 2.5%) for Airbus to maintain production rate 60 per month for ten years (60x12x10=7200 aircraft), Boeing would have to adjust their production rate down to 23 aircraft per month. Regardless of sales percentages, Boeing’s installed customer base is just to large for this type of scenario to be true.
I am not sure who the airline winners and losers would eventually be, but until such time the market sorts itself I suspect there might by quite a few Skymark II, III & so on.
“Something has to give! I suspect the 50-60 per month production rates are a smoke screen for the OEMS’s trying to double sell current production slots.”
What has to give are the older aircraft that have reached the end of their useful life. The total requirements include fleet replacement as well as natural growth. Boeing and Airbus have a combined backlog of 10,000 single-aisle aircraft. Those are firm orders. At the current rate of production it would take 10 years to deplete the current backlog. And I am not even counting the options, which are normally exercised at a level of almost 80%. Wether the 50-60 a month rate is justified or not depends if we are in a bubble or not. And I don’t think anyone can answer that with any degree of certainty. If it’s a smoke screen and the win turns it will blow back in their face. On the other hand if the current market growth is sustainable they have to increase production accordingly. Otherwise they won’t be able to accept any new orders.
The only thing worse than a 17″ wide seat is boarding and deboarding a 200 seat single aisle. Anything over 190 seats on the A321 is a dog’s dinner.
Anything above 150 seats now requires double-exit doors. A similar logic should apply to the 190+ single aisle aircraft: an additional full-size middle door to facilitate exit.
From CS300 upwards, factually the whole C Series is born obsolete in the egg, as is the MAX : these aircraft come to life withan Achilles’ heel, an iron ball attached to the ankle. BULK LOADING of cargo ? Not in or after 2015 !
This absence of a Container Loading System condems C Series to drop payfreight or turn around slowly. Airport turn-around inefficiency is the C Series Achilles’ Heel, and no payfreight its iron ball.
This is the reason why C Series will always compete in the RJ segment, never in the feeder segment. The feeder market has two new entrants, the C919 and the MC-21, coming forward. The MAX is condemned to mass-production and hard-discounting to survive, but its factual obsolescence will overtake itself in the end.
Ask airport docker unions and Handling Agents HSE about MSD (Musculo-Skeletal Disorders).
@ Frequent Traveller
The words obsolete and C Series in the same sentence sounds strange to my ears. Only a hard core Airbus fan boy could write something like this. On the other hand I myself frequently use the words obsolete and MAX in the same sentence without a qualm. It is true that the 737 MAX cannot accept containers like the A320 can and to which you are obviously referring to without naming it. But this 737 weakness did not prevent it from being sold in great numbers (about 12,000).
Cargo capacity is not what makes an aircraft obsolete, especially in the 737 category. But it’s fair to say that the A320 always had a clear advantage over the 737 in that respect. And what allowed the A320 to offer this was its wider fuselage, which in turn offers increased comfort for the passengers: larger seats and aisle. But the C Series is even wider, proportionally speaking, and offers even wider seats than the A320, along with a toilet area large enough to accommodate a wheel chair. The C Series also offers windows that are the same size as the ones that can be found on a Boeing 777. Unless an airline starts to put passengers in the cargo area the customers will never see the difference between the A320 and 737 cargo. But an operator will, and that could be one of the reasons why an increasing number of them prefer the A320 over the 737. But it would be one reason over many others.
“Airport turn-around inefficiency is the C Series Achilles’ Heel.” Southwest operates over six hundred 737s and has the quickest turnaround times in the industry. And as you know better than anyone else the 737 has a bulk cargo, like C Series will. “The MAX is condemned to mass-production and hard-discounting to survive, but its factual obsolescence will overtake itself in the end.” I totally agree with you on that. The 737 has already reached its maximum potential and cannot be developed further in a competitive way. The most competitive 737 ever designed was the 737NG introduced in the 90s. To not replace it in time was the biggest mistake Boeing has ever made.
With a minimum of 10 to 15% better economics than the A320neo the larger variants of the C Series will represent serious competition for both the 737 and A320. What you sense, and what perhaps prompted you to write this post, is that the A320 will not be alone.
@ Normand Hamel : we agree on the Max, so I’ll dwell only upon C Series where I see an entrant “obsolete in the egg” and where you see a serious contender to Airbus’ feeders. Firstly, I’ll fix the perspectve on a timescale :
EIS A320 = 1988 and C Series = 2016, 28 years later. More than a human generation after the A320 … to me, this legitimately gives raise to some expectancy for things better… as a feeder, the “standard” in the industry is set by A320 Series. Shoulder-to-shoulder we compare A319 vs C300 @ 30″ pitch. Immediately, the comparison stalls upon realising the absence of a Container Loading System in the Bombardier aircraft. This missing design feature down-rates C Series disqualifying it for feeder operations. We list this aircraft as a Regional Jet. Period. We cannot approve of a type feeder new entrant in 2016 which factually sets back the service standard to the 737 … sorry, 727 … sorry, 720 … sorry, 707 !! level dating back to the early ’50-ies, no thanks !! What happened to aircraft darwinism ? We’re RE-gressing, not progressing ?
That’s the reason I’m saying the C Series is obsolete in the egg ! And this situation entails immediate consequences in terms of yield and turn-around restrictions. There are penalties involved. That’s what I mean with my Iron Ball. Including in terms of social welfare for ground handling personnels. As for the 738, of eg Southwest or Delta … turning around, yes, but at what hard-ship upon the airport dockers, tell me ?
“That’s what I mean with my Iron Ball.”
Which reminds me that the Airbus carries a 10,000 lbs iron ball, of which the C Series got rid by using aluminium-lithium for the fuselage and CFRP for the wings and empennage.
When the A320 entered service 27 years ago it made the 737 look like a dated aircraft. Now the C Series does the same for the A320 family: elle a soudainement pris un coup de vieux.
“Coup de vieux” is a French expression that means to age overnight.
@ Normand : I’m not worried at all by the weight/drag situation, what I’m driving at is the cumbersome service : the blood, sweat & tears of operating personnels completing one turn-around, vs the trip yields you’re collecting.
To give you a clear vision of the relative trip yield short-fall of C300 vs the Airbus feeder, I’ll downsize an A320 by fitting it out with a five-abreast cabin, to bring the capacity of the A320 in line with that of the C300. What do we get @ comparable service standards ? C300 —> 140 seats @ (2+3) vs H20QR —> 150 seats @ (1+3+1), plus the blind passengers, which we can count together : COL = 8 blind passengers, AKH = 4 x 10 = 40 blind passengers, IFE = 2 blind passengers, total 50 blind passengers !
Summary : the A320 five-abreast is spinning trip yields as if it were a 200 seater, vs the 140 seats of the C300, whilst turning around faster on ground, producing more trips in 24h … you can forget the difference in weight/drag !
I’ll leave it up to Bombardier to showcase the payfreight capabilities of C Series, for my part being a bulkloaded RJ, I venture payfreight = zero ?
John Leahy: He’s got a nice little airplane there, but no, I am not too worried.
Frequent Traveller: I’m not worried at all by the weight/drag situation.
Thanks for the compliment, Normand ! … besides, we’re comparing a gargantuesque industrial machinery churning out feeder aircraft by 42 (50 ?) (60 ?) (more ?) per month (when will they spew them out at 70 units/month ?) vs Bombardier’s sandbox playground ? You can’t sell them if you can’t build them, tinkle tinkle …. sings Leahy … and Randy tunes in for the refrain !
Let me be fair to myself and not forget the yield-boosting effect of Product Differentiation, whereby the 60 singles seat in the H20QR – expertly auctioned by professional Retail Psychologists – will fetch a 7 % yield premium over and above the market for C Series (2+3) seating on any given leg, so we have another 4 aggregate seats, bringing the revenue collecting power equivalency to 204 virtual-seats for H21QR vs 140 virtual-seats C300 (trip costs left open for dicussion) … now, Normand : tell me all about those weight/drag penalties. I’m all ears ? Where did I cleave my tongue ? Tell me all about the revenue generating particulars of the C300 ?
Here is my answer:
It’s indescribably beautiful. The CS500 will be the market standard 150 seater, for econ, premium econ, and first. Easier to sell 4x seats for 25% price/width increase than 4x seats for a 50% increase on the old 737/320.
What’s a premium service transcon CS500 look like with 1-1 diagonal flat beds up front? It could redefine the future of 5 to 6 hour point to point business center flying.
“…for a 50% increase on the old 737/320.”
Yes, literally overnight, the 737 and A320 have become ‘old’ aircraft after the CS100/CS300 appearance at PAS 2015. For the C Series there will be from now on a ‘before PAS’ and an ‘after PAS’. Its attractive beauty and extraordinary performances had a tremendous impact on its worldwide reputation and public image. As predicted it stole the show. Perhaps a little more than I had myself anticipated. Today it was Paris, Zurich ans Belfast. Tomorrow it will be the entire planet.
@ Normand : your viewpoint is flurred to irrationality because you are in Love with C Series, paying incessant quick visits to her Facebook page … there is no argument, the C Series is just beautiful ! What can I say in reply ? Yes, Normand : Bombardier will sell their production, for sure. But they’ll be producing and selling another (slightly bigger) Regional Jet.
The Club of Feeder Aircraft is an exclusive club for Members only, you have to put up with the right credentials for co-optation into that Club.
A320 is stam Member in her full right, C919 and MC21 are new entrants, the 737 (and its sibling, the MAX) are like Jean-Marie Le Pen vs Le Front National : it’s difficult to get rid of him because he created the club !
But his presence is not anymore acceptable, he’s a ‘Has Been’ … he’s officially invited to leave the Club on his own free will, the sooner the better !
I have never even seen the Bombardier Facebook website. Leeham News and Comment is as far as I will go in terms of social media. On the other hand it is true that I am in love with the C Series. And not only because it is a beautiful aircraft but also because it is well designed. As for the rest of your post it is all about politics and I am not into that either.
The particular point made in my post that you’re referring to wasn’t about politics but was an allegory, a methaphore, a parallel made between situation A vs another situation B, the morale of the comparison being to explain why C Series is disqualified as a Member into the exclusive, snob and envied Club of Feeder Aircraft … the answer is : for the same reason as the MAX … my take of your answer is that you’re not objecting to my semantics, accepting de facto that – indeed – C Series is another Regional Jet.
Frequent Traveller: My take of your answer is that you’re not objecting to my semantics.
I am not into semantics anymore than politics or social media.
@Norman, @Frequent Traveler: End this line of discussion, please.
Roger, Scott ! I’m off this thread !
Two years ago I said: “I see signs Bombardier will be pressured to move up from their initial 110-130 seat focus to 130-150 seats.
Operating Empty weights: CS300: ~35t, A319: ~40t, E195E2: ~31t
All three have similar comfort, engines. The E195E2 & A319 have commonality with existing fleets, the E195E2 probably an OEW /sfc advantage, the A319 a paylaod/range advantage.
If you have Embraers and/or A320 series already, the additional investment can pull the CS300 into a squeeze. Regardless of the qualities of the CS300.”
It still seems to be the case.