Boeing V Bombardier

dogmatix

Surprised no one has started a thread on this yet – but perhaps Ryanair is taking up everyone’s thoughts and keyboards.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/boeing-defense-ceo-were-not-going-to-back-down-on-trade-dispute-with-bombardier.html

It looks potentially serious for Bombardier, because even if they finally get the dispute resolved in their favour, it might take years and Delta will by then have probably moved onto another supplier. And Canada is threatening to cancel a deal for 18 F/A-18’s worth 5 billion dollars in retaliation.

And of course the potential damage to Bombardier in Northern island.

This article exposes the hypocrisy on both sides but Boeing, being vastly larger will survive, Bombardier might not. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-on-the-book-of-bombardier-vs-boeing-skip-to-chapter-19/article36414574/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

L1011

Boeing made a clearly dumping sale of 737-700s to United to stop them going CSeries and has got pissy that Bombardier have done the same to get a foot in the door with Delta - Delta want that size of plane and Boeing stopped making them quite some time ago.

dogmatix

Aye - it's strange Boeing would kick up a stink about the Delta sales as they are not in competition for that slice of the pie so it's no skin of their noses if Bombardier get their foot in the door, plus they may lose a valuable contract with Canada as a result. Unless Boeing have a similar product coming down the pipeline to compete but there is nothing on their corporate website about future products in that category.

A Dub in Glasgo

Boeing are being absolute bullies and they obviously do not rate their own aircraft in competition

L1011

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Boeing are being absolute bullies and they obviously do not rate their own aircraft in competition

All they have is the 737-700 and its woeful even when an airline wants a 140 seater. Unless you are an existing 737 operator and have no need to go smaller than the -700 there is no reason to buy the damn thing. Actually they've the same problem larger - the -900 is a dog compared to the 321; the -800 is the sweet spot. This applies to the MAX vs NEO tossup identically too.

If you want even a 120 seater they can't offer you anything - neither can Airbus but they won't get pissy when you pick a 120 seater.


Ridiculously for protectionism purposes, the US decision is benefiting a plane with half French engines rather than a 'Canadian' engine with nearly all US technology.

Locker10a

I hope this prompts Bombardier to offer serious incentives to European airlines to buy the C-series. Would love to see IAG or one of the big groups place a decent order.

L1011

Locker10a wrote: »

I hope this prompts Bombardier to offer serious incentives to European airlines to buy the C-series. Would love to see IAG or one of the big groups place a decent order.

I could see them working well for the lower demand Euro routes at EI - most at SNN/ORK/BHD and a mix of lower demand and frequency critical at DUB. Particularly the UK routes where Stobart currently provides additionals to mainline.

Now, I also feel the E190 could do the same job but it appears the CSeries might be more reliable even this soon in service.

J.pilkington

Interesting to see how involved the UK government is getting due the factory in NI. They are threatening to review a large Boeing order of helicopters over this.

donkey balls

A few years back the UASF put out a tender for a new aircraft refueler Airbus had a KC330 and Boeing the KC767, From what I read the USAF were going with the bus till Boeing kicked off crying.
It is the same some years ago regarding 5th freedom rights etc and other rights the US wanted to be able to just say have one of their flag carriers pick up pax in just say Rome, Then fly them to London before loading more pax for the return to the US.
When the EU asked about the euro carriers doing the same in the US it was shot down immediately, I also remember them putting some crazy high tariffs on steel getting imported from either India or China.
The US imo when it comes to deals etc has always being about wanting this that and the other without giving anything themselves, Just have to look at what's happening with the ME3 and the US flag carriers.

J.pilkington

donkey balls wrote: »

A few years back the UASF put out a tender for a new aircraft refueler Airbus had a KC330 and Boeing the KC767, From what I read the USAF were going with the bus till Boeing kicked off crying.

That was shocking and blatant behaviour alright, the Airbus was miles ahead of the 767 in every way and deservedly won that contract. Then the “taking our jobs” mob kicked of and the USAF were forced to cancelled the contract and retendered it in a way that suited the 767 to ensure it won

john boye

L1011 wrote: »

Boeing made a clearly dumping sale of 737-700s to United to stop them going CSeries and has got pissy that Bombardier have done the same to get a foot in the door with Delta - Delta want that size of plane and Boeing stopped making them quite some time ago.

There's some talk of Delta having VS (which they own 49% of) buy their C-Series order and then Delta leasing them from them. Would love to see the reaction in Paine Field if that happened.

BonkeyDonker

john boye wrote: »

There's some talk of Delta having VS (which they own 49% of) buy their C-Series order and then Delta leasing them from them. Would love to see the reaction in Paine Field if that happened.

I would imagine what ever happens the 100 seat range at Delta will not be a Boeing - they dont have the aircraft. However, big picture the C300 and C500 do eat the B767-7 for lunch so maybe this is the market Boeing are trying to protect as the upper end of the B737 range, particularly the -9/10 are having their lunch ate by the A321NEO.

dogmatix

From one of the suggestions in the links above, is that Boeing are afraid Bombardier might be the next Airbus and they are trying to nip that problem in the bud before it becomes a huge threat to them in the future.

john boye

dogmatix wrote: »

From one of the suggestions in the links above, is that Boeing are afraid Bombardier might be the next Airbus and they are trying to nip that problem in the bud before it becomes a huge threat to them in the future.

That certainly seems to be their M.O. Wipe out Bombardier even if it probably means Embraer benefitting from it more than they would.

john boye

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/10/airbus-bombardier-cseries-agreement.html

Well, well, well

737max

I wonder did Boeing figure out they made a big mistake when they saw just how rabid the Department of Commerce were in pursuing the claim and from there on just became passengers in car crash watching helplessly as Bombardier were left with no option but to do something drastic.

L1011

Boeing are now backed in to a dwindling corner. Screw up the 737 replacement in half a decade and they'll be looking for someone to rescue them like they did to Douglas

john boye

Possibly, They've ended up in a worse position than they would have if they'd just left Bombardier alone. I wonder if Embraer should expect a call from Chicago soon

L1011

john boye wrote: »

Possibly, They've ended up in a worse position than they would have if they'd just left Bombardier alone. I wonder if Embraer should expect a call from Chicago soon

They aren't in a compromised position needing to sell, yet - the E2 being too heavy for US regionals and too small for mainline isn't going to help soon; but that isn't something Boeing can fix.

Having that lovely taxpayer funded Alabama assembly line is turning out to be the best move possible for Airbus

john boye

L1011 wrote: »

They aren't in a compromised position needing to sell, yet - the E2 being too heavy for US regionals and too small for mainline isn't going to help soon; but that isn't something Boeing can fix.

Having that lovely taxpayer funded Alabama assembly line is turning out to be the best move possible for Airbus

I was actually talking about Boeing buying part of Embraer but, as you say, Embraer products can't really help them now.

goingnowhere

john boye wrote: »

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/10/airbus-bombardier-cseries-agreement.html

Well, well, well

Slam dunk to team not USA

"Growing market for C Series results in second Final Assembly Line in Mobile, Alabama, serving U.S. customers"

That being the Airbus production line in the US. Can't have an import tariff if it is made in the US.

J.pilkington

Would a summary be;

Winners
- airbus for buying a distressed asset
- US for potentially securing employment in mobile Alabama which it wouldn’t have ever gotten from Canada


Losers;
- Boeing, pissed off a lot of their stakeholders including customers such as delta / UK & Canadian governments(military orders)
- Boeing for trying to deliver a knock out blow to a company which they don’t really complete with only for it to backfire and result in their main / only competitor to pick up a cheap asset and have a more complete lineup to compete against them with
- Canada who lose control of a company / asset which they have bailed out together with some jobs possibly moving over the border
- bombardier who are no longer an independent airline

goingnowhere

I would expect Boeing to play a stunt now, they had a significant off books involvement with the Sukhoi Superjet 100...

Airbus has been having a lot of fun with the A32X NEO and the A321NEOlr really is a kick in the teeth for Boeing as there is no way the Max can match without tail striking every time it lands and takes off bar the really funky engineering with the landing gear.

Still wires and pulleys in the 737 while everyone else is fly by wire and Boeing still want to stick with the 1960's era low height (fine for a turbo jet not for a fan)

Classic game of be very careful what you say it might come back to haunt you

Tenger

737max wrote: »

I wonder did Boeing figure out they made a big mistake when they saw just how rabid the Department of Commerce were in pursuing the claim and from there on just became passengers in car crash watching helplessly as Bombardier were left with no option but to do something drastic.

My thinking is that the deal with Airbus was happening in the background and the complaint from Boeing was a reaction to what they saw as a possible threat to them. No way that deal wasn't in the works for months.

737max

No the timelines don't match. I'm aware of the timelines because it happened shortly after I took an equity position in Bombardier.

Boeing initiated this in March/April and Airbus only started talking to Bombardier in Summer.
Bombardier and Airbus couldn't get a deal back in 2015 because Bombardier hadn't been ground in to the dirt enough to accept Airbus terms.
Boeing and the shadow of the new hyper-nationalistic protectionist political dimension under the new U.S. Administration flung Airbus and Bombardier together.

Tenger

737max wrote: »

No the timelines don't match. I'm aware of the timelines because it happened shortly after I took an equity position in Bombardier.

Boeing initiated this in March/April and Airbus only started talking to Bombardier in Summer.

I wasn't aware Boeing started this so far back. I knew that Bombardier were having some financial issues previously and that there was concern for the Belfast jobs.

Thanks for the clarification.

737max

Make no mistake. Boeing forced these two in to each others arms.
Bombardier would never have gone near Government to ask them for permission to sell 50% of their company's prize asset for nothing to Airbus with the option for Airbus to buy out the rest if they saw a way to go it alone.
The politicians in Canada don't want bad news from bombardier what with all the Provincial conflict between the areas in Canada and the director pay scandals to the management team who are in Bombardier through nepotism and the drains of billions of euros over years.

Boeing brought this all on themselves.

They could have left Bombardier alone to eek out a miserable existence selling maybe a few dozen frames a year until their own modern(not antiquated 737) airframe was designed and built and then Bombardier woudl exhale its last breath and die.

Captain_Crash

Its possibly the biggest news in the aviation world this week and I haven't noticed a thread on it, but Airbus partnering with Bombardier has to be an unforeseen consequence from Boeing when they started this kerfuffle.

What do we think.... smart move from Airbus?

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/10/airbus-bombardier-cseries-agreement.html

I saw a comment on another forum along the lines of... "if you swing the first punch, make sure you knock him out" It appears Boeing haven't managed to do that and it could come back to bite them!

Locker10a

Hopefully this will further incentivise an IAG order

Captain_Crash

Locker10a wrote: »

Hopefully this will further incentivise an IAG order

I think its more an "when" than an "if"... my opinion of course and I have no facts to back it up

L1011

There's a thread on it further down the first page, I'll merge when not on mobile