Airbus acquisisce il 50.01% della CSeries Aircraft Limited Partnership
- Autore Discussione AeroDream Design
- Data d'inizio
A Seattle l'hanno presa malissimo.
US-built CSeries still subject to import tax: Boeing
Boeing insists that Airbus's intention to deliver Bombardier CSeries aircraft from an Alabama final assembly site would not exempt the aircraft from potential US import taxes.
The statement by Boeing suggests that the Chicago-based airframer will not bow quietly to a plan Airbus and Boeing say would free the CSeries from import tariffs.
"The announced deal has no impact or effect on the pending proceedings at all," says Boeing in a 17 October tweet attributed to general counsel Michael Luttig.
"Any duties finally levied against the CSeries (which are now expected to be 300%) will have to be paid on any imported CSeries airplane or part, or it will not be permitted into the country," the tweet adds.
On 16 October, Airbus and Bombardier announced that Airbus will acquire a majority ownership in the CSeries programme and build a site in Alabama where the companies will perform final assembly of CSeries sold to US customers.
The partnership followed news in recent weeks that the US Department of Commerce intended to impose a 300% import duty on CSeries aircraft – a response to an anti-dumping and subsidy complaint filed by Boeing.
Boeing said on 16 October that the Airbus-Bombardier agreement "looks like a questionable deal between two heavily state-subsidised competitors to skirt the recent findings of the US government".
Boeing's tweet about import duties applying to aircraft parts, however, stands in stark contrast to statements made by officials at Bombardier and Airbus, who insist aircraft assembled in Mobile would be exempt from import duties.
"Aircraft produced at this facility will not be subject to duties under the pending US investigation," Bombardier chief executive Alain Bellemare said during a call with analysts on 16 October.
"When you produce an aircraft in the US, it is not subject to an import duty under US rules," Bellemare said during another call with reporters the same day. "We are not circumventing anything."
Boeing has provided no additional comment and has not explained how it intends to move forward.
The US Commerce Department – the agency that would order import tariffs – says it has not yet determined how the Airbus-CSeries deal or the US assembly site might affect import duties.
“At this time, we don't know enough about this new development to comment on its potential impact," Commerce secretary Wilbur Ross says in a statement.
The US Commerce Department's 300% tariff remains preliminary, pending a final ruling and separate rulings from the US International Trade Commission.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...es-still-subject-to-import-tax-boeing-442258/
US-built CSeries still subject to import tax: Boeing
Boeing insists that Airbus's intention to deliver Bombardier CSeries aircraft from an Alabama final assembly site would not exempt the aircraft from potential US import taxes.
The statement by Boeing suggests that the Chicago-based airframer will not bow quietly to a plan Airbus and Boeing say would free the CSeries from import tariffs.
"The announced deal has no impact or effect on the pending proceedings at all," says Boeing in a 17 October tweet attributed to general counsel Michael Luttig.
"Any duties finally levied against the CSeries (which are now expected to be 300%) will have to be paid on any imported CSeries airplane or part, or it will not be permitted into the country," the tweet adds.
On 16 October, Airbus and Bombardier announced that Airbus will acquire a majority ownership in the CSeries programme and build a site in Alabama where the companies will perform final assembly of CSeries sold to US customers.
The partnership followed news in recent weeks that the US Department of Commerce intended to impose a 300% import duty on CSeries aircraft – a response to an anti-dumping and subsidy complaint filed by Boeing.
Boeing said on 16 October that the Airbus-Bombardier agreement "looks like a questionable deal between two heavily state-subsidised competitors to skirt the recent findings of the US government".
Boeing's tweet about import duties applying to aircraft parts, however, stands in stark contrast to statements made by officials at Bombardier and Airbus, who insist aircraft assembled in Mobile would be exempt from import duties.
"Aircraft produced at this facility will not be subject to duties under the pending US investigation," Bombardier chief executive Alain Bellemare said during a call with analysts on 16 October.
"When you produce an aircraft in the US, it is not subject to an import duty under US rules," Bellemare said during another call with reporters the same day. "We are not circumventing anything."
Boeing has provided no additional comment and has not explained how it intends to move forward.
The US Commerce Department – the agency that would order import tariffs – says it has not yet determined how the Airbus-CSeries deal or the US assembly site might affect import duties.
“At this time, we don't know enough about this new development to comment on its potential impact," Commerce secretary Wilbur Ross says in a statement.
The US Commerce Department's 300% tariff remains preliminary, pending a final ruling and separate rulings from the US International Trade Commission.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...es-still-subject-to-import-tax-boeing-442258/
Infatti. Questa si chiama paura. E va molto oltre il contratto con DL.
Forse negli USA qualcuno che per ragionare usa la materia grigia (e non il righello per misurare una certa parte del corpo maschile...), si starà rendendo conto che sarebbe stato mille volte meglio lasciare un po' di spazio ai canadesi piuttosto che costringerli a vendere al nemico storico europeo.
Airbus a medio termine potrebbe modificare il C in modo da avere lo stesso type rating del 320 (o comunque andarci vicino). E probabilmente potrebbe derivare dal C300 una versione allungata capace di 180 posti lasciando invariato il MTOW e riducendo parecchio l'autonomia.
Un C500 con le stesse 67.5t di peso massimo del C300 e con 3000-3500 km di range, probabilmente avrebbe costi di gestione inferiori a quelli del 320neo e del 737max, rispetto ai quali è strutturalmente più leggero.
E in Europa le tratte entro i 3000 km sono la quasi totalità.
Va da se che Airbus ha anche la capacità di produrre un numero di aerei ben superiore a quella di Bombardier. E questo a Boeing potrebbe costare tanti, tanti soldi.
Osservando globalmente la gamma dei velivoli di Airbus e Boeing, è curioso osservare come la prima si sia mossa bene nei NB e meno bene nei WB, mentre la seconda abbia fatto esattamente l'opposto.
La mossa di Airbus è stata molto furba e hanno sfruttato la debolezza della politica protezionistica di Trump alla quale Boeing spinge per portarsi a casa un bel progetto per il futuro che li pone ancora più in vantaggio riguardo ai NB.
Riguardo ai WB la situazione gli ha detto male con la densificazione del B777 non ripetibile con l'A350 che fa sì che si trovino scoperti in una fascia fra 350-1000 e 380. L'errore di coprire tutto il segmento con un solo modello invece dei 2 di Boeing ha comunque origini nel passato. Diciamo che con l'A321LR e l'A330Neo ci hanno messo una pezza in quella fascia, sopra l'A350-1000 rimane il problema ma risolvere è probabilmente troppo costoso al momento, vorrebbe dire un progetto completamente nuovo che probabilmente sarà il prossimo nuovo progetto Airbus ma a questo punto direi 2030.
Con il C series possono inoltre pensare, sempre con lo stesso orizzonte temporale al sostituto dell'A320 family in modo da chiudere al 100% il buco sotto all'A350.
Nel medio-lungo periodo Airbus, se avrà la possibilità e volontà di investire rischia di trovarsi in vantaggio e questo costringerà Boeing a dover anticipare lo sviluppo di 2 nuove macchine sotto al B787.
Credo che visto il momento (relativamente) difficile per i WB, per un po' non vedremo evoluzioni nel segmento, oltre a quello che è già in fase di sviluppo.
A questo punto probabilmente Boeing lancerà il suo 797 per coprire la fascia tra 737 e 787. E' l'unica fascia non coperta in modo ottimale dai prodotti attuali.
Non escluderei che al lancio del "medio" Boeing, possa far seguito una risposta di Airbus. O con un A321 allungato o, più difficilmente, con un modello interamente nuovo.
A questo punto probabilmente Boeing lancerà il suo 797 per coprire la fascia tra 737 e 787. E' l'unica fascia non coperta in modo ottimale dai prodotti attuali.
Non escluderei che al lancio del "medio" Boeing, possa far seguito una risposta di Airbus. O con un A321 allungato o, più difficilmente, con un modello interamente nuovo.
Se Airbus spinge con lo sviluppo del C series sotto la posizione del B737 diventa sempre più in difesa e mentre Airbus può scegliere se sviluppare l'A321 o un modello nuovo che si posizioni ottimamente fra C series e A350 per Boeing c'è il rischio di dover sviluppare due famiglie per non rischiare di commettere l'errore commesso da Airbus con un solo modello WB che si è rivelato difficile da compere con 787 e 777
Se Boeing lancerà il 797, probabilmente manterrà sul mercato il Max per almeno 10-15 anni, al termine dei quali potrebbe arrivare il sostituto.
In quel periodo tra l'altro i tempi dovrebbero essere maturi anche per pensare ad un erede del 320.
L'ipotesi più intrigante potrebbe vedere un CS 500/600 evoluto fino ad avvicinarsi ai 200 posti, affiancato da un aereo totalmente nuovo per capienze e autonomie superiori.
Visto che sembra possibile allungare il 321, potrebbe però prevalere un'ipotesi più conservativa che preveda la rimotorizzazione dell'attuale modello (insieme ad altre migliorie), affiancato dal nuovo 322.
Viceversa credo che il 737 abbia margini di sviluppo molto bassi e probabilmente Boeing lo sostituirà con un modello totalmente nuovo.
In quel periodo tra l'altro i tempi dovrebbero essere maturi anche per pensare ad un erede del 320.
L'ipotesi più intrigante potrebbe vedere un CS 500/600 evoluto fino ad avvicinarsi ai 200 posti, affiancato da un aereo totalmente nuovo per capienze e autonomie superiori.
Visto che sembra possibile allungare il 321, potrebbe però prevalere un'ipotesi più conservativa che preveda la rimotorizzazione dell'attuale modello (insieme ad altre migliorie), affiancato dal nuovo 322.
Viceversa credo che il 737 abbia margini di sviluppo molto bassi e probabilmente Boeing lo sostituirà con un modello totalmente nuovo.
Boeing come contromossa potrebbe nel breve termine entrare in partnership con Mitsubishi sul suo progetto Regional Jet. Certamente commercialmente il progetto potrebbe dare qualche numero migliore.
Inoltre credo che potrebbe puntare a un B797 narrowbody strutturato in una versione base di 220 posti all Y (che con una versione con J class seria scenderebbero sotto i 200 posti e quindi con soli 4 a/v) e a uno stretch di 260 all Y (che in una versione con MTOW aumentato, auxiliary tank per offrire circa fino a 8 ore di volo, con una J di LR, Y+, extra galley e extra lavatory sarebbe sui 200 posti).
Inoltre credo che potrebbe puntare a un B797 narrowbody strutturato in una versione base di 220 posti all Y (che con una versione con J class seria scenderebbero sotto i 200 posti e quindi con soli 4 a/v) e a uno stretch di 260 all Y (che in una versione con MTOW aumentato, auxiliary tank per offrire circa fino a 8 ore di volo, con una J di LR, Y+, extra galley e extra lavatory sarebbe sui 200 posti).
Ho pensato la stessa cosa. Se non con Mitsubishi, con Embraer.
Sembra che il 797 sarà una specie di ibrido, con doppio corridoio e layout 2-3-2, ma con la fusoliera di un NB allargata solo in senso orizzontale.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...partially-unveils-new-midsize-airplan-438512/
What has Airbus got in the CSeries?
By Bjorn Fehrm
October 18, 2017, ©. Leeham Co:
Bombardier and Airbus changed the airliner landscape yesterday. Analysts say it’s the largest industry change since Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997.
So, what has Airbus bought for no money? A me-too, or a world-beater?
The me-too that grew
CSeries was developed as a step-up regional airliner from Bombardier’s CRJ series. It started more as a me-too than a world-beater. Gradually the design grew in capability.
In the end, the CSeries became more than a step-up regional. The present CSeries transports 100 to 150 passengers on routes of up to 3,300nm. These are flights lasting over seven hours.
And it flies these routes with better passenger comfort than a Boeing 737 MAX or Airbus A320neo.
These are non-regional routes flown with non-regional comfort levels by a non-regional aircraft.
So, we need to change the yardstick from regional to mainline. Now defined as mainline, 130 to 240 passengers, covering 3,000nm routes (which is what you need for a transcontinental flight in the USA).
The competition is then Airbus A320neo line and Boeing’s 737 MAX series.
Embraer’s E-jet doesn’t qualify in this segment. It’s a regional airliner, designed to carry 75 to 130 passengers and on routes of less than 2,500nm.
Airbus’ versus Boeing’s single aisle
With the CSeries, Airbus now covers the range from 100 to 240 seats with its single aisle products. And it does this with four models. The CS100 for the 100-120 seat segment, the CS300 for 120-150 seats, A320neo for 150 to 180 seats and finally A321neo for 180 to 240 seats.
We can skip the A319neo. With 20 orders in total, whereof 18 from Frontier airlines, it’s an artifact in the market of single aisles.
Of the range, the CS100 and CS300 are state of the art. They are clean sheet designs, created after 2008. The A320 stems from 1988, pepped up with upgraded engines and over the next year, upgraded cabin (Airbus Airspace).
The Boeing 737 MAX covers the range from 140 seats to 230 seats. The 737 MAX 7 was recently increased in size (it’s now a chopped MAX 8) and no longer covers below 140 seats efficiently.
The new MAX 7 is a 140 to 160 seater, followed by the MAX 8 covering 160 to 189 seats (after which it’s exit limited). Finally, the MAX 10 covers 180 to 230 seats (we can forget the MAX 9; it has no longer a place in the line-up–this is taken by the MAX 10. And the MAX 8200 is a special for Ryanair).
Neither of the 737s are state of the art. In fact, they are warmed over four times: the original -100/200 series to Classic, Classic to NG and finally NG to MAX. A lot of the technology stays the same at each makeover.
And this is a positive when it comes to maintenance costs, but not for the pilots. They are still banging their head against a narrow cockpit roof which stems from the 727. As does the sound level and flight controls.
Technology
The base design of the 737 MAX is 20 years older than the A320. And it’s a whopping 40 years older than the CSeries. It has point-to-point Avionics versus Ethernet connected IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics) that run Avionics functions in software.
It has steel wires, versus the best Fly-By-Wire in the market. The MAX cockpit and flight controls work as designed, but are light-years from the cockpit and flight controls of the CSeries. The A320neo cockpit and flight controls are somewhere in between.
For the systems, it’s the same: 1960 technologies versus 40 years younger tech. There is simply no comparison. Once again the A320 is somewhere in between.
All have the new generation of engines. The MAX the CFM LEAP, the CSeries the Pratt & Whitney GTF and you can have the A320neo with either. The CSeries GTF has an in-service issue level the same as the LEAP, nothing to worry about.
The A320neo GTF is the variant that got to market too early. It has problems that should have been caught in flight testing. But there wasn’t enough of it. Time was up, and an unmatured variant spoiled the Pratt reputation once again.
The cabins
The area which has changed the most for the MAX is the cabin. It now sports an excellent Sky Interior. It compensates for a narrower fuselage compared with an A320neo. The narrower cabin seats in the MAX are compensated by the roomier feeling of the Sky Interior.
But the difference to the CSeries is another half inch on top of the A320 difference for the normal seats and another inch for the middle seat in the triple (CSeries seats are 18.5 and 19 inches wide, A320 18 inches and MAX 17 inches).
In an equally airy cabin design to the MAX, it makes a difference.
Operational use
The 737 MAX gives the A320neo a match on operational reliability and can beat the A320neo on maintenance costs. But the CSeries is designed to be better than both on maintenance costs. It uses modern technology, Carbon Fiber structures and Alu-Lithium hull, to lower the maintenance costs below the MAX.
The danger when new technology is introduced is that it hits initial reliability. Early problems need a weeding out period. The flight and maintenance crews need to learn what are fault indications they can ignore and those they can’t.
For the 737 and A320, the crews are well down this path at least for the ceo and NG generations. But the CSeries is a new aircraft.
The CSeries has bucked the trend of a problematic first introduction. Initial operational experience has been good. In fact, the CSeries will probably replace the Boeing 777 as the most pain-free jet airliner introduction.
Aircraft economics
We will compare the aircraft’s economics tomorrow. A319neo versus 737 MAX 7 and CS300.
Why Airbus?
Why did the high tech CSeries end up at Airbus? Boeing would have had more use for a modern complement to a 737 on its fourth refresh. Guess Boeing is asking itself this question.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/18/airbus-got-cseries/#more-25029
By Bjorn Fehrm
October 18, 2017, ©. Leeham Co:
Bombardier and Airbus changed the airliner landscape yesterday. Analysts say it’s the largest industry change since Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997.
So, what has Airbus bought for no money? A me-too, or a world-beater?
The me-too that grew
CSeries was developed as a step-up regional airliner from Bombardier’s CRJ series. It started more as a me-too than a world-beater. Gradually the design grew in capability.
In the end, the CSeries became more than a step-up regional. The present CSeries transports 100 to 150 passengers on routes of up to 3,300nm. These are flights lasting over seven hours.
And it flies these routes with better passenger comfort than a Boeing 737 MAX or Airbus A320neo.
These are non-regional routes flown with non-regional comfort levels by a non-regional aircraft.
So, we need to change the yardstick from regional to mainline. Now defined as mainline, 130 to 240 passengers, covering 3,000nm routes (which is what you need for a transcontinental flight in the USA).
The competition is then Airbus A320neo line and Boeing’s 737 MAX series.
Embraer’s E-jet doesn’t qualify in this segment. It’s a regional airliner, designed to carry 75 to 130 passengers and on routes of less than 2,500nm.
Airbus’ versus Boeing’s single aisle
With the CSeries, Airbus now covers the range from 100 to 240 seats with its single aisle products. And it does this with four models. The CS100 for the 100-120 seat segment, the CS300 for 120-150 seats, A320neo for 150 to 180 seats and finally A321neo for 180 to 240 seats.
We can skip the A319neo. With 20 orders in total, whereof 18 from Frontier airlines, it’s an artifact in the market of single aisles.
Of the range, the CS100 and CS300 are state of the art. They are clean sheet designs, created after 2008. The A320 stems from 1988, pepped up with upgraded engines and over the next year, upgraded cabin (Airbus Airspace).
The Boeing 737 MAX covers the range from 140 seats to 230 seats. The 737 MAX 7 was recently increased in size (it’s now a chopped MAX 8) and no longer covers below 140 seats efficiently.
The new MAX 7 is a 140 to 160 seater, followed by the MAX 8 covering 160 to 189 seats (after which it’s exit limited). Finally, the MAX 10 covers 180 to 230 seats (we can forget the MAX 9; it has no longer a place in the line-up–this is taken by the MAX 10. And the MAX 8200 is a special for Ryanair).
Neither of the 737s are state of the art. In fact, they are warmed over four times: the original -100/200 series to Classic, Classic to NG and finally NG to MAX. A lot of the technology stays the same at each makeover.
And this is a positive when it comes to maintenance costs, but not for the pilots. They are still banging their head against a narrow cockpit roof which stems from the 727. As does the sound level and flight controls.
Technology
The base design of the 737 MAX is 20 years older than the A320. And it’s a whopping 40 years older than the CSeries. It has point-to-point Avionics versus Ethernet connected IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics) that run Avionics functions in software.
It has steel wires, versus the best Fly-By-Wire in the market. The MAX cockpit and flight controls work as designed, but are light-years from the cockpit and flight controls of the CSeries. The A320neo cockpit and flight controls are somewhere in between.
For the systems, it’s the same: 1960 technologies versus 40 years younger tech. There is simply no comparison. Once again the A320 is somewhere in between.
All have the new generation of engines. The MAX the CFM LEAP, the CSeries the Pratt & Whitney GTF and you can have the A320neo with either. The CSeries GTF has an in-service issue level the same as the LEAP, nothing to worry about.
The A320neo GTF is the variant that got to market too early. It has problems that should have been caught in flight testing. But there wasn’t enough of it. Time was up, and an unmatured variant spoiled the Pratt reputation once again.
The cabins
The area which has changed the most for the MAX is the cabin. It now sports an excellent Sky Interior. It compensates for a narrower fuselage compared with an A320neo. The narrower cabin seats in the MAX are compensated by the roomier feeling of the Sky Interior.
But the difference to the CSeries is another half inch on top of the A320 difference for the normal seats and another inch for the middle seat in the triple (CSeries seats are 18.5 and 19 inches wide, A320 18 inches and MAX 17 inches).
In an equally airy cabin design to the MAX, it makes a difference.
Operational use
The 737 MAX gives the A320neo a match on operational reliability and can beat the A320neo on maintenance costs. But the CSeries is designed to be better than both on maintenance costs. It uses modern technology, Carbon Fiber structures and Alu-Lithium hull, to lower the maintenance costs below the MAX.
The danger when new technology is introduced is that it hits initial reliability. Early problems need a weeding out period. The flight and maintenance crews need to learn what are fault indications they can ignore and those they can’t.
For the 737 and A320, the crews are well down this path at least for the ceo and NG generations. But the CSeries is a new aircraft.
The CSeries has bucked the trend of a problematic first introduction. Initial operational experience has been good. In fact, the CSeries will probably replace the Boeing 777 as the most pain-free jet airliner introduction.
Aircraft economics
We will compare the aircraft’s economics tomorrow. A319neo versus 737 MAX 7 and CS300.
Why Airbus?
Why did the high tech CSeries end up at Airbus? Boeing would have had more use for a modern complement to a 737 on its fourth refresh. Guess Boeing is asking itself this question.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/18/airbus-got-cseries/#more-25029
Assessing the Airbus-Bombardier deal
Oct. 17, 2017, © Leeham Co.:
The Airbus-Bombardier transaction announced yesterday has implications well beyond the United States, which has been much of the focus of analysis post-announcement.
The analysis focused on the US is natural, given the Boeing trade complaint involving the CSeries sale to Delta Air Lines.
But it’s important to step back to see what this means for CSeries.
Stability for the Program
Despite the financial bail outs by Quebec, a Quebec pension company and the Canadian federal government, long-term stability of Bombardier remained a question. Sales were hampered as a result.
The Airbus backing removes doubt over the CSeries program.
Product support
Bombardier’s product support has long been a target of criticism in the industry, particularly after high-profile landing gear collapses on the Q400. Airbus’ support will address this.
China
Bombardier has Memorandums of Understanding or Letters of Intent for 50 CSeries from two Chinese companies, a lessor and an airline. Both were announced years ago and neither has been converted to firm orders.
The reasons why these orders haven’t been converted or new ones landed are speculative in the highly secret Chinese society. One reason given in industry circles is that the Bombardier fuselage production plant in Shenzhen Shenyang remains a problem child. Bombardier is producing fuselages to backstop Shenzhen Shenyang. The story goes that until Shenzhen Shenyang is fully up to speed, no orders will be firmed or forthcoming.
Another is the airlines for which the CSeries are prime targets are restricted by government fiat from adding too many airplanes too quickly.
Finally, the stability and product support issues may be at play.
Regardless, Airbus’ involvement will undoubtedly provide some comfort. Chinese orders may start flowing now. Market intelligence indicates BBD has been involved in some serious talks with major airlines. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Airbus will now play a pivotal role.
Elsewhere
Market intelligence indicates that Bombardier is a serious contender for at least two significant orders in Africa. The Airbus connection might tip the scales.
Synergies
Although there is nothing common between the CSeries and the A320 family, Airbus is in a position to offer deals linking the CSeries to other Airbus family members.
Aftermarket services might also be a source of income for Airbus. While Airbus is well behind Boeing in pursuing aftermarket services, it’s not ignoring the sector.
There is a lot of information that has yet to emerge to draw complete conclusions. But at least on the surface, this does seem to be one of those instances where there are winners for the participants.
On the other hand, Boeing—which already has denounced the deal—and Embraer appear to be losers.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/17/assessing-airbus-bombardier-deal/
Oct. 17, 2017, © Leeham Co.:
The Airbus-Bombardier transaction announced yesterday has implications well beyond the United States, which has been much of the focus of analysis post-announcement.
The analysis focused on the US is natural, given the Boeing trade complaint involving the CSeries sale to Delta Air Lines.
But it’s important to step back to see what this means for CSeries.
Stability for the Program
Despite the financial bail outs by Quebec, a Quebec pension company and the Canadian federal government, long-term stability of Bombardier remained a question. Sales were hampered as a result.
The Airbus backing removes doubt over the CSeries program.
Product support
Bombardier’s product support has long been a target of criticism in the industry, particularly after high-profile landing gear collapses on the Q400. Airbus’ support will address this.
China
Bombardier has Memorandums of Understanding or Letters of Intent for 50 CSeries from two Chinese companies, a lessor and an airline. Both were announced years ago and neither has been converted to firm orders.
The reasons why these orders haven’t been converted or new ones landed are speculative in the highly secret Chinese society. One reason given in industry circles is that the Bombardier fuselage production plant in Shenzhen Shenyang remains a problem child. Bombardier is producing fuselages to backstop Shenzhen Shenyang. The story goes that until Shenzhen Shenyang is fully up to speed, no orders will be firmed or forthcoming.
Another is the airlines for which the CSeries are prime targets are restricted by government fiat from adding too many airplanes too quickly.
Finally, the stability and product support issues may be at play.
Regardless, Airbus’ involvement will undoubtedly provide some comfort. Chinese orders may start flowing now. Market intelligence indicates BBD has been involved in some serious talks with major airlines. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Airbus will now play a pivotal role.
Elsewhere
Market intelligence indicates that Bombardier is a serious contender for at least two significant orders in Africa. The Airbus connection might tip the scales.
Synergies
Although there is nothing common between the CSeries and the A320 family, Airbus is in a position to offer deals linking the CSeries to other Airbus family members.
Aftermarket services might also be a source of income for Airbus. While Airbus is well behind Boeing in pursuing aftermarket services, it’s not ignoring the sector.
There is a lot of information that has yet to emerge to draw complete conclusions. But at least on the surface, this does seem to be one of those instances where there are winners for the participants.
On the other hand, Boeing—which already has denounced the deal—and Embraer appear to be losers.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/17/assessing-airbus-bombardier-deal/
Ritengo che questo accordo vada anche a creare problemi ad ATR ed alla sua intenzione di fare un turboprop più capiente.
Mesi fa Airbus non era interessata a metter soldi in questo progetto, figuriamoci adesso
Inviato dal mio HUAWEI M2-801L utilizzando Tapatalk
Direi più un 737-10 "gonfiato" verso il lati di circa un metro, con ali, deriva e piani di coda più grandi, range di 9-10.000 km e MTOW intorno a 120-130t.Quindi vogliono costruire un A310 a stelle e strisce?
Comunque hanno comprato solo il programma C Series non tutta la Bombardier, penso che i turboprop e gli executive rimangano di produzione Borbandier, altrimenti Airbus produrrebbe tutti i turboprop sul mercato occidentale, Casa, ATR e Dash... non sono un po tantini?
ciauz sky3boy