Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: jammerh Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 63849  
Subject: VL Report On Bombardier Date: 6/21/2012 5:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Netjets recently placed the biggest order in aviation history for $9.6-billion in business jets. Bombardier took a significant portion of that with $7.6-billion.

If that wasn't enough Bombardier has a 15-year contract for maintenence on these aircraft and continues to build its order book for rail equipment. Another was announced this week from San Francisco for a whopping $675-million.

Today, Bombardier announced a new order for 12 CRJ1000s from Nordic Jet.

I've posted excerpts from the recent Valuline report on Bombardier here,

http://boards.fool.com/vl-on-bbd-30103124.aspx
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62946 of 63849
Subject: Re: VL Report On Bombardier Date: 6/24/2012 8:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Jim,

Today, Bombardier announced a new order for 12 CRJ1000s from Nordic Jet.

Is Nordic Jet a new customer for Bombardier?

If so, this is even more significant. If Nordic Jet's customers are as fond of regional jets today as Comair's customers were in the 1990's, this could be the beginning of the end of turboprops in Europe.

Norm.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jammerh Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 63025 of 63849
Subject: Re: VL Report On Bombardier Date: 9/13/2012 3:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hi Norm, sorry for the tardy response. Guess I went off with good intentions hoping to check on that, but got side-tracked as usual. Maybe Nordic's website would have some indication of their fleet composition which would tell us.

Generally I'm not all that impressed with the CRJ1000. It's probably the Bombardier product in which I have the least amount of confidence.

I don't know if I've expressed this to you before or not, but it strikes me as a stretch-too-far.

Embraer built a completely new design for this seating capacity - the E-190, and it has taken most of the market. I don't believe you can compete against that very well with a stretch.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 63033 of 63849
Subject: Re: VL Report On Bombardier Date: 9/19/2012 11:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Jim,

Generally I'm not all that impressed with the CRJ1000. It's probably the Bombardier product in which I have the least amount of confidence.

I don't know if I've expressed this to you before or not, but it strikes me as a stretch-too-far.


If the plane flies serviceably, I doubt that it will fulfill your fears of a stretch too far. It's a LOT cheaper to stretch an existing model than to design a new plane from scratch, so the company does not have to sell very many planes of the new model to make a profit on it.

Embraer built a completely new design for this seating capacity - the E-190, and it has taken most of the market. I don't believe you can compete against that very well with a stretch.

Yes, and that is very much a mixed bag in the market. A new design can optimize the form factor (the ratio of the diameter to the length of the fuselage) to optimize factors such as the ratio of the diameter to the length of the fuselage and the weight of the structure, to optimize cost of operation of the specific model, in isolation, potentially making the new model very available to companies that don't already operate the company's line of aircraft. In reality, however, very few airlines operate a single model in isolation because they need multiple models to match capacity with demand on various routes at various times of day. The result is that the economics of commonality -- the ability of a single pool of flight crews to operate several models of aircraft, a single team of mechanics to maintain several models of aircraft, and a common supply of spare parts for multiple models of aircraft -- are much more significant than marginal gains in fuel economy. For airlines that already operate the CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 models and need a slightly larger aircraft, or that also need to operate aircraft of this range of size, the CRJ-1000 is the only viable choice.

But splitting hairs, I thought that the E-190 was a stretch of the E-170, which was a completely new design. Embraer's smaller models, the ERJ-135 (approx. 35 seats IIRC) and ERJ-145 (50 seats) have a smaller fuselage than the CRJ series, with only three seats (2+1) per row. From a technical standpoint, a stretch of this design to 70 seats would have been marginal and a further stetch to 90 seats most assuredly would not have been viable.

Norm.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jammerh Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 63347 of 63849
Subject: Re: VL Report On Bombardier Date: 3/13/2013 3:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Norm, sorry for the tardy response, but as you may be aware I haven't been as active posting here as I used to be. Probably read this at the end of my alotted time slot and then got caught up with other things.

I've described in earlier posts what I meant by "a stretch too far". Yes, I realize what stretches involve and that Bombardier isn't the only manufacturer that sees this as a viable approach to addressing market demand for larger aircraft.

Yes, stretches are a cheap and fast way to beat a competitor to market, but I was hoping Bombardier had learned something from its experince extending to the CRJ700 and 900. These aircraft beat Embraer to market, but as it turned out Embraer's clean sheet designs were much preferred over Bombardier's stretches, because they had wider cabin dimensions allowing for less restricted seating for already cramped RJ travellers.

Bombardier still sold a few RJs but it lost market dominance to Embraer's clean sheet designs. This isn't just my opinion, it the concensus of opinion from a wide range of articles I've read. But if you can point me in the direction of any sources that appear to contradict this view I'd appreciate it and be eager to weigh that new info in the light of what I already believe.

Stretching probably seemed like the best option at the time. But even when it involves more than simply adding a "plug" to the fuselage section (sometimes they increase wingspan and increase engine size), it usually does little to increase cabin size (and thus comfort).

Of course, there are always trade-offs involved and guessing which features might be optimal for the most customers has to be a difficult game with all the other issues that need to be considered. But if we're giving credits to which manufacturer made the best call, the cudos have to go to Embraer's new designs. Bombardier's stretch approach muffed it.

Now we appear to be approaching a similar situation with Boeing stretching the 787 and Bombardier suggesting it will stretch CSeries.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 63349 of 63849
Subject: Re: VL Report On Bombardier Date: 3/14/2013 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Jim,

... but as you may be aware I haven't been as active posting here as I used to be.

Yes, I noticed your absence, but welcome back!

Yes, stretches are a cheap and fast way to beat a competitor to market, but I was hoping Bombardier had learned something from its experince extending to the CRJ700 and 900. These aircraft beat Embraer to market, but as it turned out Embraer's clean sheet designs were much preferred over Bombardier's stretches, because they had wider cabin dimensions allowing for less restricted seating for already cramped RJ travellers.

Funny. I have flown on an awful lot of CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 models, most of which now have first class cabins. I think that the next ERJ-170 or ERJ-190 on which I fly will be the first.

And actually, the CRJ-1000 was a response to customer requests for an aircraft slightly larger than the CRJ-900 that maintained type compatibility. Don't forget that Bombardier also has its "C Series" models for airlines that prefer "five across" seating.

Actually, there also might be another issue behind such requests. Many regional airlines operate out of terminals specifically designed and built for earlier generations of regional jet aircraft. The aircraft with "five across" seating might have a wingspan that's just a little too wide to fit into the gates at such terminals, while the additional length might not be a problem. It's a lot easier, and less costly, to move a taxiway further from a terminal building than to move the gates further apart!

Now we appear to be approaching a similar situation with Boeing stretching the 787 and Bombardier suggesting it will stretch CSeries.

Both a stretch -- and probably eventually also a shrink -- of the 787 and a stretch of the "C Series" were inevitable when the respective manufacturers designed the initial models of each series of aircraft. Airlines invariably want this so they can match capacity to demand on various routes at various times of day while preserving the same "type" of aircraft, as introducing additional "types" of aircraft into their fleets complicates training, scheduling, and maintenance while increasing costs pretty dramatically. Thus, there's no surprise here.

Norm.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement