RE: An article based on hate - MaherI wouldn't call it "hate". There's lot's of room for different views on the internet. And some so-called "expert" opinion sure leaves a lot lacking.
Opinions like this are not all that unusual. Some people just like to take an outlandish view in an effort to draw attention. Others do it to in a covert effort to sell something. Notice you can ask to speak to this guy on that website. Maybe he's selling investment advice, and puts clients into Embraer, or Boeing. Or maybe he has a big position in a competitor himself.
The fact that his comments are excessively negative should tell us something. They appear to be based more on emotion than any sound reasoning. Truly objective comment takes both sides of an issue into consideration. This guy spends all his words trying to convince us that C Series is evil. That tells us he has an agenda which doesn't invovle trying to be reasonable.
The following excerpts come from another piece this guy wrote on C Series on that website:
"Republic Airways is a much bigger winner out of this deal than Bombardier."
Huh? How could Republic be a "much bigger winner out" of a deal in which Bombardier sold them airplanes? In any deal, usually both parties benefit to some extent and this is why they're motivated to do the deal. But instead of explaining what he means by such a ridiculous statement this guy makes an accusation he can't back up:
"The CSeries racks up a big win through a loss-making deal that Airbus and Boeing would never have entertained."
Fact is most commercial aerospace manufacturers offer discounts to varying degrees from time to time on a wide range of their products. There's no evidence to suggest Bombardier is taking a loss on this order, and anyone with elementary math skills can figure out just how much Bombardier is getting by dividing the value of the deal by the number of aircraft involved.
"Bombardier may have all but doubled its anaemic CSeries backlog with this new order, but its not hard to see that it has lost more than it has gained."
In other words, even though C Series already has several large orders, and its still years away from production, he won't be impressed no matter how many orders it receives...
"This “Power Point Jet” has fundamentally missed the biggest order bonanza in history and now against a backdrop of falling demand, Republic Airways Holdings has capitalised on Bombardiers weakness with the CSeries to rack up significant concessions and support for committing to an airplane rejected as often as the Airbus A380."
Someone might want to tell this guy it's only 2010. C Series does not go into production for another 2.5 years, although it seems very likely C Series will garner at least few more orders in that space of time - and maybe a lot more orders.
"The Pratt & Whitney PurePower PW1000G GTF engine has proven to be an equally resounding business failure thus far and this order changes nothing."
So far no one is flying the GTF. That's why it's "unproven".
"The GTF is still unproven, missing fuel burn targets, thrust restricted and a glance at the asterisk in the press release shows that the mooted “20% fuel burn reduction” is based on “estimates” of a 500nm stage length that is wholly unrepresentative of any short haul rout that is served by the competing Airbus A319 or Boeing 737-700 anywhere on Earth. Nor does it provide details of what passenger/freight load is involved – but you can sleep soundly at night knowing it’s at least 25% less than what the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 families offer."
Most engineering estimates are based on previous research data. It usually takes some time to work out a few technical and production glitches but the engineering design is fundamentally sound. It is doable, and I wouldn't bet against Pratt & Whitney. They probably have as good a chance of getting the results they seek as Bombardier does with the rest of C Series.
"The GTF engine is challenged to deliver what Pratt & Whitney claims – the debacle over the PW6000 engine is a lesson they’re still learning and Airbus is clearly in no hurry to commit to the GTF to power its A320 family. Hence why they want IAE to offer a competing engine."
Debacle? What debacle? They're still learning. So what? We're all still learning every day. If they wern't still learning the product would be ready to go. The technology is proven. The only challenge is in reducing the parameters to a size that fits C Series.
"Highlighting lower cash operating costs of the CSeries is also disingenuous – when operators look to raise capacity, revenue and flexibility, the CSeries’ inefficient and outmoded 5-abreast seating configuration doesn’t cut it. The wider 737 and A320 can still fill more revenue paying passengers over greater distances, negating such cost advantage while delivering better yields."
Lower operating costs are a selling point for C Series. Sorry if it troubles you so. Seating configurations can be changed. Many airlines order specific seating configurations to suit their individual requirements. Current C Series models aren't intended to compete with A320s and 737s. They're smaller. Later, but as yet unannounced larger versions of C Series may indeed compete with Boeing and Airbus.
"And with the upcoming re-engine efforts on both airplanes, the CSeries will fall behind even more."
"Upcoming re-engine efforts"? What, like hanging those as yet unproven GTFs off A320s and 737s? At first Boeing and Airbus said they'd prefer to wait for open rotors. Now that it seems that technology might be further out than expected and the GTF is looking better they might change their minds? But they're too far behind...too late to the party.
"Since Lufthansa refuses to take first delivery or operate the first CSeries examples, Republic Airways walked away with many guarantees that only widebody jets like the 787 and A350 could support."
This sounds like a lot of conjecture on your part - based more on wishful thinking than anything based on fact. Otherwise why not provide a little more fact supporting your contentions?
"...after six years, one-false-start-and-a-relaunch later that it has increased its customer base by 50%, the market rejection of the CSeries as witnessed by record orders and deliveries of A320s and 737s proves beyond doubt that airlines are not buying the hype."
You could say C Series took even longer to develop since the design is largely based on something Bombardier called the BRJ-X - a design developed even further back. Does that necessarily make it a bad airplane? Maybe Bombardier would be better off today had it developed C Series a few years earlier. But then maybe C Series wouldn't have been quite as good as it is today.
The fact that A320s and 737s have a lot of orders is no reflection on C Series. But the fact that orders for these aircraft are beginning to slow might indicate their time is up and airlines are looking around for something better. With delivery dates for C Series beginning to approach those of A320s, 737s and E190s the showdown begins.
"What they want are new engines on the A320 and 737 to deliver the killer punch in operating economics – they’re simply not interested in an airplane whose market prospects look as bright as an extinguished candle."
Simply hanging GTFs off A320s and 737s won't give you much improvement. That's because C Series' construction has a greater percentage of carbon composites, making it a much lighter aircraft. To compete effectively Boeing and Airbus need new designs. Even if they started today they'd be years behind Bombardier, which would only qualify them as
also rans - and a few years late.
On the other hand Boeing and Airbus would have an important asset in the form of being able to offer airlines commonality with their other aircraft. Commonality, for anyone unfamiliar with the term involves a close degree of similarity in terms of controls involved in operating commercial aircraft. A higher degree of commonality enables airlines to keep maintenance costs and pilot training costs at a minimum.
Still, Bombardier, does not need to beat Airbus and Boeing. There's room in this market, for more than one or two commercial aerospace manufacturers.