RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The cancer that BT was....Lol where are you going with this discussion. Ha ha So you do admit its financial numbers not your engineering point of view numbers. Not once did i say c series was a bad airplane so what nosense are you talking about defending it. Not once did i say i hate this industry. C series cost more and with Airbus buying sorry taking it for nothing still cost more than lear85. None of the early c series bombardier sold were profitable either so it ended up costing more and piled on top of the overall cost. All the cost for c series ramping up production like, tooling, training, facilities etc and bombardiers contributions to partnership added more to top bombardier debt on top of c series r&d debt than lear85. Yes a loss of 2.6 b on lear85 is no change but most of the debt is due to c series.
Guillaume wrote: No, it was a financial disaster because it was lacking financing. And it was lacking financing because BT was in bad shape because of the lear85, and because Canada did not helped them.
This is just facts.
This kind of programs nees a lot of money, they need national support.
Airbus could not make the A300 without france and german support, same for boeing.
It need a lot of public money (And this is an european engineer point of view... :) )
I can tell you that airbus is very happy with the plane.
Annyway, i am not going to fight with you trying to defend the cseries. My french compariotes are happy to have it now, It s just sad for canada. And for my CELI for sure... lol :), because i was supporting the cseries.
if you hate industry, just, dont invest in industry that s it. Invest in apple, it s more easy.