Probe

The C-Series hasn't sold precisely because BB wouldn't budge on price. They are broke and living off of government loans. To make the DAL deal, they sold them way under cost, and then immediately publicly wrote off about 500 million dollars on the deal. I don't think the Canadian government is going to subsidize a money losing aircraft for long, especially so BB can sell airplanes south of the border.

Hey, Hey, Trump finally got his "great trade deal" with BB selling jets to DAL way below their cost to produce them. Maybe NAFTA ain't so bad after all? LOL

Grumble

They will if it means BB going out of business and the loss of all those jobs.

Meanwhile Boeing is using tax dollars to sell 50 year old guppies with ex-im financing, and fleecing the taxpayer for billions in military contracts (KC-46 anyone?). Whose really the subsidy ***** here?

CLazarus

You know you unintentionally contradicted yourself here, right? To make the path-breaking DAL deal BB finally budged on price (same with the AC deal for that matter). I already gave background on that "budge" in the post of mine you quoted, so I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to try and tell me about what I seemed to already know.

I'm also familiar with BBDs $500 million write off, and I know the assistance BBD received came from the Canadian federal and Quebec provincial governments and is highly controversial and unpopular up north. That is in large part because BBD has been a mess of a company for a long time, although the new management is a clear improvement. I can't recall the nature of the federal government's assistance off the top of my head, however I believe Quebec bought a $1 billion equity stake in the C Series. Which means that if the program succeeds Quebec can sell that stake at a profit, just like Uncle Sam did in rescuing Chrysler and GM. That may be an outrageous subsidy to some, but it is not so unusual when many thousands of jobs could be lost. Unfortunately for BBD, taking that assistance has opened them up to the charges coming from BA and EMB. I'll let the lawyers and courts slug that one out, at least they get paid to argue over it.

Now, to try and get this thread back on track. Analysts have regularly said UAL has a gap between 76 and 128ish seats, hence the mythical 100 seater we are said to need. I said the other day UAL had no need to replace any -700s or 319s for about five years. Meanwhile, our 150 seat 320s will begin aging out a few years sooner and are not slated for direct replacement as of now. Rather, they are seemingly being replaced by bigger aircraft (aircraft with >166 seats). So, as the 320s start leaving the fleet the 76-128 seat hole that analysts keep talking about will start to become a 76-150 seat hole. I can think of a few ways that hole might get filled... or not. But I'm not up for making a case one way or another, sometimes I just like to sit back and see what folks think.

Anyone care to make a detailed case? (David Puddy - you are forbidden from contributing, I think we already know what case you would make!)

Bluewaffle

We all talk of the C series because of its capabilities but I think the more likely scenario for a 100+ seater is the 195E2. United really doesn't have a mission that can take advantage of the C series' 3300 mile range. Id argue that Delta hasn't figured out what its mission is either save from taking over E175 flying which barely scratches the surface of the C series capabilities. If a SMNB order is placed with United, it will also take over E175 flying, freeing up those aircraft to take over 50 seat flying. Since this purchase gives some scope relief to 76 seat aircraft, its only natural that they would tie the purchase together with more E175s and get a better deal. Just my 2 cents but I think Embraer has the advantage here with fleet commonalty and price. The 195e2 has a 2600 mile range, plenty of capability for what United would use it for.

cadetdrivr

This is a totally rational analysis.

CLazarus

Seconded. Thanks Bluewaffle for your thoughts.

Sunvox

I will take the other side of the argument.

First I believe the company has telegraphed their intentions quite clearly. They converted 737-700 orders to MAX orders which to me says they are not concerned about the 100-150 range of the fleet. They also made it quite clear they have a strict budget for capital allocation over the next 4 years. Purchasing a new fleet is not within keeping to that plan. Meanwhile the head of ALPA scheduling committee said this:

and the company has said repeatedly they continue to be actively looking in the used airplane category so I would place 10:1 odds you will see no NSNB but rather continuing dribs and drabs of used Airbus or maybe possibly sorta a chance of buying a Frontier or a Spirit, meanwhile there will be no big "Fleet Plan".I do think that from now to 2020 you will see more of what we already are seeing namely,

- cancellation of A350s
- added 777s as markets warrant or older planes retire
- completion of 787 deliveries
- minor growth with 737 MAX 9s
-used A319s as available


beyond the next 4 years as I discussed in the other thread I feel we will order (or actually have already ordered) the Boeing 797 to replace our 767s and then I think the 737MAX-10 will replace the 757s.

Ultimately I think the question of what replaces the A319/320 gets pushed out beyond the next 4 years, but regardless I do not believe either the E195 or the CS100/300 are even in the running.

Probe

Exactly my point in all of this. BB build an S-Class Mercedes instead of the Hyandai the market wants. It should have had 17 inch wide seats, and range commensurate with what the market wanted to buy. It would have been lighter, cheaper, and even more efficient.

Heck, maybe an airline would have bought it for its' own merits without the need for government subsidies.

Grumble;
Yeah I know the whole Ex-im thing. The EU does the same with Airbus. I don't know who started it, but if only one side stops, their sales stop. A couple of decades ago 3rd world airlines flew 20+ year old aircraft. The financing allowed them to buy new jets from Boeing and Airbus. It is what it is.
I believe the EU started this in the late 90's to help them with slow sales, but I wouldn't bet a beer on it. Ok, maybe a Bud light or PBR.

David Puddy

I really do hope you guys get the E2. Enjoy the ram horns!

Probe

I remember reading an analysis of 100 seat jets 10 or 15 years ago. Small DC-9's and the Fokkers. The Fokkers never sold well. They said every time somebody puts a 100 seat jet in a market, they wish they had something bigger.

Maybe that is why we canned the 700's. For a little more money, we could get a lot more seats.

The E-jets have sold reasonably well, but I wouldn't call the bigger ones (190/195) a blockbuster success. In the US that is partly due to scope clauses, but the majors fly very few of them.