Boeing is a horrible company, they out sourced engineers that resulted in the MAX TCAS issues killing hundreds, they tried to bribe the FAA, they promoted an incompetent executive management with huge bonuses, and they looked at Trump for help ... yes, they thought someone who is a Traitor to the US with failed business dealings in just about everything (aka Trump) would help them. Boeing is not the company it used to be prior to 2000. They used Trump tax breaks to increase their funding of out sourced engineers/work and did NOT hire within the US for fully qualified engineers.
Bombardier actually had a negative public reception in Canada before the Boeing complaint. Aside from the delays in the CSeries, they were way behind schedule on some transit projects, to the point where future ones were not awarded to them. However, the public opinion changed after the Boeing complaint because it felt like another big American company trying to kill another Canadian company.
Yes. The Canadian government bailed out Bombardier with public money a few times and the Canadian public was getting tired of it due to mismanagement of the company. We Canadians have a love-hate relationship with our southern neighbour. We take it personally when the US tries to bully us. The Airbus deal was the logical conclusion.
"another big American company trying to kill another Canadian company." I guess a number of Canadians still remembering Avro and what it could have become.
@UCm9vFiyoGGrX67M8-vWuDng The decision for government to whether prop up a failing entity is entirely political. Let's say Amazon is floundering, I'm pretty sure the government will hand over truckloads of money to save it because it is easier than to face the wrath of the voters on all the job loses. That was the case with Bombardier. If your financial ruin has enough political or economic impact, I'll bet the government will come to save you too.
737 used to be my favorite aircraft but I was blown away by how comfortable the A220-200 was. The Glass Cockpit and Cockpit Ergonomics would have to be a pilots dream come true.
I remember watching an airBaltic delivery flight from Mirabel TH-cam video a year or so back. The airBaltic pilots in the video seemed thrilled to bits with the plane.
I took an A350 and the 787, in the A350 it felt like 2050, the 787 was very good. Nothing beats the A380 in terms of comfort but that will soon be a nostalgic thing
The more I learn about modern Boeing the more I realize their biggest enemy is Boeing themselves. It's really shocking how poor decision making crippled the company seemingly at every chance. I hope the company can return to its former glory in the near future.
Agree with you. But to achieve that that would need to get back to their former Boeing mentality and throw the McDonnell Douglas Spirit finally out of the window. But since they decided to move their HQ to Arlington, Virginia (just to lobby even more in Washington, D.C ) instead of developing great airplanes, that won't happen. They are doing the exact same mistake again by not developing the NMA aka 797 or 757 replacement. According to Boeing it would be 'just a niche of a niche of a niche of a market' and not worth the money of developing it. Well, Airbus didn't think so and redeveloped the A21 into the A321XLR. According to Boeing a Niche of a niche of a niche airplane. Well, Airbus already recieved 450 orders for that 'niche' aircraft. Congratulations Boeing, you were wrong as usual. It's unbelievable how a company can make so many blunders one after another. But knowing that it's not Boeing anymore but McDonnell Douglas with Boeing's name, it's exactly what you would expect from them. MDD did the exact same thing in the past. Milking the old DC-9 and DC-10 designs until it was so outdated that nobody bought any planes from them anymore and not investing in any new designs. So there you have your answer.
Boeing's entire concept was to bring about the death of the c series. The airbus a220 is one of the most beautiful and highly capable performance orientated aircraft. There is way more potential in the aircraft than meets the eye. Anyone having the opportunity to fly this aircraft will immediately fall in love with all of its dynamics
The Canadian deep state killed Bombardier because they came up with the best plane platform on earth. And the narrative is that Quebec is an uneducated backwater and can’t put a foot in front of the other without big brother Canada holding its hand. They couldn’t not allow this marvellous program to flourish as it skews their political agenda…
I have been flying the A220 with Swiss in 2020 (just before the pandemic), from London City Airport (with a fairly short runway) to Zurich, and it was fabulous. Since then I've been actively seeking flights with that aircraft, and every time it has been quite an experience.
What isn't mentioned in the video is that at the time of the Bombardier sale to Delta, the Canadian government has decided to accept the political heat and not go to an open competition to replace the RCAF fighter jets. Instead, the government was willing to sole source Boeing F-18 Super Hornets. Canadian government officials were in Washington to finalize the billion dollar deal when news of the Boeing trade action against Bombardier broke. Causing the Canadians to walk away from the negotiations. Apparently, the Boeing negotiators on the military side had been given no warning that the commercial side was going to take this action against the Canadian government. Also, one of the very expensive delays for Bombardier while developing the jet was the failure of the American based engine manufacturer to deliver a reliable engine in the time frame contracted. The result being that the program had to sit and burn through cash while waiting for the promised engines.
Talk about lack of internal communication within Boeing. They really did mess things up! P&W did indeed take their time getting the GTF right, and Airbus had some initial issues with the variant for the A320 too. Some of the problems appeared to be close to "school boy" errors - e.g. differential cooling / heating of parts of the engine causing problems at start up after a short turnaround (the differential temperatures caused the engine shape / clearances / fit to be out of wack, until all of it had all cooled down). It was these kinds of issues that were well known about by previous generations of design engineers, but (the company having not designed an engine for a very long time) had been forgotten about by a new generation. It was a problem well understood even by designers of steam turbines (so it's, what, >100 year old knowledge?) Constant development, regardless of actual economic need, is the only way of keeping team knowledge together and becoming reliable in delivery. But in the end, P&W's GTF has come good. It's kind of a miracle that the C Series got certified and into service, and a good thing too - it's a very good design!
Not only that, but initially, the F-35 was not politically favourable for the Liberal government, as one of their campaign promises had been to cancel the previous Conservative government's sole-source F-35 contract and hold a fly-off instead. The fly-off never happened and Eurofighter and Dassault both pulled out of the competition. The industrial offsets were reportedly one sticking point, but the big one was a non-negotiable degree of technology transfer, including of proprietary systems, to both Canada and the US due to NORAD. That meant that realistically it was Super Hornet vs. F-35 and F-35 had the stigma of being the project cancelled by the government. Of course, thanks to Boeing's bone-headed decisions, F-35 was back on the table, and Super Hornet was off... leading right back to a sole-source contract for Lockheed!
@@chanman819 hey don't forget the Gripian also stayed around! Seriously tho the F35 was always the better option and shocker after a certain conflict in eastern Europe now everyone wants F35s.
Wow! I didn't know this! Although I followed this very closely, I was _not_ aware of the FA-18 deal they were working on. I do love how Bombardier made a huge F-U to Boeing by practically giving the plane away to Airbus.
As a Boeing stock owner and receiving a Boeing pension, I totally agree with your thoughts on the subject. It is outrageous the stupid decisions made there. I sincerely hope that the Boeing people responsible for this debacle no longer working there and fired. I can imagine the outrage of Canada, our best neighbor to the north and remembering this kick in the teeth to them, and many others.
Only partially ironic as that is by purposeful design on Boeing’s part to sell the 787 in export markets. If the “797” had happened similar issues for export sales would have happened. With the Airbus takeover that nicely removed that content issue by redistributing some of the parts chain.
It is kinda funny, because yesterday I was reading comments on CNC machinist channel about large military contractor in US moving its supply chain to China and small public contractors being essentially forced to go find customers on EU market
@@brylozketrzyn Anything to enhance shareholder equity. It reminds me of when Obama asked Steve Jobs why we can’t make things in US and Jobs responded with “THOSE JOBS ARE GONE FOREVER”! Upshot, Apple is richest company in the world and young people in the US see no economic advantage to becoming CNC operators, no less a “tool and die maker”!
@@brylozketrzyn Yes, but the Chinese got the information and designs first, and some of that was with Airbus establishing production of their aircraft in CHINA. Nothing like going out of your way to teach your future enemy and finance their technological development!
Having followed Boeing's unsubtle attempt to strangle the C series, which looked quite possible at one point, I nearly wet myself laughing when Airbus announced its deal with Bombardier. To me, it was yet another sign that the juggernaut that Boeing had become was so fat and complacent that it was incapable of conceiving the risk.
@@kijana2030 Or, more preciselly, was any McDonell Douglas executive that took over the destiny of Boeing, fired? This should have happened long ago or the control over Boeing never taken place at first hand.
The goal seems to have been killing the C Series program to eliminate any possible threat to the cash cow 737. The idea of Airbus swooping in and “saving” the C Series was probably never considered to be a realistic option, given the high unit costs of the airplane and the heavily North American supply chain. As a result, the potential for providing a new design paradigm which could have provided a comfortable pathway forward from the 737 (as you pointed out) was lost. Airbus managed to benefit from Boeing’s hubris. There’s a lot of that going around lately…. =/
Boeing had a slam dunk in selling Canada the Super Hornet - it was a natural evolution from the CF-18 hornets we currently operate, and we had already decided not to get the F-35. Leave it to Boeing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
@@shrimpflea The F-35A actually requires significantly less maintenance (as far as cost per flight hour is concerned) than our existing CF-18 Hornets, due to their age. They're all 35-40 year old airframes.
I was a big proponent of getting the Super Hornet. Now I won't even book a flight on a Boeing aircraft. I expect more catastrophic decisions from Boeing in the future - 787 will bring them down.
I have a friend who worked with military air procurement for many years and Boeing has lost a lot of respect in those circles in recent years. The finance and bean counters appear to be running the show there instead of the engineers and product people.
You've only got to see how its recent space business has been going, suffering the same malady of Wall St types running it instead of the engineers. Look at Starliner - contracted with NASA to launch in 2017 and still not launched. Meanwhile SpaceX built Crew Dragon in under half the time and budget and is operating it routinely.
Very good overview of the CSeries program. The potential Embraer merger with Boeing certainly helped the Bombardier-Airbus partnership. Under Airbus, we can now expect thousands of this superb airplane, instead of hundreds or even outright program failure... Development, certification, production and entry-into-service have been quite interesting and fun, for my coworkers and myself! Thanks for the video, keep up the great work!
I wonder how long it will be before Ryanair and Southwest seriously consider adding another airplane type to start moving away from the Boeing 737 series. That would be a huge problem for Boeing.
Ryanair does have A320 family aircraft in their Lauda subsidiary. Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s Group CEO has repeatedly said they’d buy Airbus aircraft if Airbus would lower their price. In the most recent version, O’Leary has said Airbus would have to lower their price by 30% for Ryanair to consider a future order.
Personally I love flying on Boeing. They feel different than airbus. They feel like a jet. But airbus are more comfortable. Makes me feel I’m in a bus. Lol
@@Chris-Pringle I'd venture that if I blindfolded you, put you on a plane, and let you fly on it, you won't be able to tell if it was a Boeing or an Airbus.
Southwest has a unique business model and the 737 serves them very well. No need for them to "move away from it". With the updated engines with better efficiency and greater range I think they can go another twenty years with the 737 as long as it meets their needs. Eventually a new plane will come along that will make it worth changing their strategy, but that hasn't happened yet.
You neglected to mention how Boeing later screwed Embraer with its promised acquisition after Airbus took control of the Bombardier C-Series. The Airbus A220 is now built in Montreal at a plant located in the Mirabel airport. Boeing also spent tons of money in Canada trying to make amends after the fiasco, but to no avail. Let's hope Boeing has now learned its lesson.
@@herbertcourtesie2459 no what! boeing were going to acquire them. suppose you are a nationalistic brasilian? chaning history to suit nationalistic ideas?
Whilst the A220 might cost A319 and 320 sales in the short-term it will probably more than pay off long-term with the development potential the 220 has. I'm curious to see what the future brings both in regards to Airbus and Bombardier
@@24HoLTeam93 Yes - with the Delta Deal in time maybe they would have been able to "hold the nose upon water" - but so, no chance. The Businessjet-Production is practically the single issue what remained from Bombardier.
In my own opinion, Boeing has sat back on it's laurels for too many years. The company threw it's dummy out of the cot. For too many years, Boeing has been shortsighted. They thought that payback would be to get involved with Embraer after the Delta deal. And how right 'royally shafted' those poor guys became when Boeing dumped them. It was like being proposed to and then jilted at the altar. I am so happy the C-Series/A220 became the success it's turning out to be, thanks to the skills of every designer, engineer and Canadian that put their heart and soul into this Bombardier project. Long may it succeed. All kudos though to Airbus for spotting a gem and taking it to the world. The sad part of the story, is if Bombardier had just pushed on that little bit longer, maybe it would have been a success in it's own right without either of the duopoly. At some point, Boeing has to realise, for all the magnificent machines it builds, it cannot think it's a company that dictates anymore. We've all seen what happens to dictators!
The C Series is a well designed Aircraf, it took Airbus marketing to sell it to the world , pilots and passengers who fly it are happy with the experience- flying it and quietness and spacious feeling inside.The geared Turbofan by P&W is a good engine after some development.
I work on the military side of Boeing and aren’t commenting with insider information. My opinion is that we’ve lost the love of the products. I’ve had this conversation with many executives. I’ve said, “who’s our Elon”? In other words someone that loves innovation and customers. Once our competitors uses the next step function in technology in the 737 market, the end has begun. It’ll take 20 years, but Boeing is not a leader, just a cost cutter. Selling the same 50 year old design with lipstick applied.
@@jamesdellaneve9005 It's such a shame to hear those words from someone that works with Boeing. As you say, to lose the passion for what you're producing and build it to a price is indeed a sad state of affairs. I don't know how true this is, but I hear the rot started when MD management took over?
Without one of the duopoly behind it there is just no way the C-Series would have been anywhere near the success it is - it may have turned a useful profit but it would never be the Embraer-killer it is. Its basically about massive marketing muscle, plus an awful lot of capital and mass manufacturing expertise on tap.
Sounds like Boeing has severely underestimated their competition. They thought of themselves as the big man on campus with no competition from the underdogs. Well, the underdogs are proving themselves.
Boeing has gone from a formidable competitor, where it was almost impossible to compete with Boeing and companies who have tried to compete with Boeing have gone bankrupt, to a crying girl to a competitor who should be watched but whose competition shouldn't have sleepless nights over a launch over a new aircraft program.
Boeing middle market aircraft I’d only running on brand name not quality or performance. Both A220 and A320 out perform the 737. Many of the newer ULCC that are using Boeing are only getting them because of large order discounts and delivery time years quicker than what they can get from the A320
I would called it oversight really. Let's be honest, even I bet you also think this aircraft is just regional jet and shouldn't be on level of A320 and 737 anyway Until people realize Canada is bigger than European yet far more sparse. Basically turning this aircraft to 737/A320 level of spec
They _didn’t_ think. They are run by buffoons going through the motions. They don’t care about the business. It is too big. They lazy, just sit back and collect their money.
The A-220 or CS-100/300 is a real step forward for single aisle aircraft. The layout in the Galleys ,Cabin and Lavatories are very new and welcomed by Carriers. The Fuel efficient Engines and Pilot designed Cockpits make it not only preferred but a runaway Winner in its category. Yes I am a proud Canadian or loves the Bombardier product. Perfects you can confirm this point. The door sill just inside door one, still says CS-300 as a tribute to its heritage. I love your videos.
Regarding the supply chain. One way to look at it is that it will be a struggle for Airbus (because it will). But another is that it is giving Airbus serious inroads with traditional Boeing supplies. This, in turn, might give Airbus more of a say in product development for companies that traditionally only really answered to Boeing. And that could place some interesting, and perhaps serious, constraints on future Boeing designs. I think Airbus is playing some serious 5D chess here.
Most aircraft already have global supply chains and the use of American made avionics, landing gear, engines etc has never caused Airbus issues in the past. Airbus is as big as Boeing in the commercial aircraft sector so has similar buying capability and already has a A320 FAL in Mobile which in order to meet US requirements for parts of origin has substantial US supply lines. I don't think this is the limiting factor here. The key limiting factor is the way that Boeing has been managed since it moved from Main Street to Wall Street.
@@PAC-fp9hy I take you didn’t watch the video or, if you did, you assume I wasn’t paying attention at all and, in addition, disagree with the conclusions of the video? Further, you’re focusing on the wrong part of the argument (probably my fault for writing it wrong), the main thing I was trying to put forward is that this would give Airbus further inroads with more of Boeings partners (if what Mentour said is true). Those manufacturers will probably look into homologation wherever they can to keep costs down. Homologation has it’s advantages in regards to diversifying a supply chain, but it also means you need to build towards that line of products rather than being able to expect that the vendor will bend over backwards to work with your technical requirements because they have no other major customers. Lastly, I never said this was Boeings only problem. It’s just another possible bullet point on a very very long list.
@@GhostOfLorelei Airbus already has partnerships with many of Boeing's partners. PW, Engine Alliance, RR, Moog, Thales, Honeywell etc etc. They are not just Boeing partners. This deal is unlikely to have given Airbus any significant supply chains that it didn't have already. And even if it did, the components would be only be suitable for the A200 such as the airframe and composites. The whole argument for taking on a loss making project was to be able to use existing Airbus supply chains and buying power to make the A200 profitable, so that would imply that AIrbus already had contracts withe the main suppliers. The question of homologation is very complex because each component has to pass FAA and EASA requirements for the DOA, POA and MOA in respect of the aircraft type it is fitted to. That is always a lot work as Boeing know only too well when it cut corners on the Max. Mentour is a Boeing pilot, and he does not work for Airbus, so it is probably speculation on his part.
Dennis Muilenburg made a lot of mistakes during his time as Boeing CEO and this is one of them but not the worst. (We all know what that was.) Serves Boeing right that they lost out on purchasing the C-Series program for suing Bombardier because they were worried that this would be unfair competition to the MAX 7 and 6 years later, the MAX 7 has entered service yet!
You are indeed correct by saying that the A220 is an awesome aircraft. I had a rough idea of the history of the aircraft, but it was interesting to hear it in a little more detail and with your personal take. Thanks for sharing.
As a Canadian, I was so proud of the C-series and what Bombardier was able to accomplish. Even though Bombardier has not had great PR in Canada because of issues with it's public transit programs, it's still a Canadian company and the only major aviation company. When the Boeing complaint happened, it also carried with it the bad taste of the Trump admin and some of the other trade disagreements we'd had with them. I'm happy that the A220 is flourishing because it's still a point of pride as a Canadian aviation enthusiast. It's still the original design and build and it only has new owners. I also can't help but feel some schadenfreude that the plane is causing issues for Boeing, still.
Not great PR. It’s true. Called corporate welfare bums by Anglo Canadians and their media especially the globe and mail. Even though Bbd paid back every penny they ever got from Ottawa plus hundreds of millions in taxes. That project was badmouthed from the start by people outside Quebec. They just hate anything doing well in that province
Recently our local national carrier (Croatia Airlines, OU) swapped their A320 neo options they were sitting on for years to A220 (with plans to have an all-A220 fleet at the end). Besides the plane being pretty "right-sized" for OU it seems that Airbus was willing to work this swap out as it needs all A321neo production slots it can get as that is where their biggest backlog x value currently stands. So by shifting some of the "smaller" airlines to A220 (Air Baltic being a showcase) pipeline, Airbus can churn out A320/321 neos for big/major orders and operators (getting them planes earlier than previously possible, to prevent them from considering 737MAX).
This is exactly the reason Airbus is considering the A220-500. Yes it will compete with the A320neo sales, but they cannot make enough of the A320 family planes anyway and people are choosing Boeing because of the lower wait times.
Yea that's a possibility but not the current reality, you still have to wait longer to get the a320neo/321neo , compared to the MAX . The a220 can only be a substitute for the MAX 7 /a319 , so Boeing still has a few more years to take advantage of airbus's limited /constrained production and huge backlog . Not to mention that the a220 is currently having some supply chain issues of its own , so ramping up production won't be an easy task Boeing will rack up hundreds of orders for the 737MAX before Airbus manages to increase and stabilize its production rates .
@@ProT3ch the 737MAX 8 seats around 212 in MAXm configuration, a potential a220-500 won't seat more than 180. The a220-500 will have lower profit margins than the a320neo for its first few years , and will definitely hurt 320 sales . Probably the reason Airbus is still in some kind of a dilemma with this . An a220-500 could take 2-4 years , lots of time for Boeing to continue to snatch hundreds of orders , due to a320neo/321neo production slot constraints.
The fact that the C Series has the same range and seating capacity as the MD80 (and similar seating configuration) has been interesting, and could have made an acquisition an easy low cost win for Boeing. (Bullying instead didn't yield advantages; perhaps it should have been seen as a sign of the rot of the company.)
And it's interesting that Delta has not restored a good many of their MD-80 routes which they canx during COVID. I would have thought that the C-series would have allowed them to restore the routes.
It was the MD strain in the company. Boeing has many great people and characteristics as well as some not so great people usually in upper management who are from the MD strain of the company. MD were famous for arrogance and a slick attitude in the C-Suite.
@@The_ZeroLine Greed and arrogance are what bring down most large organizations, and in this case of damage done to the American industrial base, tragically so. Elon?
No, the US was going to make sure that Canada was going to buy the F-35 no matter what. Netherlands was going to purchase a different fighter and diplomatic pressure came in from the US to change their minds. Interestingly Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) was negotiating price, delivery schedule, and economic benefits to Canada during fall of 2022 even though the choice of plane was announced in the spring of 2022. The president of Saab Canada (Saab submitted a bid for the Gripen) is upset because all of those items were supposed to be finalized in the competitors bid. So why is PSPC having to negotiate these things now? We would have been better served with the Gripen. It will soon have the electronic capabilities that the F-35 will soon have and is able to carry more. We don't need stealth fighters. We also don't need to lose our sovereignty with the F-35. They are constantly sending back data to the manufacturer (and the US government) about what the plane is doing and where the plane is going. It's in the name of preventative maintenance but do we have to tell the US government where our fighters are every second. Also, all major maintenance is done in factories, not on base. This includes engine changes. This is bloody useless in a battle. How do your tech people fix your planes in combat if they can't do it in peacetime? Oh, that's right, their stealth planes, they won't get damaged in battle! /s If it's anything like the contract Phase 2 of the LRT in Ottawa then they're probably adding the cost of wheels and wings. (The contract for the Phase 2 of the LRT in Ottawa was handled terribly. It twice failed the technical requirements but was allowed to continue. It won because it was much less expensive. Of course it may be so cheap when it's missing a ton of the requirements! Is it going to be so cheap when all of the requirements that are missing get added back on as extras? The bonus part was when the city council went to vote on the contract the mayor knew about this but wouldn't let the rest of the council know. Sorry for straying off topic but the LRT in Ottawa is a massive tragedy that more people need to know about.)
@@capitalinventor4823 It might be true that Canada was going to pick the F-35, but the dispute did lead to the cancellation of the small number of Super Hornets prior to choosing a full replacement for the Canadian legacy Hornets. If Canada already had a few Super Hornets, Boeing would have had a better chance at winning the competition.
@@mediocreman2 Well the Super Hornets are kind of yesterdays jets ,F35 might cost way more,at least they are next generation, and Stealth features and some can even go VTOL,
The backstory of this aircraft is very interesting... I've actually flown on the Airbus A220-300 with Air Canada from Toronto to Edmonton, and it was amazing! Very comfortable, even for a 4-hour flight. The 2-3 configuration really helps, and the economy seats are among the widest in the fleet.
Goes to show, that in the long run (as it does so often) it just doesn't pay off to make the own product more and more cost effective (-> sh*tty) and then trying to compete by dragging others down. Positivity is where it's at, not only, but also in running a company. It defines the way you look at the world...
So proud to see a small clip from our new A321 taking off from Hamburg! (I work at JetSmart as a Maintenance Operations Executive) 17:25 Great content as always Mr Mentour.
You have to feel good bombardier, they spent a bunch of money to develop a great jet that would have been competitive and would have established Bombardier as a real competitor to the duopoly.
People around the world do not realized that the rest of Canada, esp Alberta actually paid the development cost. Bombardier and Quebec are not success stories, they are a blck hole for Canada's/Alberta's Money, with no benifit in return. If I recieved as much money as Quebec gets, I would have been able to solve the Fusion generation problem and we would have clean energy.
They certainly did design a great jet. Apart from Boeing screwing things up, one thing that was in the way of it attracting seriously large orders was the size of Bombardier in the market place. They were comparatively small, and suppliers were reluctant to give them good prices on parts. So the C Series was going to be moderately pricey to buy and support. Bombardier also didn't have a large sales team; it takes a lot of staff to run multiple sales campaigns necessary to get a large order book. That they managed to sell any at all as Bombardier is testament to just how good a design it is; the plane sold itself to anyone that sampled it, and made the price still look good. One of the things that is good about Airbus coming into the program is that Airbus can drive supplier prices down, and has a vast sales team that can mix A220s in with other sales campaigns. Airbus saying "we believe in this aircraft" is a pretty good endorsement, enough to make a lot of airline executives believe that there is a long term future for the design, which is also an important thing. I do feel sorry for Bombardier that they got clobbered so, but I think that, in the end, for the people (if not the investors) it's going to work out well. They've got a slice of what looks like being (in the long run) a very large cake. It's not as glamourous as the whole cake, but it's a very good second best! And for the government investors, it'll come good; there's going to be a lot more well paid, tax paying employees for a long time to come, bringing in money from overseas.
Long time Boeing fan / cargo pilot (hence my name) I have time on the 74-1, 74-2, 74-4 and for the last several years have been in the left seat of the 74-8. The way that Boeing is operated is now making the company a shell of itself
@@michaelrmurphy2734 I have sidestick experience from the military, but for commercial flying, it’s all yoke, I have never had the privilege of having a TV tray in front of me from Germany…. But I have been jealous of my Airbus brothers & sisters 🤓
Love the Swiss 220s! The routes include London City Airport, while the 320s are larger so gotta instead go to Heathrow. Really fills a nice spot in the Airbus portfolio. Embraers are nice too tho :)
What Boeing did to Canada and Bombardier goes well beyond simply building aircraft. The whole world now see's Boeing's true color for what it really has become. Their manipulation of the Max was yet one more example. Thank you Mentour for this upstanding report coming from a disgruntled Canadian who knows.! Stay tuned for some really big news about to come out of Canada.!
Scott Hamilton's "Air Wars" book is certainly well worth a read. One thing not really discussed in this vlog is how acquiring the C Series fits right in with Airbus's long term commercial strategy, inspired by John Leahy (Airbus's recently retired head of sales, who basically made Airbus what it is today). Leahy was all about market share, and had a very strong drive to increase Airbus's market share as pretty much the sole commercial driver for the whole of Airbus. He / Airbus didn't mind whether or not market share came about from Airbus selling more aircraft, or spoiling Boeing's prospects in the market. Acquiring / saving the C series was just another way of moving market share from Boeing to Airbus. To outperform all aspects of A220 / A320neo, Boeing would have to spend an absolute fortune on a 737 replacement, to have any hope of reversing the single aisle market momentum and restore good sales margins. Boeing clearly hasn't the money, expertise, or patience to do so. And it'd really take two different models for Boeing to successfully outperform both A220 and A320neo. So, Boeing need two moonshot development programs. Airbus picked up the fruits of one pretty good moonshot program for nearly free. Even if Boeing did a full CF A220 look-alike, it'd cost them a fortune and not be significantly better. Plus, no one really realised there was quite such a large market for something like the C Series until the C Series came along and Airbus got involved, but that's now all Airbus's market. What's even worse is that Airbus are moving things along. They're looking at hydrogen-fuelled aircraft, which (if successful) makes aviation sustainable long term (assuming green H2 production). Boeing need to be designing aircraft to at least match or exceed Airbus's current line up to be able to regain some market share, but also need to be designing beyond even that. I don't think they've got anything like the engineering or commercial capacity to do that, and won't get the capacity because their market share is too small and shrinking.
Terrific as always from Petter. How fortunate that this project was saved, given the little known story of the Avro Jetliner; which was developed around the same time as the DH Comet and was in many ways a superior aircraft. Sadly the Canadian government at the time weren’t supportive, but the A220 is a happy ending of sorts, three quarters of a century later.
As soon as I saw the title of this video in the youtube recommends (based on my watch history) I knew this was going to be about the C series. Writing this reply now before even watching the video... my instinctive answer to the question in the title is "absolutely they did". I've been saying this ever since Bombardier-Airbus sale. Boeing's own stupidity and greed blew up in their faces and drove Bombardier into the arms of Airbus. One of the most epic own goals in business history in a long time.
I love the A220 / C Series and have flown on Air Canadas aircraft. It is very comfortable and quiet as well as efficient. I would love to see the YYT - LHR route return with this aircraft.
A story I ran into (I think in the book 'Flying Blind') to explain why Boeing pushed forward with their complaint is even more astonishing: this was a _negotiation technique_! They were okay with the price/negotiation but wanted an even better deal, so push forward with the complaint in the hope a small tariff would negotiate the price of the program down. They ended up with a much higher tariff than expected (virtually killing the program) which soured relationships and pushed Bombardier into Airbus' arms.
The A220 is a nice replacement for the F100, E190, B737 and A319. I was really happy the first production models were used to my regular destination by Swiss about 6 years ago.
I worked for Boeing for over a decade. One thing that still baffles me is their arrogance. Their mindset has always been "we're the best" and "it's other's fault". When Boeing lost the initial tanker competition, their marketing is all about how the government's decision "doesn't add up" and make the government to overturn that decision. When Boeing made demand to supplier/customer on price or requirement, a common phrase that got thrown around a lot is "Because we're Boeing". Again, with Bombardier, Boeing thinks they can do whatever they want, got so blinded by just crushing competition, they forgot they're no longer the industry leader. What's worse is that hasn't really change as far as I know. My passion with aerospace started with Boeing, and ended with Boeing. To me, Boeing is a major corporate cancer that's too big to fail for the US government. It won't die, it just whine and sucks up resources.
The arrogance has been there from day one. When the first Airbus A300 was announced, Boeing referred to it as "that little European project", and consistently underestimated both Airbus and the aircraft. Nothing has changed in 50 years.
I am a frequent listener to a Dutch podcast about general aviation. The way you describe Boeings' handling and thinking fits how the Dutch guys talk about it. For example: Boeing is so conceited, when a European journalist (the Dutch guy) was given the opportunity to talk to a Boeing-salesman (high ranking one), the interview went sour as the interviewer brought up Airbus. Airbus was a non-starter for the salesman.
Sounds like they have to step off that high horse of them and start to actually compete. You gotta be better than the competition at something, be it comfort, efficiency, design or price. Funny to hear how Boeing people still act like they're the only show
Canada's government cancelled a planned $2 billion purchase of 18 F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters because of fhe decision by Boeing to launch a trade challenge against Bombardier. Instead it bought 25 F-18 classics from Australia to fill an interim requirement to augment the CF-18 fleet.
2:26 Do not overlook the fact that the CSeries have the exact passenger capacity as the original 737 waaaayyy back in 1967 coincidence? I think not. ALSO it shows how far the 737 mission creep has gone. 9:50 "medium haul airliner" The *irony* of Boeing creating the point-to-point long haul 787 small twin aisle jet, having customers begging for a 757 replacement, SouthWest as a friendly case study... and THEN missing the opportunity of a long legged 100-ish seat airplane is exquisite.
@@ricardokowalski1579 I am aware you Americans were so frightened of being owned by Canadian tech you imposed an 400% tariff upon our C-series planes. You cannot compete, so you cheat. You LOST badly the WTO case. Very badly. Too late, the damage was done. Bombardier were destroyed because you Americans shit your pants. If you cannot compete, get out of the way.
The key comment here is that the A200 series has scalability in its design and the potential for a dash 900 means that Airbus has a more modern design than the A320 for the future at very little cost and a much shorter entry into market cycle. At some point Boeing has to end the production of an aircraft designed in the 1960s and equally Airbus has to bring to a close its A320 program as there is only so much development. Clearly what is limiting the A200 series is cannibalization of the A320. The comments about profitability are valid but are proportional to the numbers being produced. Mobile only started producing the A200 series in late 2020 and so is still ramping up (and in between we had the global Covid crisis). There still needs to be complete integration into the Airbus supply chain and back office production systems. We are talking about different PLM systems etc. Also look at how long it takes a new FAL to become mature enough to ramp up to profitable numbers - Boeing still have not managed to turn burger flippers into aircraft assembly technicians at the Charlston Dreamliner FAL. These things take time.
@@franziskani In the short term it is not yet a replacement for the A320 because it can only be produced at Mirabelle and Mobile. Both FALs are not at the production rates of Toulouse or Hamburg. It is a direct replacement for the A318/319 however, because these variants do not sell in numbers.
Nice looking plane, which generally means a good plane. Cockpit looks amazing. May be Boeing should get back to engineering planes, rather than only thinking of management. If Boeing had used the C Series to phase out the 737 then we wouldn't have had the MCAS disaster.
Hi Petter, greetings from Argentina. I already knew the story behind B-CSeries and Airbus, but not so thorough as you had explained. After a lot of mistakes by Boeing, I think the Executive staff should do a very deep and detailed analysis of their dessitions and some accordingly changes to emprove their business, otherwise their stacks will drop dramatically. Since you had adressed this topic, would you consider on doing an explanation on what happen with the Boeing-EmBraEr failed merge? I wish you, your family and friends the best to this year 2023. Cheers from NE Patagonia.
As a Canadian, I find this a fascinating look at the airline industry here and elsewhere. I'm glad you touched on Canada's F-35 fighter purchase. Of course, the rabbit hole goes much deeper than you are hinting at in this video.
Great presentation. Credit of course goes to the engineering, production team on the C series. A remarkable group of professionals who produced a world class product.
Please don’t say Canada build this plane. Not a single plane bought when it was a c-series. ZERO PLANES. 0. I REPEAT: NO C-SERIES WAS BOUGHT BY A CANADIAN COMPANY. ZERO. Can you imagine Brazil not buying Embraer or USA not buying Boeing? France and Germany not buying Airbus? Can you?
@@patrice5976 Actually I partly agree with you.I remember Kevin O'Leary badmouthing Bombardier on the news. It is a great plane, and all who worked on it should be proud.
Putting aircraft aside, this shows how much more classy Airbus is as a company with it"s decision making than Boeing which displays all the hallmarks of being typically American in it"s outlook.
How can boeing ever justifiably complain about national subsidies when its raining money for them by the US military no matter how the company performs?
Canadians squandered our opportunity to be an aviation world leader when we canceled the Avro Arrow back in the 50's. It took us all these decades to rebuild our industry to once again have a word beating aircraft. And now we again let this one slip though our fingers again, with the near collapse of bombardier, and the lose of all those high tech jobs! The profits are going over seas. As a retired Captain with Jazz, it makes me sad to think I will not get a chance to fly this aircraft. To sit and watch this video, and the lose to Canada talked about, it has me red hot with steam rushing out of my ears.
Honestly, boeing has survived the last few years solely because of lobbyists in the US government. If the gov wouldn't cut them so much slack all the time the company would have gone under so long ago
and the rest of the aviation industry would have collapsed with it , do uou know how vital Boeing is? Airbus jets are sold out , do you want to fly Chinese or Russian planes instead?
It would be a catastrophe for everyone, INCLUDING Airbus, if that happened. No government would tolerate a complete foreign monopoly of such a vital sector for long - you can bet Congress would pour many billions into Lockeheed, and the Chinese government would be doing the same for COMAC. Encouraged by the whole United Nations and even the EU too. Fun fact: In the early 1990s Microsoft rescued Apple from bankruptcy on exactly this calculation. Bill Gates knew he needed a competitor just strong enough to be seen to keep him honest but not so strong as to seriously threaten him. Though Jobs returned to Apple and it became rather stronger competition than Gates had wanted.
As an Airbus fan im very happy for A220 being from Airbus and because of that and because of a modern cockpit, modern cabin and many other things A220 is my favourite aircraft
@@KingOfTheSkies1 Airbus had no input on any engineering nor design, they just paid some bills. Also it's not 100% owned, the Quebec gouvernement also has a significant non controlling stake
@@crissto8591 key words being "non controlling" im saying who owns A220 and thats Airbus. If someone that doesnt know about Bombardier boards an A220 they would think its an Airbus which it is. And Airbus does assemble the plane in Alabama and without Airbus Bombardier basically wouldnt be able to sell planes in US cause of the 300% taxes US put on them after the Boeing case, so without Airbus Bombardier would have been screwed.
Bombardier also have a significant presence in Australia as they have manufacturing facilities all across the country and not only locally assemble military aircraft for the RAAF but they also are responsible for manufacturing the Vilocity DMU trains for Victoria’s regional passenger rail network! They are also responsible for manufacturing all of Melbourne’s trams from 2013 to the present and the E class trams in Melbourne were built by them while they will also be building the G class trams which are scheduled to enter passenger service in late 2023 or sometime in 2024! :)
What was Boeing doing right at that time? Nearly nothing. B787 construction issues, rushed 737Max development, KC-46 boondoggle. Basically Boeing was working hard on legal actions instead of building a good product.
One of the most debilitating diseases of large corporations is the temptation to make great profits instead of great products. If you've got a goose that lays golden eggs you must focus on production and quality, not carve off a wing and a leg your yourself and your stockholders. So many great businesses die from greed becoming the company ethos instead of continuous improvement.
@Mentour, Nice video - as usual. Small mistake though: today, Airbus only holds 75% of the C-series program. The government of Quebec still holds 25% until at least 2025. That is one of the reasons why the production of the A220 - 500 will not start until then. Fun fact: In the midst of the tariffs discussion, Bombardier sent Justin Trudeau in order to convince Trump to drop the 300% tariff. That is when a number of pictures appeared in the press with Melania smiling at the handsome guy, while Trump was fulminating. Needless to say that the charm offensive completely missed the target.
@@HugoAelbrecht That's more than just smiling at him... Donald looks so dejected I - for once - almost feel sorry for him. If it's legit, that's another photo to remember those crazy times by.
@@quillmaurer6563 It is legit! The picture was taken in between a kiss on each cheek, but remaining extremely close to each other during the “cheek transition”. Airbus is so grateful for this! That being said, the free plane for a symbolic Canadian dollar is a bit simplistic: for that symbolic Canadian dollar, they got a company which is currently still trying to recover its losses from the huge development cost overrun, combined with sales to a.o. Delta at manufacturing cost. Having said that, by 2028, development costs should be recovered and conservative airlines will all want to buy it: by then it will have a 20 years maintenance and safety record. That’s when Airbus will reap all the benefits. Unlike Boeing, Airbus will be able to position this modern airplane against the Chinese Comac 919. Boeing will have to position their 60 years old inferior B737 against it. Interesting times ahead!
It's worth saying how incredibly efficient the A220 is. It's almost 5% more fuel efficient than A321neo that is the second most efficient aircraft. Despite being only 5 seats wide, giving it a penalty of about 12% and also being generally smaller. The A220-500 will proboblt be even more efficient. And there is a 700 on the papers. Worth saying that the CS500/A220-500 have now been reworked 3 times, making it longer and shorter. (Depending on if they are going with a 700 or not) The 500 would at least be as large as the 737 max8, and the 700 probobly as large as the 9. Covering the part of the 737 series that really exist.
At the same time Airbus is developing a new carbon fiber wing for the 321 Neo, which will be larger in size with folding wingtips. This means they can use a further stretched 321 fuselage with the new wing to get an aircraft like the 757 above the standard midrange aircraft, and replace the former 318, the 319 neo and 320 neo in long term with the 220 in 3 or 4 sizes, without the need of starting an expensive clean sheet design. Boeing on the other hand would have to launch a program to replace the Max, and one to get an aircraft in the size of the former 757 to compete with the modernized and stretched 321 versions
One other note is that the Govt of Canada just finalized that deal today (Jan 9) to purchase 88 F-35A fighter jets. Final investment is about $19 billion with total program costs over the jets lives of $70 billion. Ouch to Boeing!
The other thing we must ask - what would have happened to the program under Boeing? Would they have done it right in manufacturing and future upgrades, or neglected it, used cheap unqualified workers, cut corners everywhere, and later made an "upgraded" version with serious design flaws, ultimately ruined it like they do everything else they touch these days? Honestly I think it's in better hands with Airbus. I could even imagine a barrier to Boeing's buying out the Cseries would be those involved with the program not wanting to work under Boeing, either threatening to quit or fearing they'll be laid off and replaced with cheaper workers, which could hinder or complicate the negotiations, especially with any relevant unions.
Sooooo... Boeing had to learn that if they play stupid games, they may at times win stupid prizes. Serves them right, and more companies should learn those lessons.
I see so many A220’s taking off and landing from the tiny runway on London city airport. They look almost as big as 737’s or A320’s which can’t (properly) use that airport. Shows why they are so popular
Boeing complaining about dumping and prices and such is just projection of their own corruption. Anyway, Boeing is so unimaginative today, they will be gone tomorrow.
The one and simple difference between Boeing and Airbus is: - The one's interest is fighting down others - The other's interest creating a global network of cooperation.
GOTT NYTT ÅR PETTER! And what a way to start the new year, with my favourite airplane! Hope your new year brings you happiness and success! Greetings, from a Swede in Norway :)
I build the A220/300 in Mobile. The program has a lot of kinks to work through. But it’s promising. The manufacturing processes over do it on quality side right now, but that’s the way young programs are. The tariffs are avoided because the Mobile FAL IS a foreign trade zone under the jurisdiction of the Canada’s aviation regulatory authority, Transport Canada.
I'm Canadian and you can bet my bottom loonie we were and still are pissed off at Boeing. I am delighted with their ongoing struggles and the CSeries affair just encapsulates why their commercial airplane program is in tatters. Totally incompetent management. Trust me, Canadians will not forget what Boeing did. Also lovely to see them eliminated from the fighter replacement program. (And I used to be a Boeing fanboy).
As a European, I am delighted about the collaboration between Bombardier and Airbus. A profitable deal for both. That Boeing faceplanted in the process is a thick layer of icing on top.
Boeing could have taken Bombardier under their wing and helped them sell the Bombardier before it became Airbus. Instead they chose to make it difficult for Bombardier to sell airplanes in the US. It came back to bite them hard. I wouldn't be surprised if a stretched A220 becomes just as popular as the 737.
Airbus has no worry the a220-500 will cannibalize their a320Neo. Airbus already got a lot of effort to complete the a320neo family massive backlog, the a220-500 will help airbus to keep the market share from boeing and make their customers get their aircraft deliver faster
Canadian goverbment never "invested" in the C-Series. The opposition parties from western Canada made sure the federeal money didn't go help a failing Québec company to bail it out. However at time of lauch, there was some tax inventives and some breaks given by the feredarl goverbnment but not muchj most came from Québec government (for instance the construction halls were built by the QC government and rented to Bombardier). Also of note: the C-Series was started prior to 9-11 with an Eye towards replacing the fast DC-9 and MD8x and MD95 fleets in USA, notably Northwest airlines what was to be launch customer. Then 9-11 happened. Unlike Boeing and Airbus, Bombardier refused to lower production of its CRJs and found itself not long after with unsold inventory and its solution was to force a strike as a means to stop production without admitting it had made a mistake in not lowering production. Not long after, Bombardier Aviation was near bankruptcy, Northwest had gone Chapter 11 (purchased by Delta and DC-9 sent to beer can recyling companies) United aso Chapter 11, purchased by Continental. So not only was Bobardeir out of cash, but its lauch customers were gone. The Beaudoin family (descendants or Armand Bombardier who controlled the company) purchased the recreational products division (skidoos etc) from Bombarier Inc as a means to inject cash into Bombardier Inc. ( recreational products not allowed to use the "Bombardier" trademark despite being owned by that family ! Now known as BRP and use various trademarks of purchased products since then (eg Evinrude for engines). By 2008, Bombardier was back in shape and had found customers to launch the C-Series. Note: the C-Series was always going to a be a mainline aircraft, and that was one big challenge for Bombardier who had not dealt witrh mainline airlines only with regional carriers, so needed to build relationships with the big guys. HOWEVER: Bombardier also launched 2 business jetc at same time, the LEarjet 85 and Global 7500 programmes. A small company which was first entering the big boys market against Boeing and Airbus was also straining its finances with 2 new business jets at the same time. Drain in cash resulted in stopped investment to improve productivity in its trasit division which started to be unable to deliver on time and with good quality control and it started to lose money and mroe important lose cistomers. (New York cuty told Bombardier Transportation very publicly to not bother bidding for any more contracts). From the time the C-series started to be late, especially after the engine explosion which delayed flight testuing for a long time, it ran out of cash and became desperate. So yes, it went to both Boeing and Airbus seeking investment from them, and both refused. Think of it: if a competition is faltering, you don't helo it, you let it falter and then compete tro get the leftovers during bankruptcy. Bobardier cancelled the Lear-85 , losing billions already spent. But that was still not enough. It was "this close" to starting deliveries, but also "this close" to having to invoke bankruptcy protection. The Federal government refused to help, but brokered a deal where Air Canada would buy C-Series it hadn't panned on purchasing with Bombardier agreeing to maintain them in Winnipeg. Air Canada was in court for violating its charter which required it to maintain maintenance base in Manitoba (from when AC was privatized) and this deal would allow AC to settle the court case favourably. That was the extent of help by federal government. The Boeing trade dispute arrived about that time. Instead of seeing it as a trade dispute, you need to see it as Boeing trying to speed up Bombardier's inevitable bankruptcy. BBD had alreayd begin to sell off assets such as older deHavilland aircraft and the Canadiar water bombers to Viking Air (now deHavilland Canada). The provincial government was far more involved. Bombardier split off the C-series into a new company (CSALP) (C-Series Aircraft Limited Partnership) and the Québec government invested a few billions in equity, onwing about 40% of CSALP, with BBD ereducing its share down to 60%. The QC governmemt saw that this wasn't enough. The predicted death of Bomabrdeir is what prevented more sales. This wasn't about cancellations becayuse there weren't that many orders, it was about all the potential sales that weren't materializing because everyone saw Bombardier was headed for bankruptcy. So the QC government is the one who negotiated with Airbus to gift it 50% of the programme for free so that the aircrafdt would get some long term credibility and not be cause in the fear of Bombardier's bankruptcy. At the same time, the Caisse de Dépôt du Qubec (provincial pension plan, a potent investor) decided to bail out Bombardier Transportation. So Bombardier Inc split off Transportation into separate company and CDPQ injected new capital in it and got 30% onwership, but with a caveta: the money losing company had to providded garanteed dividends to CDPQ. (recipe that CDPQ knew not to be sustainable). At the same time, CDPQ negotiated with Alstom to buy Bpmbardier Transportation and CDPQ comverted its investment in bankrupt Bombardier Transportation into 18% stake ionto Asltom. Bombardier had no choice but to accept because it could not affor to pay those garanteed dividends, nor did it have any cash to buy the CDPQ shares back so it could stop paying dividends. The rest of the liquidation followed, the last remaining deHavilland product , the Dash-8 was sold to what is now deHavilland Canada, the downsview plant where it was built was sold to a condo developper, the CRJ IP and maintenance contracts sole to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and its aero structures business (including the former Shorts Bro plant in Belfast) sold to Spirit. All those sales excluded the debt incurred prior to the sale which stayed with Bombardier Inc. Back to C-Series: when came time to start increasing production, Bombardier whose share was donw to 30% and QC govt down to 20% (airbus got 50%) could not invest to industrialize production, so used clause in contract to sell its stake. At that point, Airbus dish out a bit of cash to buy 25% of project, with the Québec government buying rest to increase its share to 25%. The deal with Airbus required the C-series to continue to be built in montreal for all customerd except those in USA. But that wasn't enough and last year, the still money losing C-Series required more investment and after long delay, the Québecgovernment agreed to invest its share to increase production at Mirabel in order to keep its 25% stake. The hope is that when/if the C-Series becomes profitrable, the cojbination of dividends and hoped-for doubling of share value will allow the QC government to get back its original investment. So as of today, Airbus does not own the C-Series/A220 It has 75% of CSALP which owns the aircraft. At the time that Boeing was approached, it was by Bombardier who wasn't willing to give up 50% of its baby for free. (and same for Airbus during initial attempst). It was only when the QC government stepped in to save the project from very near bankruptcy that it made the "on sale, 50% iff for limite etime only" to Airbus (not sure Boeing was even willing to talk because it was deep into the trade dispute at the time). The irony: What is left of Bombardier today is just the business jet division, with small offices at airport ist new headquarters, and the Global 7500, the very plane that killed the company its ownly ew remaining prodct (it also has the Challenger jet, (upon which the CRJ was built)). And it also has almost all the debt incurred for launching Lear 85, Global 7500, C-Series and all the losses at its transportation division. So far they hacve been able to make monthly payments from sales of its business jets. So to recap: The QC governmnent invested a few billion for 40% of project. Value halved when 50% gifted to Airbus. Airbus then paid only a few hundreds million for 25% of devalued shares from Bombardier (QC govt bought 5%). So for a few hundred million, Airbus got 75% of a nearly finished jet that just needed enough investment to increase production. Bombardier shareholders (me) saw 0 cent from all those liquidations since the money went to debt holders and we were left with $1 shares of a company with 1 new business jet and 1 old business jet and a lot of debt. No future. It should be noted that Alstom has had problems with Bombardier due to years of neglect in production facilities since all the money was going to C-Series/Lear-85 and Global 7500, so it having to still invest much to update production facilities to complete old orders that Bombardier Transportation was very late on (and thus saddled with a lot of late penalties and not profitable). Had Boeing gotten the C-Series, it would in fact have been a perfect fit: Up to 130 pax on C-Series, and then create the NMA to replaced larger 737 and include the long range 757. The NMA is always going to be a replacement for the 737 which is at the end of the road, especiually not that it needs bona-fide certification regime for new variants. Had Boeing decided on repkacemen for 737 instead of the MAX (what Airbus feared the most), then the C-Series might not have been a fit at all in its prodyct portfolio). One should not forget that Boeing, i perhaps in response to Airbus getting C-Series, annouced it would buy the Embraer commercial aviation products. (fell through due to COVID). I think the big impact from Boeing taking the C-Series to trade court is that when the time came for Québec to work to find a saviour, it turned to Airbus since Boeing was hostile. . But by then, the deal involved only the C-Series in a separate company whereas Boeing was getting the full Embraer commercial product protfolio.
Ah, yes, Boeing making a trade complaint against the C-Series. So, if you can’t compete you file a vexatious trade complaint instead. And who can forget when Boeing lost the USAF air-to-air refueling contract to Airbus (B767 vs A330) that Boeing had the Request for Proposals changed to favour the B767. To paraphrase a popular expression “If you can’t beat them, sue them”.
Boeing made nothing but mistakes when it came to the C-Series. Had they left it alone, it probably would have been less successful than it is today and Bombardier might have struggled with it. I'm very curious to see where Boeing will be in 20 years.
Yep, the C-Series now has Airbus’s logistics and maintenance infrastructure behind it and can be lumped into other Airbus deals- Boeing seriously shot themselves in the foot with this one.
Indeed. Bombardier on its own would never ever had the possibility of distribution of this Aircraft Model which Airbus has. It´s very obvious when you compare how much orders the C-Series had and how much orders the A 220 has now.
Now that Boeing has stated that a new NMA aircraft is indefinitely delayed due to the lack of appropriately efficient engine technology that meets CO2, NOx and possibly condensation trail regulatory requirements, it will be interesting to see this self-inflicted mess play out. Good Luck Boeing
Great video, happy to see you make this as I suggested it a month ago or so. It still boils down to Boeing completely screwing over Bombardier, the program sold for a dollar. Glad to see it backfired on Boeing too.
one thing i struggle to understand about Boeing and please correct me if I am wrong (i will admit i haven't watched the whole video whilst writing this comment), Boeing claimed Bombardier sold the planes to Delta at a huge discount, isn't that something Boeing does to its customers (though probably not as big a discount)
Selling a product at a discount Vs selling a product at a loss are two different things. In the case of bombardier, they were selling the c-series at lost to delta, hoping it would increase demand for the aircraft. Countries have laws to protect domestic producers from imports selling under market value (Anti-dumping)
Dumping usually includes a foreign sourcing component as a way of propping up a foreign entity. For Airbus, that was one of the driving factors behind the Alabama factory.
Airline manufacturers have always sold all-new models to their launch customer/s at a big loss to establish initial market share. Boeing certainly have. It's the only way to get airlines to be launch customers - in return for bearing a big risk (the new model may turn out a dud - many have been) they get cheap planes.
You stopped watching 10 seconds short. Mentour explained it in his next sentence. 4:40 4:51 I have never understood why people stop watching a video in the middle and then start making comments.
Boeings management over the last decade have really let the side down. When I say side, I mean the entire industry. Airbus are in a duopoly with bad competition right now which doesn’t incentivise them to be particularly innovative either. Feels like the industry is pretty stagnant at the moment.
This is an important point. Love them or hate them, the duopoly is all that stands between an unsustainable international monopoly of airliners, with consequent complete stagnation of the industry (not to mention a vigorous response by some governments). In the long run each needs the other to succeed - an insight that Bill Gates had when he financially rescued Apple in the 1990s. Airbus is currently riding high, but they should be trying to make sure they beat, but NEVER destroy, the competition. They could end up regretting that the Boeing-Embraer deal fell through.
The formula is always the same: an American company trying to overtake a European company when trying to compete of world market. The same has happened time and again. With Saab cars + aeroplanes (when GM just bought a part of Saab that didn't make profit), UPM that resulted Finland dominating all of America's paper product production, Nokia were Nokia basically dumped unprofitable part to Microsoft and made a huge profit - and now Airbus. There must be a great business study here.
Get 25% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/mentournow.
Boeing is a horrible company, they out sourced engineers that resulted in the MAX TCAS issues killing hundreds, they tried to bribe the FAA, they promoted an incompetent executive management with huge bonuses, and they looked at Trump for help ... yes, they thought someone who is a Traitor to the US with failed business dealings in just about everything (aka Trump) would help them. Boeing is not the company it used to be prior to 2000. They used Trump tax breaks to increase their funding of out sourced engineers/work and did NOT hire within the US for fully qualified engineers.
Boeing: "Well, let's just shoot our other foot!"
Public: "Umm, you're running out of feet."
Bombardier actually had a negative public reception in Canada before the Boeing complaint. Aside from the delays in the CSeries, they were way behind schedule on some transit projects, to the point where future ones were not awarded to them. However, the public opinion changed after the Boeing complaint because it felt like another big American company trying to kill another Canadian company.
That's very interesting to know, thanks for sharing
Yes. The Canadian government bailed out Bombardier with public money a few times and the Canadian public was getting tired of it due to mismanagement of the company. We Canadians have a love-hate relationship with our southern neighbour. We take it personally when the US tries to bully us. The Airbus deal was the logical conclusion.
"another big American company trying to kill another Canadian company." I guess a number of Canadians still remembering Avro and what it could have become.
Remember when they made crjs
@UCm9vFiyoGGrX67M8-vWuDng The decision for government to whether prop up a failing entity is entirely political. Let's say Amazon is floundering, I'm pretty sure the government will hand over truckloads of money to save it because it is easier than to face the wrath of the voters on all the job loses. That was the case with Bombardier. If your financial ruin has enough political or economic impact, I'll bet the government will come to save you too.
737 used to be my favorite aircraft but I was blown away by how comfortable the A220-200 was. The Glass Cockpit and Cockpit Ergonomics would have to be a pilots dream come true.
It's absolutely beautiful. I consider it the 787 of the small aircraft market.
@@corystansbury 787 isn't that good
I remember watching an airBaltic delivery flight from Mirabel TH-cam video a year or so back. The airBaltic pilots in the video seemed thrilled to bits with the plane.
I took an A350 and the 787, in the A350 it felt like 2050, the 787 was very good. Nothing beats the A380 in terms of comfort but that will soon be a nostalgic thing
Only complaint I have about the a220 is the autopilot disconnect sound. It is the most jarring warning I've ever heard
The more I learn about modern Boeing the more I realize their biggest enemy is Boeing themselves. It's really shocking how poor decision making crippled the company seemingly at every chance.
I hope the company can return to its former glory in the near future.
I completely agree, well said!
Hope you too.
It used to be an engineering company.
Agree with you. But to achieve that that would need to get back to their former Boeing mentality and throw the McDonnell Douglas Spirit finally out of the window.
But since they decided to move their HQ to Arlington, Virginia (just to lobby even more in Washington, D.C ) instead of developing great airplanes, that won't happen.
They are doing the exact same mistake again by not developing the NMA aka 797 or 757 replacement.
According to Boeing it would be 'just a niche of a niche of a niche of a market' and not worth the money of developing it.
Well, Airbus didn't think so and redeveloped the A21 into the A321XLR.
According to Boeing a Niche of a niche of a niche airplane.
Well, Airbus already recieved 450 orders for that 'niche' aircraft.
Congratulations Boeing, you were wrong as usual.
It's unbelievable how a company can make so many blunders one after another.
But knowing that it's not Boeing anymore but McDonnell Douglas with Boeing's name, it's exactly what you would expect from them.
MDD did the exact same thing in the past.
Milking the old DC-9 and DC-10 designs until it was so outdated that nobody bought any planes from them anymore and not investing in any new designs.
So there you have your answer.
Not as long as the folks formerly from McDonnell Douglas are calling the shots. Too bad, Boeing used to be a legend
@@MrGoesBoom Boeing is MD with a different name
Boeing's entire concept was to bring about the death of the c series. The airbus a220 is one of the most beautiful and highly capable performance orientated aircraft. There is way more potential in the aircraft than meets the eye. Anyone having the opportunity to fly this aircraft will immediately fall in love with all of its dynamics
Bombardier costs Canada more than it is worth it is a massive drain on Canadian taxpayers for as long as I've lived here.
The Canadian deep state killed Bombardier because they came up with the best plane platform on earth. And the narrative is that Quebec is an uneducated backwater and can’t put a foot in front of the other without big brother Canada holding its hand. They couldn’t not allow this marvellous program to flourish as it skews their political agenda…
I have been flying the A220 with Swiss in 2020 (just before the pandemic), from London City Airport (with a fairly short runway) to Zurich, and it was fabulous. Since then I've been actively seeking flights with that aircraft, and every time it has been quite an experience.
What isn't mentioned in the video is that at the time of the Bombardier sale to Delta, the Canadian government has decided to accept the political heat and not go to an open competition to replace the RCAF fighter jets. Instead, the government was willing to sole source Boeing F-18 Super Hornets. Canadian government officials were in Washington to finalize the billion dollar deal when news of the Boeing trade action against Bombardier broke. Causing the Canadians to walk away from the negotiations. Apparently, the Boeing negotiators on the military side had been given no warning that the commercial side was going to take this action against the Canadian government. Also, one of the very expensive delays for Bombardier while developing the jet was the failure of the American based engine manufacturer to deliver a reliable engine in the time frame contracted. The result being that the program had to sit and burn through cash while waiting for the promised engines.
Talk about lack of internal communication within Boeing. They really did mess things up!
P&W did indeed take their time getting the GTF right, and Airbus had some initial issues with the variant for the A320 too.
Some of the problems appeared to be close to "school boy" errors - e.g. differential cooling / heating of parts of the engine causing problems at start up after a short turnaround (the differential temperatures caused the engine shape / clearances / fit to be out of wack, until all of it had all cooled down).
It was these kinds of issues that were well known about by previous generations of design engineers, but (the company having not designed an engine for a very long time) had been forgotten about by a new generation. It was a problem well understood even by designers of steam turbines (so it's, what, >100 year old knowledge?)
Constant development, regardless of actual economic need, is the only way of keeping team knowledge together and becoming reliable in delivery.
But in the end, P&W's GTF has come good. It's kind of a miracle that the C Series got certified and into service, and a good thing too - it's a very good design!
I don't vote Liberal, but I fully respect chrystia freeland. Strong backbone on that one.
Not only that, but initially, the F-35 was not politically favourable for the Liberal government, as one of their campaign promises had been to cancel the previous Conservative government's sole-source F-35 contract and hold a fly-off instead.
The fly-off never happened and Eurofighter and Dassault both pulled out of the competition. The industrial offsets were reportedly one sticking point, but the big one was a non-negotiable degree of technology transfer, including of proprietary systems, to both Canada and the US due to NORAD.
That meant that realistically it was Super Hornet vs. F-35 and F-35 had the stigma of being the project cancelled by the government. Of course, thanks to Boeing's bone-headed decisions, F-35 was back on the table, and Super Hornet was off... leading right back to a sole-source contract for Lockheed!
@@chanman819 hey don't forget the Gripian also stayed around! Seriously tho the F35 was always the better option and shocker after a certain conflict in eastern Europe now everyone wants F35s.
Wow! I didn't know this! Although I followed this very closely, I was _not_ aware of the FA-18 deal they were working on.
I do love how Bombardier made a huge F-U to Boeing by practically giving the plane away to Airbus.
As a Boeing stock owner and receiving a Boeing pension, I totally agree with your thoughts on the subject. It is outrageous the stupid decisions made there. I sincerely hope that the Boeing people responsible for this debacle no longer working there and fired. I can imagine the outrage of Canada, our best neighbor to the north and remembering this kick in the teeth to them, and many others.
Dennis Muilenburg left obviously a really difficult heritage behind him. Probably he was the worst CEO in the history of Boeing.
@@NicolaW72 with $60M at least.
@@yummysatay Sixty million dollar golden handshake?!!
J Cos
I am not a financial advisor, but find one and diversify
@@michaelrmurphy2734 Yes.
It is ironic that the A220 has a higher US sourced content than the B787 does.
Only partially ironic as that is by purposeful design on Boeing’s part to sell the 787 in export markets. If the “797” had happened similar issues for export sales would have happened. With the Airbus takeover that nicely removed that content issue by redistributing some of the parts chain.
It is kinda funny, because yesterday I was reading comments on CNC machinist channel about large military contractor in US moving its supply chain to China and small public contractors being essentially forced to go find customers on EU market
@@brylozketrzyn Anything to enhance shareholder equity. It reminds me of when Obama asked Steve Jobs why we can’t make things in US and Jobs responded with “THOSE JOBS ARE GONE FOREVER”! Upshot, Apple is richest company in the world and young people in the US see no economic advantage to becoming CNC operators, no less a “tool and die maker”!
@@Mentaculus42 and then we end up with US and European designs in iranian drones.
@@brylozketrzyn Yes, but the Chinese got the information and designs first, and some of that was with Airbus establishing production of their aircraft in CHINA. Nothing like going out of your way to teach your future enemy and finance their technological development!
Having followed Boeing's unsubtle attempt to strangle the C series, which looked quite possible at one point, I nearly wet myself laughing when Airbus announced its deal with Bombardier. To me, it was yet another sign that the juggernaut that Boeing had become was so fat and complacent that it was incapable of conceiving the risk.
Was any Boeing executive fired?
@@kijana2030 Or, more preciselly, was any McDonell Douglas executive that took over the destiny of Boeing, fired? This should have happened long ago or the control over Boeing never taken place at first hand.
Yeah, might be the same sort of thinking that made the 737-Max such a roaring PR success for the company!
Capitalist corporate bureaucracy.
Fully agreed. There must be some problem with Boeing's top Management. Words like dignity and humility come to mind, with both missing.
The goal seems to have been killing the C Series program to eliminate any possible threat to the cash cow 737. The idea of Airbus swooping in and “saving” the C Series was probably never considered to be a realistic option, given the high unit costs of the airplane and the heavily North American supply chain. As a result, the potential for providing a new design paradigm which could have provided a comfortable pathway forward from the 737 (as you pointed out) was lost. Airbus managed to benefit from Boeing’s hubris. There’s a lot of that going around lately…. =/
Boeing had a slam dunk in selling Canada the Super Hornet - it was a natural evolution from the CF-18 hornets we currently operate, and we had already decided not to get the F-35. Leave it to Boeing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Hahaha 😂 mate, only Boeing can do that 🤣
Canada may regret the F-35 though. It is a maintenance nightmare.
@@shrimpflea The F-35A actually requires significantly less maintenance (as far as cost per flight hour is concerned) than our existing CF-18 Hornets, due to their age. They're all 35-40 year old airframes.
I was a big proponent of getting the Super Hornet. Now I won't even book a flight on a Boeing aircraft. I expect more catastrophic decisions from Boeing in the future - 787 will bring them down.
I saw a news recently that canada is going to procure 88 f-35s.
Performing maintenance on the A220 is so different. I love the aircraft. Troubleshooting is very easy.
I have a friend who worked with military air procurement for many years and Boeing has lost a lot of respect in those circles in recent years. The finance and bean counters appear to be running the show there instead of the engineers and product people.
You've only got to see how its recent space business has been going, suffering the same malady of Wall St types running it instead of the engineers. Look at Starliner - contracted with NASA to launch in 2017 and still not launched. Meanwhile SpaceX built Crew Dragon in under half the time and budget and is operating it routinely.
Very good overview of the CSeries program. The potential Embraer merger with Boeing certainly helped the Bombardier-Airbus partnership. Under Airbus, we can now expect thousands of this superb airplane, instead of hundreds or even outright program failure... Development, certification, production and entry-into-service have been quite interesting and fun, for my coworkers and myself! Thanks for the video, keep up the great work!
I wonder how long it will be before Ryanair and Southwest seriously consider adding another airplane type to start moving away from the Boeing 737 series. That would be a huge problem for Boeing.
Ryanair does have A320 family aircraft in their Lauda subsidiary.
Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s Group CEO has repeatedly said they’d buy Airbus aircraft if Airbus would lower their price.
In the most recent version, O’Leary has said Airbus would have to lower their price by 30% for Ryanair to consider a future order.
Personally I love flying on Boeing. They feel different than airbus. They feel like a jet. But airbus are more comfortable. Makes me feel I’m in a bus. Lol
@@Chris-Pringle I'd venture that if I blindfolded you, put you on a plane, and let you fly on it, you won't be able to tell if it was a Boeing or an Airbus.
With 400+ future planes on order, it will be a long time, at a minimum, for Southwest
Southwest has a unique business model and the 737 serves them very well. No need for them to "move away from it". With the updated engines with better efficiency and greater range I think they can go another twenty years with the 737 as long as it meets their needs. Eventually a new plane will come along that will make it worth changing their strategy, but that hasn't happened yet.
You neglected to mention how Boeing later screwed Embraer with its promised acquisition after Airbus took control of the Bombardier C-Series.
The Airbus A220 is now built in Montreal at a plant located in the Mirabel airport.
Boeing also spent tons of money in Canada trying to make amends after the fiasco, but to no avail. Let's hope Boeing has now learned its lesson.
What? Embraer allowing Boeing to acquire its shares? Nonsense!
@@herbertcourtesie2459
no what! boeing were going to acquire them. suppose you are a nationalistic brasilian?
chaning history to suit nationalistic ideas?
@@ursodermatt8809Boeing would ruin Embraer 😂
@@ursodermatt8809 Nor nationalistic, nor Brasilian! Only opposed to people writing nonsense. A failed Boeing supporter idea.
@@herbertcourtesie2459
then you must be talking about yourself in the first place.
Whilst the A220 might cost A319 and 320 sales in the short-term it will probably more than pay off long-term with the development potential the 220 has. I'm curious to see what the future brings both in regards to Airbus and Bombardier
plus airbus has a HUGE a320 backlog so they can market the a220 as a now option while people wait for their a320s
@@chromebomb Indeed, exactly.
Well, the future for Bombardier is pretty grim. They had to sell essentially the whole company because of the hole the C-series dug.
The technology of leight weight materials is also interesting for the future.
@@24HoLTeam93 Yes - with the Delta Deal in time maybe they would have been able to "hold the nose upon water" - but so, no chance. The Businessjet-Production is practically the single issue what remained from Bombardier.
Boeing has been its own worst enemy lately
lately?
McDonnell Douglas brought Boeing using Boeing’s money. So it is the ghost of MDC Boeing’s biggest enemy.
In my own opinion, Boeing has sat back on it's laurels for too many years. The company threw it's dummy out of the cot. For too many years, Boeing has been shortsighted.
They thought that payback would be to get involved with Embraer after the Delta deal. And how right 'royally shafted' those poor guys became when Boeing dumped them. It was like being proposed to and then jilted at the altar.
I am so happy the C-Series/A220 became the success it's turning out to be, thanks to the skills of every designer, engineer and Canadian that put their heart and soul into this Bombardier project. Long may it succeed.
All kudos though to Airbus for spotting a gem and taking it to the world. The sad part of the story, is if Bombardier had just pushed on that little bit longer, maybe it would have been a success in it's own right without either of the duopoly.
At some point, Boeing has to realise, for all the magnificent machines it builds, it cannot think it's a company that dictates anymore.
We've all seen what happens to dictators!
The C Series is a well designed Aircraf, it took Airbus marketing to sell it to the world , pilots and passengers who fly it are happy with the experience- flying it and quietness and spacious feeling inside.The geared Turbofan by P&W is a good engine after some development.
To be honest I think that they needed Airbus help with mass production, as well as cost reducing manufacturing techniques (from memory)
I work on the military side of Boeing and aren’t commenting with insider information. My opinion is that we’ve lost the love of the products. I’ve had this conversation with many executives. I’ve said, “who’s our Elon”? In other words someone that loves innovation and customers. Once our competitors uses the next step function in technology in the 737 market, the end has begun. It’ll take 20 years, but Boeing is not a leader, just a cost cutter. Selling the same 50 year old design with lipstick applied.
@@jamesdellaneve9005 It's such a shame to hear those words from someone that works with Boeing. As you say, to lose the passion for what you're producing and build it to a price is indeed a sad state of affairs.
I don't know how true this is, but I hear the rot started when MD management took over?
Without one of the duopoly behind it there is just no way the C-Series would have been anywhere near the success it is - it may have turned a useful profit but it would never be the Embraer-killer it is. Its basically about massive marketing muscle, plus an awful lot of capital and mass manufacturing expertise on tap.
Sounds like Boeing has severely underestimated their competition. They thought of themselves as the big man on campus with no competition from the underdogs. Well, the underdogs are proving themselves.
Boeing has gone from a formidable competitor, where it was almost impossible to compete with Boeing and companies who have tried to compete with Boeing have gone bankrupt, to a crying girl to a competitor who should be watched but whose competition shouldn't have sleepless nights over a launch over a new aircraft program.
Boeing middle market aircraft I’d only running on brand name not quality or performance. Both A220 and A320 out perform the 737. Many of the newer ULCC that are using Boeing are only getting them because of large order discounts and delivery time years quicker than what they can get from the A320
Everything has gone wrong for them. Every day a living nightmare because they would not accept Jesus christ as their personal savior.
I would called it oversight really. Let's be honest, even I bet you also think this aircraft is just regional jet and shouldn't be on level of A320 and 737 anyway
Until people realize Canada is bigger than European yet far more sparse. Basically turning this aircraft to 737/A320 level of spec
They _didn’t_ think. They are run by buffoons going through the motions. They don’t care about the business. It is too big. They lazy, just sit back and collect their money.
The A-220 or CS-100/300 is a real step forward for single aisle aircraft. The layout in the Galleys ,Cabin and Lavatories are very new and welcomed by Carriers. The Fuel efficient Engines and Pilot designed Cockpits make it not only preferred but a runaway Winner in its category.
Yes I am a proud Canadian or loves the Bombardier product. Perfects you can confirm this point. The door sill just inside door one, still says CS-300 as a tribute to its heritage.
I love your videos.
The A220-300 is the most comfortable smaller jet I've been on, flew Air Baltic OSL-BUD couple yers ago.
Regarding the supply chain. One way to look at it is that it will be a struggle for Airbus (because it will). But another is that it is giving Airbus serious inroads with traditional Boeing supplies. This, in turn, might give Airbus more of a say in product development for companies that traditionally only really answered to Boeing. And that could place some interesting, and perhaps serious, constraints on future Boeing designs.
I think Airbus is playing some serious 5D chess here.
Most aircraft already have global supply chains and the use of American made avionics, landing gear, engines etc has never caused Airbus issues in the past. Airbus is as big as Boeing in the commercial aircraft sector so has similar buying capability and already has a A320 FAL in Mobile which in order to meet US requirements for parts of origin has substantial US supply lines. I don't think this is the limiting factor here. The key limiting factor is the way that Boeing has been managed since it moved from Main Street to Wall Street.
@@PAC-fp9hy I take you didn’t watch the video or, if you did, you assume I wasn’t paying attention at all and, in addition, disagree with the conclusions of the video?
Further, you’re focusing on the wrong part of the argument (probably my fault for writing it wrong), the main thing I was trying to put forward is that this would give Airbus further inroads with more of Boeings partners (if what Mentour said is true). Those manufacturers will probably look into homologation wherever they can to keep costs down. Homologation has it’s advantages in regards to diversifying a supply chain, but it also means you need to build towards that line of products rather than being able to expect that the vendor will bend over backwards to work with your technical requirements because they have no other major customers.
Lastly, I never said this was Boeings only problem. It’s just another possible bullet point on a very very long list.
@@GhostOfLorelei Airbus already has partnerships with many of Boeing's partners. PW, Engine Alliance, RR, Moog, Thales, Honeywell etc etc. They are not just Boeing partners. This deal is unlikely to have given Airbus any significant supply chains that it didn't have already. And even if it did, the components would be only be suitable for the A200 such as the airframe and composites. The whole argument for taking on a loss making project was to be able to use existing Airbus supply chains and buying power to make the A200 profitable, so that would imply that AIrbus already had contracts withe the main suppliers. The question of homologation is very complex because each component has to pass FAA and EASA requirements for the DOA, POA and MOA in respect of the aircraft type it is fitted to. That is always a lot work as Boeing know only too well when it cut corners on the Max. Mentour is a Boeing pilot, and he does not work for Airbus, so it is probably speculation on his part.
I just flew a brand new Air France A220 between Paris and Barcelona last week. Beautiful aircraft.
Dennis Muilenburg made a lot of mistakes during his time as Boeing CEO and this is one of them but not the worst. (We all know what that was.) Serves Boeing right that they lost out on purchasing the C-Series program for suing Bombardier because they were worried that this would be unfair competition to the MAX 7 and 6 years later, the MAX 7 has entered service yet!
He left indeed a very difficult heritage for Boeing behind him. Probably the worst CEO in the History of Boeing.
Dont forget the disastrously embarrassing failure of the Boeing Starliner program
I don't know what that was
@@Funnypants Faulty MCAS on the 737 MAX
@@heidirabenau511 thank you
You are indeed correct by saying that the A220 is an awesome aircraft. I had a rough idea of the history of the aircraft, but it was interesting to hear it in a little more detail and with your personal take. Thanks for sharing.
As a Canadian, I was so proud of the C-series and what Bombardier was able to accomplish. Even though Bombardier has not had great PR in Canada because of issues with it's public transit programs, it's still a Canadian company and the only major aviation company. When the Boeing complaint happened, it also carried with it the bad taste of the Trump admin and some of the other trade disagreements we'd had with them.
I'm happy that the A220 is flourishing because it's still a point of pride as a Canadian aviation enthusiast. It's still the original design and build and it only has new owners.
I also can't help but feel some schadenfreude that the plane is causing issues for Boeing, still.
Not great PR. It’s true. Called corporate welfare bums by Anglo Canadians and their media especially the globe and mail. Even though Bbd paid back every penny they ever got from Ottawa plus hundreds of millions in taxes.
That project was badmouthed from the start by people outside Quebec. They just hate anything doing well in that province
Recently our local national carrier (Croatia Airlines, OU) swapped their A320 neo options they were sitting on for years to A220 (with plans to have an all-A220 fleet at the end). Besides the plane being pretty "right-sized" for OU it seems that Airbus was willing to work this swap out as it needs all A321neo production slots it can get as that is where their biggest backlog x value currently stands. So by shifting some of the "smaller" airlines to A220 (Air Baltic being a showcase) pipeline, Airbus can churn out A320/321 neos for big/major orders and operators (getting them planes earlier than previously possible, to prevent them from considering 737MAX).
Just curious, how will OU finance those planes?
This is exactly the reason Airbus is considering the A220-500. Yes it will compete with the A320neo sales, but they cannot make enough of the A320 family planes anyway and people are choosing Boeing because of the lower wait times.
And on this way Airbus avoided that Croatia Airlines switched to the E2-Jets from Embraer. Air Baltic was most probably the model for this decision.
Yea that's a possibility but not the current reality, you still have to wait longer to get the a320neo/321neo , compared to the MAX .
The a220 can only be a substitute for the MAX 7 /a319 , so Boeing still has a few more years to take advantage of airbus's limited /constrained production and huge backlog .
Not to mention that the a220 is currently having some supply chain issues of its own , so ramping up production won't be an easy task
Boeing will rack up hundreds of orders for the 737MAX before Airbus manages to increase and stabilize its production rates .
@@ProT3ch the 737MAX 8 seats around 212 in MAXm configuration, a potential a220-500 won't seat more than 180.
The a220-500 will have lower profit margins than the a320neo for its first few years , and will definitely hurt 320 sales . Probably the reason Airbus is still in some kind of a dilemma with this .
An a220-500 could take 2-4 years , lots of time for Boeing to continue to snatch hundreds of orders , due to a320neo/321neo production slot constraints.
The fact that the C Series has the same range and seating capacity as the MD80 (and similar seating configuration) has been interesting, and could have made an acquisition an easy low cost win for Boeing. (Bullying instead didn't yield advantages; perhaps it should have been seen as a sign of the rot of the company.)
@zakaria azzaim Patreon
And it's interesting that Delta has not restored a good many of their MD-80 routes which they canx during COVID. I would have thought that the C-series would have allowed them to restore the routes.
It was the MD strain in the company. Boeing has many great people and characteristics as well as some not so great people usually in upper management who are from the MD strain of the company. MD were famous for arrogance and a slick attitude in the C-Suite.
@@The_ZeroLine MD killed Boeing
@@The_ZeroLine Greed and arrogance are what bring down most large organizations, and in this case of damage done to the American industrial base, tragically so. Elon?
These events also likely cost Boeing the sale of nearly 100 Super hornets as well.
What's crazy is that's a very easy connection to make. Weird that nobody at Boeing thought about that.
No, the US was going to make sure that Canada was going to buy the F-35 no matter what. Netherlands was going to purchase a different fighter and diplomatic pressure came in from the US to change their minds. Interestingly Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) was negotiating price, delivery schedule, and economic benefits to Canada during fall of 2022 even though the choice of plane was announced in the spring of 2022. The president of Saab Canada (Saab submitted a bid for the Gripen) is upset because all of those items were supposed to be finalized in the competitors bid. So why is PSPC having to negotiate these things now?
We would have been better served with the Gripen. It will soon have the electronic capabilities that the F-35 will soon have and is able to carry more. We don't need stealth fighters. We also don't need to lose our sovereignty with the F-35. They are constantly sending back data to the manufacturer (and the US government) about what the plane is doing and where the plane is going. It's in the name of preventative maintenance but do we have to tell the US government where our fighters are every second. Also, all major maintenance is done in factories, not on base. This includes engine changes. This is bloody useless in a battle. How do your tech people fix your planes in combat if they can't do it in peacetime? Oh, that's right, their stealth planes, they won't get damaged in battle! /s
If it's anything like the contract Phase 2 of the LRT in Ottawa then they're probably adding the cost of wheels and wings. (The contract for the Phase 2 of the LRT in Ottawa was handled terribly. It twice failed the technical requirements but was allowed to continue. It won because it was much less expensive. Of course it may be so cheap when it's missing a ton of the requirements! Is it going to be so cheap when all of the requirements that are missing get added back on as extras? The bonus part was when the city council went to vote on the contract the mayor knew about this but wouldn't let the rest of the council know. Sorry for straying off topic but the LRT in Ottawa is a massive tragedy that more people need to know about.)
@@capitalinventor4823 It might be true that Canada was going to pick the F-35, but the dispute did lead to the cancellation of the small number of Super Hornets prior to choosing a full replacement for the Canadian legacy Hornets. If Canada already had a few Super Hornets, Boeing would have had a better chance at winning the competition.
Alresdy mentioned in the video 14:21
@@mediocreman2 Well the Super Hornets are kind of yesterdays jets ,F35 might cost way more,at least they are next generation, and Stealth features and some can even go VTOL,
Very interesting... As a Canadian I'm glad the plane has survived too. I'm looking forward to fly on it myself soon.
The backstory of this aircraft is very interesting... I've actually flown on the Airbus A220-300 with Air Canada from Toronto to Edmonton, and it was amazing! Very comfortable, even for a 4-hour flight. The 2-3 configuration really helps, and the economy seats are among the widest in the fleet.
Goes to show, that in the long run (as it does so often) it just doesn't pay off to make the own product more and more cost effective (-> sh*tty) and then trying to compete by dragging others down. Positivity is where it's at, not only, but also in running a company. It defines the way you look at the world...
So proud to see a small clip from our new A321 taking off from Hamburg! (I work at JetSmart as a Maintenance Operations Executive) 17:25 Great content as always Mr Mentour.
You have to feel good bombardier, they spent a bunch of money to develop a great jet that would have been competitive and would have established Bombardier as a real competitor to the duopoly.
People around the world do not realized that the rest of Canada, esp Alberta actually paid the development cost.
Bombardier and Quebec are not success stories, they are a blck hole for Canada's/Alberta's Money, with no benifit in return.
If I recieved as much money as Quebec gets, I would have been able to solve the Fusion generation problem and we would have clean energy.
They certainly did design a great jet.
Apart from Boeing screwing things up, one thing that was in the way of it attracting seriously large orders was the size of Bombardier in the market place. They were comparatively small, and suppliers were reluctant to give them good prices on parts. So the C Series was going to be moderately pricey to buy and support. Bombardier also didn't have a large sales team; it takes a lot of staff to run multiple sales campaigns necessary to get a large order book. That they managed to sell any at all as Bombardier is testament to just how good a design it is; the plane sold itself to anyone that sampled it, and made the price still look good.
One of the things that is good about Airbus coming into the program is that Airbus can drive supplier prices down, and has a vast sales team that can mix A220s in with other sales campaigns. Airbus saying "we believe in this aircraft" is a pretty good endorsement, enough to make a lot of airline executives believe that there is a long term future for the design, which is also an important thing.
I do feel sorry for Bombardier that they got clobbered so, but I think that, in the end, for the people (if not the investors) it's going to work out well. They've got a slice of what looks like being (in the long run) a very large cake. It's not as glamourous as the whole cake, but it's a very good second best! And for the government investors, it'll come good; there's going to be a lot more well paid, tax paying employees for a long time to come, bringing in money from overseas.
Long time Boeing fan / cargo pilot (hence my name) I have time on the 74-1, 74-2, 74-4 and for the last several years have been in the left seat of the 74-8. The way that Boeing is operated is now making the company a shell of itself
All yoke for you? Any sidestick experience?
@@michaelrmurphy2734 I have sidestick experience from the military, but for commercial flying, it’s all yoke, I have never had the privilege of having a TV tray in front of me from Germany…. But I have been jealous of my Airbus brothers & sisters 🤓
@@notboeingnotgoing5483Airbus is European. Just saying
Love the Swiss 220s! The routes include London City Airport, while the 320s are larger so gotta instead go to Heathrow. Really fills a nice spot in the Airbus portfolio. Embraers are nice too tho :)
What Boeing did to Canada and Bombardier goes well beyond simply building aircraft. The whole world now see's Boeing's true color for what it really has become. Their manipulation of the Max was yet one more example. Thank you Mentour for this upstanding report coming from a disgruntled Canadian who knows.! Stay tuned for some really big news about to come out of Canada.!
Hmm. When will that be, at the latest?
Scott Hamilton's "Air Wars" book is certainly well worth a read.
One thing not really discussed in this vlog is how acquiring the C Series fits right in with Airbus's long term commercial strategy, inspired by John Leahy (Airbus's recently retired head of sales, who basically made Airbus what it is today). Leahy was all about market share, and had a very strong drive to increase Airbus's market share as pretty much the sole commercial driver for the whole of Airbus. He / Airbus didn't mind whether or not market share came about from Airbus selling more aircraft, or spoiling Boeing's prospects in the market.
Acquiring / saving the C series was just another way of moving market share from Boeing to Airbus. To outperform all aspects of A220 / A320neo, Boeing would have to spend an absolute fortune on a 737 replacement, to have any hope of reversing the single aisle market momentum and restore good sales margins. Boeing clearly hasn't the money, expertise, or patience to do so.
And it'd really take two different models for Boeing to successfully outperform both A220 and A320neo. So, Boeing need two moonshot development programs. Airbus picked up the fruits of one pretty good moonshot program for nearly free. Even if Boeing did a full CF A220 look-alike, it'd cost them a fortune and not be significantly better.
Plus, no one really realised there was quite such a large market for something like the C Series until the C Series came along and Airbus got involved, but that's now all Airbus's market.
What's even worse is that Airbus are moving things along. They're looking at hydrogen-fuelled aircraft, which (if successful) makes aviation sustainable long term (assuming green H2 production). Boeing need to be designing aircraft to at least match or exceed Airbus's current line up to be able to regain some market share, but also need to be designing beyond even that. I don't think they've got anything like the engineering or commercial capacity to do that, and won't get the capacity because their market share is too small and shrinking.
Terrific as always from Petter.
How fortunate that this project was saved, given the little known story of the Avro Jetliner; which was developed around the same time as the DH Comet and was in many ways a superior aircraft.
Sadly the Canadian government at the time weren’t supportive, but the A220 is a happy ending of sorts, three quarters of a century later.
As soon as I saw the title of this video in the youtube recommends (based on my watch history) I knew this was going to be about the C series. Writing this reply now before even watching the video... my instinctive answer to the question in the title is "absolutely they did". I've been saying this ever since Bombardier-Airbus sale. Boeing's own stupidity and greed blew up in their faces and drove Bombardier into the arms of Airbus. One of the most epic own goals in business history in a long time.
I love the A220 / C Series and have flown on Air Canadas aircraft. It is very comfortable and quiet as well as efficient. I would love to see the YYT - LHR route return with this aircraft.
Not ETOPS, so aircanada would more likely put a 737 max on that eventually, if ever
A story I ran into (I think in the book 'Flying Blind') to explain why Boeing pushed forward with their complaint is even more astonishing: this was a _negotiation technique_! They were okay with the price/negotiation but wanted an even better deal, so push forward with the complaint in the hope a small tariff would negotiate the price of the program down. They ended up with a much higher tariff than expected (virtually killing the program) which soured relationships and pushed Bombardier into Airbus' arms.
What a complicated story, but thank you for breaking it down. I flew on the A220. Was so comfy and quiet! Thank you for your channel!
The A220 is a nice replacement for the F100, E190, B737 and A319. I was really happy the first production models were used to my regular destination by Swiss about 6 years ago.
I worked for Boeing for over a decade. One thing that still baffles me is their arrogance. Their mindset has always been "we're the best" and "it's other's fault". When Boeing lost the initial tanker competition, their marketing is all about how the government's decision "doesn't add up" and make the government to overturn that decision. When Boeing made demand to supplier/customer on price or requirement, a common phrase that got thrown around a lot is "Because we're Boeing". Again, with Bombardier, Boeing thinks they can do whatever they want, got so blinded by just crushing competition, they forgot they're no longer the industry leader. What's worse is that hasn't really change as far as I know.
My passion with aerospace started with Boeing, and ended with Boeing. To me, Boeing is a major corporate cancer that's too big to fail for the US government. It won't die, it just whine and sucks up resources.
sounds like a normal US mindset to me
but yes they haven't learned from the misjudgment against Airbus when it came up one single bit
Kind of like Trump and the big US banks. Always someone else's fault and we're too big to fail.
Judging by their behavior, those at the top of the company seem to be all Trumpiots. No wonder... LOL
The arrogance has been there from day one. When the first Airbus A300 was announced, Boeing referred to it as "that little European project", and consistently underestimated both Airbus and the aircraft. Nothing has changed in 50 years.
That was crazy airbus offered a finished tanker instead boeings concept was choosen.
A220 is a fabulous aircraft for passengers. Quiet, spacious and comfortable.
I am a frequent listener to a Dutch podcast about general aviation. The way you describe Boeings' handling and thinking fits how the Dutch guys talk about it. For example: Boeing is so conceited, when a European journalist (the Dutch guy) was given the opportunity to talk to a Boeing-salesman (high ranking one), the interview went sour as the interviewer brought up Airbus. Airbus was a non-starter for the salesman.
Sounds like they have to step off that high horse of them and start to actually compete. You gotta be better than the competition at something, be it comfort, efficiency, design or price. Funny to hear how Boeing people still act like they're the only show
Canada's government cancelled a planned $2 billion purchase of 18 F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters because of fhe decision by Boeing to launch a trade challenge against Bombardier. Instead it bought 25 F-18 classics from Australia to fill an interim requirement to augment the CF-18 fleet.
Fair is fair, and congrats to Canada for having the guts to call it as they saw it and walk away from the F-18.
I flew in AirBaltic A220-300 from Riga to Berlin back in May 2019 at it was sweet. Comfortable, quiet. Loved it.
2:26 Do not overlook the fact that the CSeries have the exact passenger capacity as the original 737 waaaayyy back in 1967
coincidence? I think not.
ALSO it shows how far the 737 mission creep has gone.
9:50 "medium haul airliner"
The *irony* of Boeing creating the point-to-point long haul 787 small twin aisle jet, having customers begging for a 757 replacement, SouthWest as a friendly case study... and THEN missing the opportunity of a long legged 100-ish seat airplane is exquisite.
Yes, coincidence mein wounded Yank. Cope.
@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 so much fail. There is no "wound". There is no "cope"
@@ricardokowalski1579
There there... shhhhhh.
@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 Sorry. I already have spoken. Can't "shh" me after it has been said.
@@ricardokowalski1579
I am aware you Americans were so frightened of being owned by Canadian tech you imposed an 400% tariff upon our C-series planes. You cannot compete, so you cheat. You LOST badly the WTO case. Very badly. Too late, the damage was done. Bombardier were destroyed because you Americans shit your pants. If you cannot compete, get out of the way.
The key comment here is that the A200 series has scalability in its design and the potential for a dash 900 means that Airbus has a more modern design than the A320 for the future at very little cost and a much shorter entry into market cycle. At some point Boeing has to end the production of an aircraft designed in the 1960s and equally Airbus has to bring to a close its A320 program as there is only so much development. Clearly what is limiting the A200 series is cannibalization of the A320. The comments about profitability are valid but are proportional to the numbers being produced. Mobile only started producing the A200 series in late 2020 and so is still ramping up (and in between we had the global Covid crisis). There still needs to be complete integration into the Airbus supply chain and back office production systems. We are talking about different PLM systems etc. Also look at how long it takes a new FAL to become mature enough to ramp up to profitable numbers - Boeing still have not managed to turn burger flippers into aircraft assembly technicians at the Charlston Dreamliner FAL. These things take time.
Very good points!
Indeed, exactly.
But right now Airbus might be limited in how many A320 they can supply. The A200 series is an alternative.
@@franziskani Yes.
@@franziskani In the short term it is not yet a replacement for the A320 because it can only be produced at Mirabelle and Mobile. Both FALs are not at the production rates of Toulouse or Hamburg. It is a direct replacement for the A318/319 however, because these variants do not sell in numbers.
Nice looking plane, which generally means a good plane.
Cockpit looks amazing.
May be Boeing should get back to engineering planes, rather than only thinking of management.
If Boeing had used the C Series to phase out the 737 then we wouldn't have had the MCAS disaster.
The nose section of the A220 bears a striking resemblance to the nose of the DH Comet.
@@eamonryan2198 That’s what I was thinking, as does the B787. Amazing that a plane designed without computers would have such aerodynamic properties.
Hi Petter, greetings from Argentina.
I already knew the story behind B-CSeries and Airbus, but not so thorough as you had explained.
After a lot of mistakes by Boeing, I think the Executive staff should do a very deep and detailed analysis of their dessitions and some accordingly changes to emprove their business, otherwise their stacks will drop dramatically.
Since you had adressed this topic, would you consider on doing an explanation on what happen with the Boeing-EmBraEr failed merge?
I wish you, your family and friends the best to this year 2023. Cheers from NE Patagonia.
As a Canadian, I find this a fascinating look at the airline industry here and elsewhere. I'm glad you touched on Canada's F-35 fighter purchase. Of course, the rabbit hole goes much deeper than you are hinting at in this video.
The A220 story is hilarious and completely reflective of how modern Boeing functions, purely as a government-lobbying Senator-buying bureaucracy.
Great presentation. Credit of course goes to the engineering, production team on the C series. A remarkable group of professionals who produced a world class product.
Great summary of the C-series saga! We are very proud of this airplane in Canada.
Fuck Canada. They didn’t support it at all. Anglo Canadians badmouthed it from the start (2004)
Please don’t say Canada build this plane. Not a single plane bought when it was a c-series. ZERO PLANES. 0. I REPEAT: NO C-SERIES WAS BOUGHT BY A CANADIAN COMPANY. ZERO.
Can you imagine Brazil not buying Embraer or USA not buying Boeing? France and Germany not buying Airbus? Can you?
Anglo Canadians can’t stomach any success from Quebec, they hate it and secretly want it to fail.
@@patrice5976 Actually I partly agree with you.I remember Kevin O'Leary badmouthing Bombardier on the news. It is a great plane, and all who worked on it should be proud.
@@patrice5976 Air Canada placed an order for 45 C-Series in 2016.
Putting aircraft aside, this shows how much more classy Airbus is as a company with it"s decision making than Boeing which displays all the hallmarks of being typically American in it"s outlook.
How can boeing ever justifiably complain about national subsidies when its raining money for them by the US military no matter how the company performs?
Canadians squandered our opportunity to be an aviation world leader when we canceled the Avro Arrow back in the 50's. It took us all these decades to rebuild our industry to once again have a word beating aircraft. And now we again let this one slip though our fingers again, with the near collapse of bombardier, and the lose of all those high tech jobs! The profits are going over seas.
As a retired Captain with Jazz, it makes me sad to think I will not get a chance to fly this aircraft. To sit and watch this video, and the lose to Canada talked about, it has me red hot with steam rushing out of my ears.
The a220 is a real pilots dream compared to the 737 max and ng
Depends how you look at it. A220 is easier to fly but the 737 is more hands on.
@@shrimpflea also need to consider flight deck spaciousness, storage of crew bags, noise, window size and ease of FMs programming, cocpkit checks.
Flew it on Friday. Love this Plane! Quiet, big Windows, and feels also spatious inside! Good Job Bombardier/Airbus!
Honestly, boeing has survived the last few years solely because of lobbyists in the US government. If the gov wouldn't cut them so much slack all the time the company would have gone under so long ago
and the rest of the aviation industry would have collapsed with it , do uou know how vital Boeing is? Airbus jets are sold out , do you want to fly Chinese or Russian planes instead?
It would be a catastrophe for everyone, INCLUDING Airbus, if that happened. No government would tolerate a complete foreign monopoly of such a vital sector for long - you can bet Congress would pour many billions into Lockeheed, and the Chinese government would be doing the same for COMAC. Encouraged by the whole United Nations and even the EU too.
Fun fact: In the early 1990s Microsoft rescued Apple from bankruptcy on exactly this calculation. Bill Gates knew he needed a competitor just strong enough to be seen to keep him honest but not so strong as to seriously threaten him. Though Jobs returned to Apple and it became rather stronger competition than Gates had wanted.
Commendable use of ‘prospective’ (08:17) shows excellent grasp of the English language - I applaud you.
As an Airbus fan im very happy for A220 being from Airbus and because of that and because of a modern cockpit, modern cabin and many other things A220 is my favourite aircraft
@Phillip Banes what? I said as an because im describing myself as an individual being Airbus's fan
@@KingOfTheSkies1 it's only Airbus in name. It's a fully bombardier plane.
@@crissto8591 so? Its 100% Airbus owned plane. Idk what you're saying
@@KingOfTheSkies1 Airbus had no input on any engineering nor design, they just paid some bills. Also it's not 100% owned, the Quebec gouvernement also has a significant non controlling stake
@@crissto8591 key words being "non controlling" im saying who owns A220 and thats Airbus. If someone that doesnt know about Bombardier boards an A220 they would think its an Airbus which it is. And Airbus does assemble the plane in Alabama and without Airbus Bombardier basically wouldnt be able to sell planes in US cause of the 300% taxes US put on them after the Boeing case, so without Airbus Bombardier would have been screwed.
Bombardier also have a significant presence in Australia as they have manufacturing facilities all across the country and not only locally assemble military aircraft for the RAAF but they also are responsible for manufacturing the Vilocity DMU trains for Victoria’s regional passenger rail network! They are also responsible for manufacturing all of Melbourne’s trams from 2013 to the present and the E class trams in Melbourne were built by them while they will also be building the G class trams which are scheduled to enter passenger service in late 2023 or sometime in 2024! :)
What was Boeing doing right at that time? Nearly nothing. B787 construction issues, rushed 737Max development, KC-46 boondoggle. Basically Boeing was working hard on legal actions instead of building a good product.
Kinda like Oracle, maybe their legal team is larger than engineering
One of the most debilitating diseases of large corporations is the temptation to make great profits instead of great products. If you've got a goose that lays golden eggs you must focus on production and quality, not carve off a wing and a leg your yourself and your stockholders. So many great businesses die from greed becoming the company ethos instead of continuous improvement.
Is it the same Boing management that saw the Max's problem and did nothing to fix it before the disaster??
Yes - Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of Boeing at that time, is responsible for both failures. Probably the worst CEO in the history of Boeing.
@Mentour, Nice video - as usual. Small mistake though: today, Airbus only holds 75% of the C-series program. The government of Quebec still holds 25% until at least 2025. That is one of the reasons why the production of the A220 - 500 will not start until then.
Fun fact: In the midst of the tariffs discussion, Bombardier sent Justin Trudeau in order to convince Trump to drop the 300% tariff. That is when a number of pictures appeared in the press with Melania smiling at the handsome guy, while Trump was fulminating. Needless to say that the charm offensive completely missed the target.
That's hilarious! Can't say I've seen any photos where Melania looked happy next to Donald.
@@quillmaurer6563 Here is one of them: preview.redd.it/6yo368pozui31.jpg?auto=webp&s=69f618833f8c5c6fee2a371eaa250d901fab9836
Canada has only Provinces, no states.
@@HugoAelbrecht That's more than just smiling at him... Donald looks so dejected I - for once - almost feel sorry for him. If it's legit, that's another photo to remember those crazy times by.
@@quillmaurer6563 It is legit! The picture was taken in between a kiss on each cheek, but remaining extremely close to each other during the “cheek transition”. Airbus is so grateful for this! That being said, the free plane for a symbolic Canadian dollar is a bit simplistic: for that symbolic Canadian dollar, they got a company which is currently still trying to recover its losses from the huge development cost overrun, combined with sales to a.o. Delta at manufacturing cost. Having said that, by 2028, development costs should be recovered and conservative airlines will all want to buy it: by then it will have a 20 years maintenance and safety record. That’s when Airbus will reap all the benefits. Unlike Boeing, Airbus will be able to position this modern airplane against the Chinese Comac 919. Boeing will have to position their 60 years old inferior B737 against it. Interesting times ahead!
It's worth saying how incredibly efficient the A220 is. It's almost 5% more fuel efficient than A321neo that is the second most efficient aircraft. Despite being only 5 seats wide, giving it a penalty of about 12% and also being generally smaller.
The A220-500 will proboblt be even more efficient. And there is a 700 on the papers.
Worth saying that the CS500/A220-500 have now been reworked 3 times, making it longer and shorter. (Depending on if they are going with a 700 or not)
The 500 would at least be as large as the 737 max8, and the 700 probobly as large as the 9. Covering the part of the 737 series that really exist.
At the same time Airbus is developing a new carbon fiber wing for the 321 Neo, which will be larger in size with folding wingtips. This means they can use a further stretched 321 fuselage with the new wing to get an aircraft like the 757 above the standard midrange aircraft, and replace the former 318, the 319 neo and 320 neo in long term with the 220 in 3 or 4 sizes, without the need of starting an expensive clean sheet design.
Boeing on the other hand would have to launch a program to replace the Max, and one to get an aircraft in the size of the former 757 to compete with the modernized and stretched 321 versions
One other note is that the Govt of Canada just finalized that deal today (Jan 9) to purchase 88 F-35A fighter jets. Final investment is about $19 billion with total program costs over the jets lives of $70 billion. Ouch to Boeing!
The other thing we must ask - what would have happened to the program under Boeing? Would they have done it right in manufacturing and future upgrades, or neglected it, used cheap unqualified workers, cut corners everywhere, and later made an "upgraded" version with serious design flaws, ultimately ruined it like they do everything else they touch these days? Honestly I think it's in better hands with Airbus. I could even imagine a barrier to Boeing's buying out the Cseries would be those involved with the program not wanting to work under Boeing, either threatening to quit or fearing they'll be laid off and replaced with cheaper workers, which could hinder or complicate the negotiations, especially with any relevant unions.
Boeing missed even a big chance with Embraer.
For Embraer's sake, thank god that that didn't happen!
@@heidirabenau511 now Boeing is trying to take Employees from Embraer
Sooooo... Boeing had to learn that if they play stupid games, they may at times win stupid prizes.
Serves them right, and more companies should learn those lessons.
Mentour should send one of those "INOP" shirts to everyone in Boeing management. To wear on their heads.
😅
🤣💀
Boeing has not been the same company since the MD merger. Sad. A great American company now on its heels due to management blunders.
or better to say corruption
I see so many A220’s taking off and landing from the tiny runway on London city airport. They look almost as big as 737’s or A320’s which can’t (properly) use that airport. Shows why they are so popular
Boeing complaining about dumping and prices and such is just projection of their own corruption. Anyway, Boeing is so unimaginative today, they will be gone tomorrow.
To big to fail. Goverment will bail them out.
With the whole cockpit design it just rally feels much closer to Airbus anyway.
The one and simple difference between Boeing and Airbus is:
- The one's interest is fighting down others
- The other's interest creating a global network of cooperation.
GOTT NYTT ÅR PETTER! And what a way to start the new year, with my favourite airplane! Hope your new year brings you happiness and success! Greetings, from a Swede in Norway :)
It would've been cooler if Bombardier could've pulled this through themselves. It's always good to disrupt duopolies I think.
I build the A220/300 in Mobile.
The program has a lot of kinks to work through. But it’s promising.
The manufacturing processes over do it on quality side right now, but that’s the way young programs are.
The tariffs are avoided because the Mobile FAL IS a foreign trade zone under the jurisdiction of the Canada’s aviation regulatory authority, Transport Canada.
I'm Canadian and you can bet my bottom loonie we were and still are pissed off at Boeing. I am delighted with their ongoing struggles and the CSeries affair just encapsulates why their commercial airplane program is in tatters. Totally incompetent management. Trust me, Canadians will not forget what Boeing did. Also lovely to see them eliminated from the fighter replacement program. (And I used to be a Boeing fanboy).
As a European, I am delighted about the collaboration between Bombardier and Airbus. A profitable deal for both. That Boeing faceplanted in the process is a thick layer of icing on top.
Boeing could have taken Bombardier under their wing and helped them sell the Bombardier before it became Airbus. Instead they chose to make it difficult for Bombardier to sell airplanes in the US. It came back to bite them hard. I wouldn't be surprised if a stretched A220 becomes just as popular as the 737.
Yes, indeed.
As a Canadian... Boeing's business choice and actions were incredibly thuggish. Another failure of Boeing's management
Airbus has no worry the a220-500 will cannibalize their a320Neo.
Airbus already got a lot of effort to complete the a320neo family massive backlog, the a220-500 will help airbus to keep the market share from boeing and make their customers get their aircraft deliver faster
Canadian goverbment never "invested" in the C-Series. The opposition parties from western Canada made sure the federeal money didn't go help a failing Québec company to bail it out. However at time of lauch, there was some tax inventives and some breaks given by the feredarl goverbnment but not muchj most came from Québec government (for instance the construction halls were built by the QC government and rented to Bombardier).
Also of note: the C-Series was started prior to 9-11 with an Eye towards replacing the fast DC-9 and MD8x and MD95 fleets in USA, notably Northwest airlines what was to be launch customer. Then 9-11 happened. Unlike Boeing and Airbus, Bombardier refused to lower production of its CRJs and found itself not long after with unsold inventory and its solution was to force a strike as a means to stop production without admitting it had made a mistake in not lowering production. Not long after, Bombardier Aviation was near bankruptcy, Northwest had gone Chapter 11 (purchased by Delta and DC-9 sent to beer can recyling companies) United aso Chapter 11, purchased by Continental. So not only was Bobardeir out of cash, but its lauch customers were gone.
The Beaudoin family (descendants or Armand Bombardier who controlled the company) purchased the recreational products division (skidoos etc) from Bombarier Inc as a means to inject cash into Bombardier Inc. ( recreational products not allowed to use the "Bombardier" trademark despite being owned by that family ! Now known as BRP and use various trademarks of purchased products since then (eg Evinrude for engines).
By 2008, Bombardier was back in shape and had found customers to launch the C-Series.
Note: the C-Series was always going to a be a mainline aircraft, and that was one big challenge for Bombardier who had not dealt witrh mainline airlines only with regional carriers, so needed to build relationships with the big guys.
HOWEVER: Bombardier also launched 2 business jetc at same time, the LEarjet 85 and Global 7500 programmes.
A small company which was first entering the big boys market against Boeing and Airbus was also straining its finances with 2 new business jets at the same time. Drain in cash resulted in stopped investment to improve productivity in its trasit division which started to be unable to deliver on time and with good quality control and it started to lose money and mroe important lose cistomers. (New York cuty told Bombardier Transportation very publicly to not bother bidding for any more contracts).
From the time the C-series started to be late, especially after the engine explosion which delayed flight testuing for a long time, it ran out of cash and became desperate. So yes, it went to both Boeing and Airbus seeking investment from them, and both refused. Think of it: if a competition is faltering, you don't helo it, you let it falter and then compete tro get the leftovers during bankruptcy.
Bobardier cancelled the Lear-85 , losing billions already spent. But that was still not enough. It was "this close" to starting deliveries, but also "this close" to having to invoke bankruptcy protection. The Federal government refused to help, but brokered a deal where Air Canada would buy C-Series it hadn't panned on purchasing with Bombardier agreeing to maintain them in Winnipeg. Air Canada was in court for violating its charter which required it to maintain maintenance base in Manitoba (from when AC was privatized) and this deal would allow AC to settle the court case favourably. That was the extent of help by federal government.
The Boeing trade dispute arrived about that time. Instead of seeing it as a trade dispute, you need to see it as Boeing trying to speed up Bombardier's inevitable bankruptcy. BBD had alreayd begin to sell off assets such as older deHavilland aircraft and the Canadiar water bombers to Viking Air (now deHavilland Canada).
The provincial government was far more involved. Bombardier split off the C-series into a new company (CSALP) (C-Series Aircraft Limited Partnership) and the Québec government invested a few billions in equity, onwing about 40% of CSALP, with BBD ereducing its share down to 60%. The QC governmemt saw that this wasn't enough. The predicted death of Bomabrdeir is what prevented more sales. This wasn't about cancellations becayuse there weren't that many orders, it was about all the potential sales that weren't materializing because everyone saw Bombardier was headed for bankruptcy.
So the QC government is the one who negotiated with Airbus to gift it 50% of the programme for free so that the aircrafdt would get some long term credibility and not be cause in the fear of Bombardier's bankruptcy.
At the same time, the Caisse de Dépôt du Qubec (provincial pension plan, a potent investor) decided to bail out Bombardier Transportation. So Bombardier Inc split off Transportation into separate company and CDPQ injected new capital in it and got 30% onwership, but with a caveta: the money losing company had to providded garanteed dividends to CDPQ. (recipe that CDPQ knew not to be sustainable). At the same time, CDPQ negotiated with Alstom to buy Bpmbardier Transportation and CDPQ comverted its investment in bankrupt Bombardier Transportation into 18% stake ionto Asltom. Bombardier had no choice but to accept because it could not affor to pay those garanteed dividends, nor did it have any cash to buy the CDPQ shares back so it could stop paying dividends.
The rest of the liquidation followed, the last remaining deHavilland product , the Dash-8 was sold to what is now deHavilland Canada, the downsview plant where it was built was sold to a condo developper, the CRJ IP and maintenance contracts sole to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and its aero structures business (including the former Shorts Bro plant in Belfast) sold to Spirit.
All those sales excluded the debt incurred prior to the sale which stayed with Bombardier Inc.
Back to C-Series: when came time to start increasing production, Bombardier whose share was donw to 30% and QC govt down to 20% (airbus got 50%) could not invest to industrialize production, so used clause in contract to sell its stake. At that point, Airbus dish out a bit of cash to buy 25% of project, with the Québec government buying rest to increase its share to 25%. The deal with Airbus required the C-series to continue to be built in montreal for all customerd except those in USA.
But that wasn't enough and last year, the still money losing C-Series required more investment and after long delay, the Québecgovernment agreed to invest its share to increase production at Mirabel in order to keep its 25% stake. The hope is that when/if the C-Series becomes profitrable, the cojbination of dividends and hoped-for doubling of share value will allow the QC government to get back its original investment.
So as of today, Airbus does not own the C-Series/A220 It has 75% of CSALP which owns the aircraft.
At the time that Boeing was approached, it was by Bombardier who wasn't willing to give up 50% of its baby for free. (and same for Airbus during initial attempst). It was only when the QC government stepped in to save the project from very near bankruptcy that it made the "on sale, 50% iff for limite etime only" to Airbus (not sure Boeing was even willing to talk because it was deep into the trade dispute at the time).
The irony: What is left of Bombardier today is just the business jet division, with small offices at airport ist new headquarters, and the Global 7500, the very plane that killed the company its ownly ew remaining prodct (it also has the Challenger jet, (upon which the CRJ was built)). And it also has almost all the debt incurred for launching Lear 85, Global 7500, C-Series and all the losses at its transportation division. So far they hacve been able to make monthly payments from sales of its business jets.
So to recap: The QC governmnent invested a few billion for 40% of project. Value halved when 50% gifted to Airbus. Airbus then paid only a few hundreds million for 25% of devalued shares from Bombardier (QC govt bought 5%). So for a few hundred million, Airbus got 75% of a nearly finished jet that just needed enough investment to increase production.
Bombardier shareholders (me) saw 0 cent from all those liquidations since the money went to debt holders and we were left with $1 shares of a company with 1 new business jet and 1 old business jet and a lot of debt. No future. It should be noted that Alstom has had problems with Bombardier due to years of neglect in production facilities since all the money was going to C-Series/Lear-85 and Global 7500, so it having to still invest much to update production facilities to complete old orders that Bombardier Transportation was very late on (and thus saddled with a lot of late penalties and not profitable).
Had Boeing gotten the C-Series, it would in fact have been a perfect fit: Up to 130 pax on C-Series, and then create the NMA to replaced larger 737 and include the long range 757. The NMA is always going to be a replacement for the 737 which is at the end of the road, especiually not that it needs bona-fide certification regime for new variants. Had Boeing decided on repkacemen for 737 instead of the MAX (what Airbus feared the most), then the C-Series might not have been a fit at all in its prodyct portfolio).
One should not forget that Boeing, i perhaps in response to Airbus getting C-Series, annouced it would buy the Embraer commercial aviation products. (fell through due to COVID).
I think the big impact from Boeing taking the C-Series to trade court is that when the time came for Québec to work to find a saviour, it turned to Airbus since Boeing was hostile. . But by then, the deal involved only the C-Series in a separate company whereas Boeing was getting the full Embraer commercial product protfolio.
Ah, yes, Boeing making a trade complaint against the C-Series. So, if you can’t compete you file a vexatious trade complaint instead.
And who can forget when Boeing lost the USAF air-to-air refueling contract to Airbus (B767 vs A330) that Boeing had the Request for Proposals changed to favour the B767.
To paraphrase a popular expression “If you can’t beat them, sue them”.
Agree. And they still can't get the KC-46 built and working properly - but the MRTT is great.
Boeing made nothing but mistakes when it came to the C-Series. Had they left it alone, it probably would have been less successful than it is today and Bombardier might have struggled with it. I'm very curious to see where Boeing will be in 20 years.
Yep, the C-Series now has Airbus’s logistics and maintenance infrastructure behind it and can be lumped into other Airbus deals- Boeing seriously shot themselves in the foot with this one.
Indeed. Bombardier on its own would never ever had the possibility of distribution of this Aircraft Model which Airbus has. It´s very obvious when you compare how much orders the C-Series had and how much orders the A 220 has now.
@@NicolaW72 Airbus already had a 20% stake in it, but it definitly didn't have the full incentive they do now
As always well presented and debated.Boeings management really have made some awful commercial decisions recently
Now that Boeing has stated that a new NMA aircraft is indefinitely delayed due to the lack of appropriately efficient engine technology that meets CO2, NOx and possibly condensation trail regulatory requirements, it will be interesting to see this self-inflicted mess play out.
Good Luck Boeing
Boeing being typical Boeing. Good that we have some competition
Great video, happy to see you make this as I suggested it a month ago or so. It still boils down to Boeing completely screwing over Bombardier, the program sold for a dollar. Glad to see it backfired on Boeing too.
one thing i struggle to understand about Boeing and please correct me if I am wrong (i will admit i haven't watched the whole video whilst writing this comment), Boeing claimed Bombardier sold the planes to Delta at a huge discount, isn't that something Boeing does to its customers (though probably not as big a discount)
Selling a product at a discount Vs selling a product at a loss are two different things. In the case of bombardier, they were selling the c-series at lost to delta, hoping it would increase demand for the aircraft. Countries have laws to protect domestic producers from imports selling under market value (Anti-dumping)
Dumping usually includes a foreign sourcing component as a way of propping up a foreign entity. For Airbus, that was one of the driving factors behind the Alabama factory.
Airline manufacturers have always sold all-new models to their launch customer/s at a big loss to establish initial market share. Boeing certainly have. It's the only way to get airlines to be launch customers - in return for bearing a big risk (the new model may turn out a dud - many have been) they get cheap planes.
You stopped watching 10 seconds short. Mentour explained it in his next sentence. 4:40 4:51
I have never understood why people stop watching a video in the middle and then start making comments.
Boeings management over the last decade have really let the side down. When I say side, I mean the entire industry. Airbus are in a duopoly with bad competition right now which doesn’t incentivise them to be particularly innovative either. Feels like the industry is pretty stagnant at the moment.
This is an important point. Love them or hate them, the duopoly is all that stands between an unsustainable international monopoly of airliners, with consequent complete stagnation of the industry (not to mention a vigorous response by some governments). In the long run each needs the other to succeed - an insight that Bill Gates had when he financially rescued Apple in the 1990s. Airbus is currently riding high, but they should be trying to make sure they beat, but NEVER destroy, the competition. They could end up regretting that the Boeing-Embraer deal fell through.
Boeing seems like one of those companies that spend more time playing games than just making products that out-compete.
The formula is always the same: an American company trying to overtake a European company when trying to compete of world market. The same has happened time and again. With Saab cars + aeroplanes (when GM just bought a part of Saab that didn't make profit), UPM that resulted Finland dominating all of America's paper product production, Nokia were Nokia basically dumped unprofitable part to Microsoft and made a huge profit - and now Airbus.
There must be a great business study here.