CSeries launch customer

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 569

Are Embraer any closer to launching a 190 stretch?

As Tom Enders pointed out last month with regard to the 777X, the problem with stretches of already stretched aircraft is the extra weight increases exponentially (as in many cases the original fuselage, wings etc. need to have numerous supports and reinforcements along the frame to cope with the additional length). This extra weight means the stretch of a stretch design can't compete with dedicated, originally designed airframes.
(Just look at how overweight the 748 ended up being and the problems Boeing had with that, and the problems Airbus had with the shrink of a shrink A318).

If Embraer did further stretch the E-Series, it won't be able to compete with the C-Series due to it's weight.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

For comparison, see the effect of weather on take-off weight on A318:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC-A318-Jun2012.pdf
compare pages 135 and 138.

It is hard to read - lack of fine divisions. Could you agree with my estimate that an A318
at 130 000 pound take-off weight
at sea level
needs about 200 feet extra distance at +30 compared to +15 (4500 feet vs 4300)?

I agree. The CS300 makes much better sense if you don't need the range/payload of the 737-7MAX/A319NEO. As the numbers above show, there is a market for the 130-150 seater. Ultimately, some will be replaced by the new Airbus/Boeing models. But, for the most part, it is for Bombardier to win.

Picking up a 5-year old slide from Rolls Royce, analyzing the distribution of aircraft requirements (seat capacity vs range), we have that about 86% of missions in the 150 seat category have a range of less than 1500nm.
And the graph shows a particular focus in the 125-160 seat, 200-1000nm range.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/RobertNuttallRRNButilization.jpg
I know it is 5 year old, but I think those % may be still quite accurate today.

For comparison, see the effect of weather on take-off weight on A318:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC-A318-Jun2012.pdf
compare pages 135 and 138.

It is hard to read - lack of fine divisions. Could you agree with my estimate that an A318
at 130 000 pound take-off weight
at sea level
needs about 200 feet extra distance at +30 compared to +15 (4500 feet vs 4300)?


Very interesting pdf, thanks for sharing, I agree on your reading, more or less 200 ft of difference.
Could this difference be similar to the one for the CSeries?

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

Customer for Bombardier BJ!

Royal Jet wants it. See:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/abu-dhabi-air-expo-royal-jet-considers-options-as-it-looks-to-replace-six-strong-bbj-fleet-by-2016-383162/

What kind of range is Bombardier offering for CS100 BJ?

The existing Royal Jet fleet of 6 737-700 frames has 7 different interiors, from 19 seats (DFR) to 52 (RJZ).

Are front bedrooms comfortable options on CSeries BJ?

Interesting, I was thinking about when someone would have first publicly asked Bombardier for a CSeries BJ.
During the Program Update on March 7, Arcamone and Dewar replied that they are first committed to fly successfully the CS100 and CS300, but then they will look at all possibilities there are on the market and to what customers want.
It all depends if they are going to simply pass a normal airframe to their Business jet division to fit out the cabin or if they are going to add some additional fuel tanks to boost the range.
A lightly loaded CSeries BJ would already have an improvement in range, but I think it would not go over 3500nm, perhaps 4000, correct me if I'm wrong... with additional tanks (and reduced cargo hold space) it could go all the way to Boeing BBJ and Airbus CJ ranges (around 5 to 6 thousand nm) but it would require some significant redesign.
About front bedrooms, I have no idea.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101


About front bedrooms, I have no idea.

The thing is, at 328 cm at widest, CSeries is 25 cm narrower than the 353 cm width of 737 (and 757, 727 and 707).

That´s why I am not sure whether front bedrooms are a comfortable option on CSeries.

They definitely are an option of CSeries. This is proven because a middle bedroom has been done on at least one MD-83, and MD-83 at 313 cm is 15 cm narrower than CSeries.

This is the old interior of that frame:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(JetAlliance)/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-83/0357333/L
The corridor at the rear (right of picture, left of plane) passes the bedroom.

I have found a picture inside the bedroom, too, but that has a poor field of view, so it is inconclusive as to the comfort of the said bedroom.

For comparison, a corridor on existing Royal Jet 737:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Royal-Jet/Boeing-737-7BC-BBJ/2051313/L

And a full beam view of a rear bedroom on Royal Jet:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Royal-Jet)/Boeing-737-7BC-BBJ/2029402/L

As you see, a narrowbody bedroom faces issues of space. The full beam of CSeries is 328 cm, but the curving sidewalls narrow to 310 cm at floor level, and even less at head level... but how much? What is the stand-up width of the CSeries fuselage?

The limited height part can be used for cupboards and shelves. But the corridor of adequate width must be cut out of the stand-up width. Then the thickness of the partitioning wall... How much usable width is left for the bedroom (or other rooms like bathroom, private lounge, private office)?

As stated above, MD-83 proves that something can be squeezed in, I just wondered if it would be comfortable.

Edit - found better interior pictures of that MD-83 bedroom
http://www.abi.gr/en/aircrafts/20
Of the thumbnails to the right, third row from top, the left is the corridor, and the right is the bedroom. Here you can account for the full width of the bedroom, from the edge of the wall to the right, past the nightstand and footwell to the bed. Heart shaped pillow... what is your estimate for the width of the bed surface? Would you fit there with a bedmate?
And how much different is CSeries bed?

Sorry for the long absence!

Great sources and overview for the business version, I guess that a thing similar to the MD would fit, perhaps less comfortable than the slightly wider 737, but still appreciable.

For the Porter Airlines order, there will be a press event tomorrow at noon (Toronto time), held by Porter in which this order would be firmed and announced (speculated it to be the undisclosed Americas carrier that signed a LOI in December).
I guess, that Porter already had its long discussions with the political parties involved with the tripartite agreement that rules out jets at YTZ and will announce tomorrow a possible amendment for the CSeries.
Otherwise they must have different plans for those CS100.
Anyway, considering that their Q400s are configured with a 34" pitch, a similar seating configuration on the CSeries would result in 20 rows, for a total of 100 seats.
such reduction could already make the difference for the runway required, if we take the basic "urban operations" specs by BBD (CS100 at MTOW with 125 pax goes 1500nm from LCY) then the 25 pax reduction would give a margin to compensate for the slightly shorter runway at YTZ (or even prove in a greater range from there).
The biggest problem is the jet-ban... But if they will indeed firm up that order I guess that they already have some kind of agreement....

For the loudness... well... As of now, Bombardier claims that a CS100 is quieter than a Q400....

Porter firms up conditional purchase agreement.
Aircraft will be used to expand its YTZ hub.

Contitions for the order are:
- Change to the current jet-ban
- 168 meters extension for the main runway at both ends

Porter press release

And Porter created an ad-hoc website for the expansion plan:
https://www.porterplans.com/

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101


Anyway, considering that their Q400s are configured with a 34" pitch, a similar seating configuration on the CSeries would result in 20 rows, for a total of 100 seats.
such reduction could already make the difference for the runway required, if we take the basic "urban operations" specs by BBD (CS100 at MTOW with 125 pax goes 1500nm from LCY) then the 25 pax reduction would give a margin to compensate for the slightly shorter runway at YTZ (or even prove in a greater range from there).

Porter is specifying 107 seats in two classes.
Not Porter... but how much payload could CS100 carry YTZ-YYT-LCY?

I am not sure about the routes Porter is advertising on their porterplans.com website... but it looks like they are planning routes up to 2300nm from YTZ (YTZ-SFO being the longest).
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=YTZ-SFO%0d%0aYTZ-LAX%0d%0aYTZ-LAS%0d%0aYTZ-YVR%0d%0aYTZ-YYC%0d%0aYTZ-YEG%0d%0aYTZ-YWG%0d%0aYTZ-MIA%0d%0aYTZ-YYT%0d%0aYTZ-YHZ%0d%0aYTZ-NAS%0d%0aYTZ-MCO%0d%0aYTZ-TPA%0d%0aYTZ-RSW%0d%0aYTZ-PBI&MS=wls2&MR=360&MX=720x360&PM=b:disc7%2b%25N

Given this plans, a YTZ-YYT-LCY route connecting those two city airports would be quite possible: LCY-YYT is 2337nm by great circle:
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=YTZ-YYT-LCY&MS=wls2&MR=540&MX=720x360&PM=b:disc7%2b%25N

This kind of route, on a CS100, could be a money-maker for Porter!

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

Are you sure the miles are nautical?

I get:
SFO-YTZ - 1974 nm
YTZ-YYT - 1141 nm
YYT-LCY - 2031 nm
LCY-JFK - 3017 nm

How many seats do you think CS100 could carry LCY-YYT (still foul winds westbound), compared to LCY-JFK? No one is claiming to extend LCY, for now....

my bad, I had statute miles set and thought in nautical miles....

The LCY-JFK service is speculated to be proposed in an around-40 pax configuration (Odyssey). But the Reuters speculation talked about going farther (like IAD-3213nm).
I guess that a 70-80 seat config would prove in a smooth LCY-YYT ride.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

For the classification of noise by LCY, see:
http://www.lcacc.org/noise/index.html#Monitoring
5 categories, A to E, where E is all quieter planes.
The list of planes is at
http://www.lcacc.org/operations/operations.html#Limitations
Note that:
All jets so far existing are A. Including Falcons and Citations.
Of propellers, DHC-6 is A, DHC-8 is B, and DHC-7 is D. E is so far empty.

What would CS100 category be?

Since Bombardier and Porter declared the CS100 to be slightly quieter than the Q400, I expect it to fit within LCY category B or C.

The only noise level that I can find on Bombardier's website (here) is the cumulative noise level 255 EPNdB.
But that's a different parameter from the reference noise level PNdB that LCY uses.

It depends on which PNdB counts for LCY...
For the Q400, the following EPNdB values are published on Bombardier's website (here):
Flyover 78.6 EPNdB
Lateral 84.0 EPNdB
Approach 93.1 EPNdB
(average=85.23 EPNdB; cumulative noise level 255.7 EPNdB)

According to LCY categories: (category/EPNdB)
A - 91.6 - 94.5
B - 88.6 - 91.5
C - 85.6 - 88.5
D - 82.6 - 85.5
E - Less than 82.6

So none of the above mentioned values fits into LCY's table (Q400 listed as category B).
Given the similar cumulative noise level I tend to place the CSeries into LCY noise category B.
Although, looking at the whole operations pages of the LCY website, they look a bit out-of-date... a lot of date references are past (like "By January 2011 there is to be a review of Aircraft Categorisation." and "[...]by July 2010 it will carry out a Ground Noise Study[...]") so it could be possible that those values are referenced to the original Q400 (non-NextGen) which was noisier, so that the average value would fit into Category B (and now the Q400NG would fit into C).
In spite of this last evaluation I'd place the CSeries into category C.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

So now there are eager CS100 users at LCY and YTZ.

How about SDU? Over water, and slightly longer than YTZ - 1320 m, whereas YTZ is 1200 m. Then again, SDU is tropical... but summer in eastern North America is almost as hot.

How would the performance of CS100 out of SDU compare against the local E-jets (E170?)?

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,163

As Airbus have found out, the 160 seat airline market is dead! Just look at the A319 sales figures.

Been busy and not around for quite a while.

Just to explain why A319s are selling so poorly - the fuel burn of an A319 is only incrementally more fuel efficient than an A320 - it is quite an inefficient aeroplane relative to the A320 in terms of seat/mile costs. This is consistent for both classic and new engine options.

Thus, airlines are taking the hit on the extra 50-100 kg/hr fuel burn for the greater operational flexibility the larger A320 airframe provides. [For comparison, CSeries would probably have 350-400 kg/hr less fuel burn than an A320NEO.]

*all fuel burns nominal in cruise.

First picture of FTV1 "painted" for first flight appeared on Airliners.net:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/0/4/1/2267140.jpg

First flight is confirmed to be performed by the end of june, but not before Paris Air Show.

And the launch customer is.... Gulf Air!!!
Bombardier Discloses Gulf Air as Airline Customer for 10 CSeries Aircraft and Options for Another Six

Bombardier Aerospace and Gulf Air disclosed today that a previous firm order for 10 CS100 aircraft, with options for an additional six aircraft, was placed by Gulf Air, the national carrier of the Kingdom of Bahrain.

http://bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/image_and_media/products/BA-CS100_Gulf_Air.jpg

In other news IFC's shareholders approved the CS300 order, so it became firm:
Russia's Ilyushin Finance Co. Firms Purchase Agreement for up to 42 Bombardier CSeries Aircraft

Bombardier Aerospace announced today that its purchase agreement with Moscow-based leasing company Ilyushin Finance Co. (IFC) has been approved by IFC’s shareholders and is now firm.