General Aviation Thread

John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I don’t think the Embraer Boeing marriage will be happening anytime soon.

The A319/A320 are pretty tired and the A320Neo was a stop-gap against the C-Series. Due to the collapse of oil prices, a clean sheet design isn’t a pressing concern. When the time comes to replace the Neo, Airbus will have to decide between a completely new design or go with a new C-Series derivative.
 
Last edited:
Ananda

Ananda

The Bunker Group
True..it will need much more negotiation..but Boeing simply do not have anything on C's class..when they abandoned 717.

Seems Boeing did not think that class mattered much..and perhaps Airbus too..Not until the Market see it as alternate for 737 or A-319/320 on some routes.

Airbus clearly take the initiative when they negotiate with Bombardier for majority stake on C's..
This what Boeing should done..rather than take 'combative' mode..Now they have no choice but to nego hard on at least get similar deal with Embrear for E's..

Alternatively..they can struck deal with Mitsubishi..for MRJ's..

Add:
@john..I don't think either C or E can be replacement for either A-320 Neo or B-737 NG. They have to be thoroughly enlarge to enter that class. In other word completely new Airframe.

C and E basically is aimed to play on different class..where they can provide more economics on shorter and leaner routes..Those routes that before I think both Airbus and Boeing think they can covered with existing 737 and 319/320..but the market say otherwise.
 
Last edited:
K

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
I don’t think the Embraer Boeing marriage will be happening anytime soon.

The A319/A320 are pretty tired and the A320Neo was a stop-gap against the C-Series. Due to the collapse of oil prices, a clean sheet design isn’t a pressing concern. When the time comes to replace the Neo, Airbus will have to decide between a completely new design or go with a new C-Series derivative.
Click to expand...
The A32X series aircraft weren't pretty tired, they were significantly outselling the Boeing 737 series, the NEO came about due to improvements in engine technology in particular the P&W geared turbofan, Airbus turned the screws on Boeing forcing them into launching the 737 MAX, which is still an inferior product to the A32X NEO, Boeing will be forced into replacing the 737 with a clean sheet design long before Airbus will need to replace the A32X series. The C-series is pretty much size limited to the proposed 500 version, to stretch it further to a 700 or 900 with 5 abreast seating would be a stretch to far.
 
K

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
Ananda said:
Add:
@john..I don't think either C or E can be replacement for either A-320 Neo or B-737 NG. They have to be thoroughly enlarge to enter that class. In other word completely new Airframe.

C and E basically is aimed to play on different class..where they can provide more economics on shorter and leaner routes..Those routes that before I think both Airbus and Boeing think they can covered with existing 737 and 319/320..but the market say otherwise.
Click to expand...
C series has more growth påotential than the E-Jet, the CS100 is roughly the same capacity as the E-195, they don't really compete against each other. The C Series competes against the the smaller members of the 737 and A32X family where it soundly beats them.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
As the book is forthcoming perhaps some more explanation will be in the book explaining their conclusions. As for the jet’s crash, I guess fuel exhaustion at cruising altitude results in in high speed vertical impact that totally destroys the aircraft. As there were large sections recovered, they conclude it was a controlled crash. As some of the exotic composites are extremely tough, perhaps larger pieces could be intact after a high speed impact but that is speculation on my part.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
As the book is forthcoming perhaps some more explanation will be in the book explaining their conclusions. As for the jet’s crash, I guess fuel exhaustion at cruising altitude results in in high speed vertical impact that totally destroys the aircraft. As there were large sections recovered, they conclude it was a controlled crash. As some of the exotic composites are extremely tough, perhaps larger pieces could be intact after a high speed impact but that is speculation on my part.
Click to expand...
Airliners actually glide pretty well and the Boeing 777 has a better glide ratio than most. I would have thought the more likely scenario would have been for it to glide into the ocean ... particularly if the autopilot was still engaged.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
You may recall the story about an Air Canada 767 that ran out of fuel over Manitoba. One of the pilots was an experienced glider pilot and the co-pilot knew about a former RCAF base (Gimli) that was much closer than Winnipeg. This combination resulted in a miracle replacing a disaster. I don't know if an autopilot can provide for optimizing a glide profile for a large jet with no power. Perhaps others here can comment.

This scenario has been attempted many times in simulators, without success as of a few years ago. Not sure if this has changed.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
John Fedup said:
... I guess fuel exhaustion at cruising altitude results in in high speed vertical impact that totally destroys the aircraft. ....
Click to expand...
The Gimli Glider isn't the only example of an airliner running out of fuel & gliding to a landing. There's also the Air Transat A330 that landed in the Azores in 2001. The second engine cut out at 34500 feet/10500 metres, & it then glided 120 km to Lajes airfield, where it landed. The pilot did a 360 degree turn 15 km from the airfield, then a series of S turns, to lose height: it could have glided further.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I am not sure if the glide distance was factored in when they worked out where the aircraft might have came down. If it wasn't they could be a couple of hundred kilometres off.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
swerve said:
The Gimli Glider isn't the only example of an airliner running out of fuel & gliding to a landing. There's also the Air Transat A330 that landed in the Azores in 2001. The second engine cut out at 34500 feet/10500 metres, & it then glided 120 km to Lajes airfield, where it landed. The pilot did a 360 degree turn 15 km from the airfield, then a series of S turns, to lose height: it could have glided further.
Click to expand...
The Gimli incident was due to a mix up between metric and imperial measurements (shouldn't have been as the conversion to metric happened years before). As the Air Transat incident happened in 2001, I wonder what their excuse for fuel exhaustion was (other than being Canadian:D)?
 
2007yellow430

2007yellow430

Active Member
John Fedup said:
This new ban is pretty disturbing. As a long time flyer, I still miss real china plates, metal knives and forks, and wine glasses actually made of glass. Now a few flights originating from certain countries will not allow laptops or tablets as carry on items. I can't imagine the chaos for the road-warrior class in NA if devices must be checked...then again if everyone has to check luggage the frigging planes might get away from the gates faster as passengers won't be trying to fit carry-ons into non-existent overhead bins.

Experts criticize US electronic devices ban on some flights from Middle East
Click to expand...
Why I have my own plane, and do the flying myself. You have no way of knowing what new and hidden way they can cause trouble. This will increase the use of charters, so you can select your cabin mates.

Art
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
John Fedup said:
The Gimli incident was due to a mix up between metric and imperial measurements (shouldn't have been as the conversion to metric happened years before). As the Air Transat incident happened in 2001, I wonder what their excuse for fuel exhaustion was (other than being Canadian:D)?
Click to expand...
A fuel leak (poor maintenance, I presume), made worse by the pilots trying to keep the plane nicely balanced by pumping fuel into the tank with the leaking pipe.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
John Fedup said:
I don’t think the Embraer Boeing marriage will be happening anytime soon.

The A319/A320 are pretty tired and the A320Neo was a stop-gap against the C-Series. Due to the collapse of oil prices, a clean sheet design isn’t a pressing concern. When the time comes to replace the Neo, Airbus will have to decide between a completely new design or go with a new C-Series derivative.
Click to expand...
The C-series is smaller. It has a significantly narrower cabin (bigger gap between a B 737 & C series than B 737 & A320), smaller wing . . . It fits at the bottom end of the A320 range, the current biggest model being a good replacement for the A318. I don't see it as a viable competitor or successor. Instead,it looks more like a lower-tier complement, a better alternative to the A318 & an extension of the range downwards.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
With Airbus now having a 50% plus ownership of the C-Series I suspect your conclusion is correct. Had Bombardier had more vision, cash and if fuel prices remained high the program might have become more significant. Both the A320neo and more so the C-Series have suffered from P&W's troubles with the geared turbine.
 
2007yellow430

2007yellow430

Active Member
John Fedup said:
With Airbus now having a 50% plus ownership of the C-Series I suspect your conclusion is correct. Had Bombardier had more vision, cash and if fuel prices remained high the program might have become more significant. Both the A320neo and more so the C-Series have suffered from P&W's troubles with the geared turbine.
Click to expand...
Most of the pilots I know feel that the manufacture has given too much control over the plane to the computer. They also don't like several other issues: The side stick versus yoke issue also. YOu can't see what the co-pilot is doing with those.

Art
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top