Boeings STUPIDITY Allowed Airbus To Buy The A220 Program Literally for ONE DOLLAR! "Seriously!"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- Instead of buying the Bombardier, program, for themselves, Boeing tried to CRUSH Bombardier allowing Airbus to swoop in and get their new A220 and its factories for just One Dollar. This is the true story of how Airbus bought the A220 program for literally just one Canadian dollar and in the process dethroned Boeing claiming the number one spot as the world's largest plane maker.
#Boeing797 #airbusa220 #bombardier #BoeingNMA #BoeingMax,
Support The Channel Buy Me A Coffee
www.buymeacoff...
Videos Included:
• Delta Air Lines A220 t...
• A220-300 in flight
• First Test Flight for ...
• C Series Cabin Design ...
• CSeries - Transonic Wing
• The CSeries First Engi...
• CSeries St Laurent Man...
• Aerial views of our Ai...
• The C Series Journey
• John Kermashek's Testi...
Maximus Merch
Hats, Mugs, Hoodies, and T-shirts
teespring.com/...
Premium Polo Shirts, Mugs, Phone Cases, and more
shop.spreadshi...
For Business Inquiries Email: aviationmaximus@gmail.com
Copyright Disclaimer. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statutes that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
I'm a Boeing retiree who is disgusted with the path the company has taken, starting with the merger with MD. The corporate move to Chicago was a mistake. The handling of the 737 Max has been pathetic (and maybe criminal). The arrogant bigshots of the company got what they deserved in this Bombardier deal but the state of affairs at Boeing saddens me.
Hi Dave, I was looking to get some information on the latest news that the Max recertification test flights will begin from tomorrow: www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737-max-exclusive/exclusive-boeing-737-max-certification-flight-tests-to-begin-on-monday-sources-idUSKBN23Z040 - in your opinion, do you think they have cleaned the house and Dave Calhoun has steadied the ship or they are still cutting corners and just thinking profits ? Thanks for any information if possible on this.
Shawn Frank I don't know but I hope the problems get fixed.
A pity they wrecked a really good company in the process.
Hi Dave, I completely understand you feelings. I worked for a company which really looked after their employees and treated us like family, which I know was one of Boeing's great positives, but 5 years ago my company was bought out by a huge multinational, and now I feel like just a number, and am also disgusted with the fact that the "bottom line" is more important than the integrity of our products and our employees.
Dave Beedon - I feel the same way. I used to live in Seattle and knew some Boeing employees, before the MD merger.
Boeing now run by lawyers and bean counters.... it was great when it was run by engineers!
Cliff Morgan - But Muilenburg, who mishandled the MAX problems so badly, was a Boeing engineer who worked his way to the top. He was CEO, Chairman, and President all at once. Why the board took so long to get rid of him is a mystery. The one most important function of a board is to get the company on a new course when it is headed for trouble. The board, collectively, was asleep at the switch.
@@GH-oi2jf Unfortunately this is happening in many former good companys arraound the World.
I think Steve Jobs said it well. about Boeing now....
ruclips.net/video/K1WrHH-WtaA/видео.html
The future for Boeing is not good.
Airbus is advised by lawyers…and controlled by bean counters…good ones
No company can be greater than its employees. Boeing laid off and gave early retirement packages to many employees, particularly in their engineering department, in order to hire cheaper foreign "engineers" via the H1B visa program. These "engineers" are usually from india and their "engineering degrees" are typically of low quality by Western standards. It is these Indian "engineers" that are to blame for most...maybe ALL...of the technical faults that Boeing has been suffering over the past few years. Boeing settled for a second rate work force in order to save money. But it has only COST them market share, reputation, and billions of dollars.
I hope they figure out that their own biggest problem is internal, and rectify it, before it's too late. It is NOT that Airbus makes superior aircraft. In fact they don't. But when Boeing is SCREWING UP, Airbus only has to avoid doing the same thing.
What a cool story. I gotta say I'm more of a Boeing guy, but frankly, this was just an epic move that Boeing 100% deserved.
I'm more of a seating and interior guy, so the airline with great business class seating and amenities gets my business, sadly my flight route has two legs. One is served by an A380 great seating that turns into a lay flat bed that even I " 105 kilos can get a great sleep. There's also a bar where I can have a proper sit down meal and chat to other passengers over a drink.
Leg two is a B777 now the plane takes off and lands great so no problems there. But the business class seating chosen is way down from the A380. Now that could be a fault of the airline but the way routes are offered it just states the aircraft type not the seat manufacturer. So passengers will associate interiors with an aircraft company.
During lock down I have been checking out travel vlogs and some excellent reports on aircraft seating, so when we can fly freely again I'm a lot better informed having seen the seats on RUclips.
Stay safe.
@@TheByard The seat decision is down to airline. Poor seats indicates an airline that does not care for the travellers.
Nothing to do with aircraft manufacturer.
Boeing's management couldn't do a better job of sabotaging their own company if they were getting paid under the table to do it.
Many times the board of these companies are run by people who have nothing to do with the company and have compromised allegiances to it. They often sit on boards for many companies. They are often not people who have actually worked in the company designing and building stuff. They are often politicians and others who don't have a passion for the company. So you may not be far off the mark with that. Boards should be populated with people who actually work for the company, such as engineers and technicians.
Now Airbus has some quality experience in paying under the table.
Good lord! Finally a Canadian built aircraft the US couldn't force the cancellation of!
Indeed, they did, as they did with the CF-105 Arrow. With the Arrow Cancellation the Military Aircraft Industry of Canada was killed. As all the future development projects were gone. Actually the design became a very successful Design in the form of its twin Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25, and later MiG-31.
Not only would have the North American continent a real defense to cover all the artic unit, but Canada could have had a national platform to launch small satellites to space, and even a Satellite Killer Solution. So yes
As Donald says "WRONG" the Commercial Aircraft Industry in Canada is death. Industry is not to manufacture items (build to print) but be able to come with new Solutions and Design. There is absolutely no prove that Airbus management in Toulouse will want to push the designs of the A220-500, 700 and 900 to complete the 100 and 300 developed in Canada. What incentive do they have to break the duopoly of A320 and B737?
Besides wouldn't they use the Engineering departments in Europe? The Canadian Commercial Industry is Killed, Trudeau Kill it. Same way a Diefenbaker killed the Military one.
@@francisdexaviermaurinus4695 The MiG-25/31 are not derived from the Arrow... ergo the Arrow did not become a successful design... it just died.
It seem rather ironic that Boeing complained about government money helping to fund the 220s development, and yet they run to their own for a bailout less than 5 years later.
You are forgetting the second middle finger to Boeing when the Canadian Federal government cancelled the sole source contract of 18 F-18E/F fighters as a stopgap measure for the new fighter program. That ended up costing Boeing potentially 60 billion dollars over 30 years
“A great middle finger to Boeing.” Gold.
I bet you use that finger to pick your nose.
If I were a Boeing shareholder, I would be asking of the Boeing board "What the hell are we paying you your huge salaries for? Just a drop-dead shrewd move from Airbus. A beautiful little aeroplane for a dollar!
The trouble is that the people that have the biggest share also are the most greedy and as long as the current management is showing a 'profit' then they are happy. Unfortunately the only way for Boeing to currently make a profit is by profit stripping and the total destruction of the company. But the current managers aren't worried as they will be long gone by the time anyone figures out what they did.
The funniest part of the story, which is not mentioned in the video, is that Bombardier actually went to Boeing first to try and sell them part of the C-Series program. But Boeing were not interested!
So Bombardier went to Airbus and the deal did not go through the first time, but I did the second time around when Bombardier reduced their price to one dollar!
Also, when Boeing tried to impose tariffs, the Canadian government cancelled their order for 16 brand new F/A-18 Super Hornets as they were pretty pissed at Boeing and refused to buy anything from them.
So I guess Boeing not only lost the C-Series, they also lost their Super Hornet deal. Nice big screw-up from Boeing management all the way!
The irony is that it was maximising shareholder dividends which got Boeing into the mess they are now in!
"A great big Middle Finger to Boeing"
That cracked me up LOL
Boeing deserved it!
Question for me: Has Boeing finally admitted to itself that the 737 is an archaic pile of junk? Even the A320 is quite modern against the 737 despite its upgrades. If you don't invest in your own product offerings - you lose.
Boeing would have been better off to replace the 737 with something more future proof. Should have replaced it with a shrunk down 777 or 787. Nevertheless the problems with MCAS were in the implementation and the actual concepts are workable. MCAS and Max can be made perfectly safe and it is nothing to do with the concept of them that made this happen. If they screw up this, there are a million other things in a plane that are just as complex. This is a problem with Boeing not being able to execute. If you look at Mentour Pilots assessment, Max is completely safe with or without (properly implemented) MCAS. MCAS is to make it handle just like a 737 but without it , it is still a perfectly fine plane it just wont handle like a 737. If Boeing did a new type it would be completely fly by wire and more automated than a Max anyway like every other major airplane type since 1995, so the idea that it is "too much automation", is a myth. The 777 released on time Boeings last great success, is fully fly by wire and more automated than the Max.
Both aircraft are old XX Century technology/design - the CSeries is XXI technology/design.
The BOeing 737 is *not* a pile of junk! It's a classic and a milestone in aviation history! But it is more than 50 years old and there are limits to how much you can update an old design before it's time to replace from scratch. The 737 reached that limit long ago.
@@jameskeefe1761 By the time of the A320neo being announced it was too late for that. Since the A320neo is just an improved A320 Airbus was able to roll it out quite quickly while an entirely new development would have taken much longer. Boeing would have had to essentially cede the entire mid-range market to Airbus for at least half a decade until it would have had a new plane ready. Something it would have had a hard time recovering from as their mid-range market planes are botth companies' cash cows. The 737MAX was an emergency solution to stay in the race and MCAS a desperate attempt to keep cost comparable to the A320neo.
In order to have a new mid-Range plane on the market when the A320neo hit it, Boeing would have needed to develop a successor to the 737 right after they rolled out the 737NG in the mid-90s. I just hope Airbus took some notes on how not to ride a horse until it falls over dead and starts serious development of an entirely new mid-range plane as soon as the early 2030s.
@@Exodon2020 of course Airbus has plans to make a new plane. We are not americans...we are Europeans. We think shit through before we act
The Boeing culture is the gift that keeps on giving for Airbus.
Beautiful maneuver by Airbus, Boeing are in trouble.
To be frank, it was Boeing being a jerk and bombardier got the last laugh on them
They're making so much profit from their military division they can subsidise the civil division. Another victory for the American taxpayer!
There were no maneuvers from Airbus, was a Bombardier initiative, supported by the government of Canada.
No. Stop making things up. You have two first names. That is weird.
In fact, Airbus is now starting to market the A220-300 as an A319 replacement. And it has even attracted the attention of Southwest Airlines, which needs to replace their starting-to-age 737-700 fleet during the 2020's.
As an airbus fan, and a southwest fan, i would love it if southwest flew airbus.
Replacing the 319 with the 220 would make a lot of sense ! No new design needed as it's already there !
@@michellevesque2130 Agree! A319 is what, 25 years old now? While the CSeries/A220 is a totally brand-new design from scratch, incorporating the latest aviation tech. It's a no-brainer.
@@PanduPoluan i doubt southwest goes to the a220 this is a 100 to 150 aircraft, the 737 can carry more that 200, and a lot of southwest routes have high demand, its cheaper to fly the smaller aircraft, but the a320 and 737 are still king in the capacity vs cost department(cheaper per seat), and they only buy one aircraft type(atleast for now).
yep, Air France already ordered 60 A220-300s to replace their A318s and A319s.
Airbus bought Bombardier for 1 Dollar because they did not transfer the production plant to Europe and also did not replace any employees. Airbus is now a positive factor for the Canadian economy: employing more than 4,000 Canadians; creating more than 20,000 indirectly-sustained jobs in aerospace; working with more than 660 suppliers in nine Canadian provinces.
Bombardier gets access to maintenance infrastructures it did not have...
See my comments about what is an Industry (Development, Test, Certify) and what are the chances of the rest of the family been launched. Or developed in Canada ever. ref: CS-500, CS-700 and CS-900.
3 things...1 the A220. wow thats a fine looking aircraft and i cant wait to fly in one. 2nd.. boeing recovery? why should boeing change? they just got billions on a "never have to pay back loan" from the US government. 3rd.. the C-series now gets access to the entire airbus service network. thats actually quite a big deal
Billions of never payback loans means a big dividend round to investors and hundreds of millions in bonuses to the management. That is the only thing they care about; not producing a good aircraft.
@@spacecadet35 Boeing. The Republican party of the air.
@@ekevanderzee9538 - Comparisons to American political parties is not useful to discussions like this as it just instantly polarises people by party and shifts the discussion away from the important points trying to be discussed.
"There is hope for Boeing..." Yeah right,....and there is hope that I'll win the lottery...
@FifthElement Gaming Boeing has no money even for a lottery ticket !
So pleased the sale went to Airbus, even the side stick arrangement for the control column suits them. Love your country Canada 🇨🇦, warm regards from the UK 🇬🇧.
it's still a much different type rating but i do agree - the sidestick implementation provides a 'natural fit' for Airbus and at least aligns with the control aspect of Airbus' product line. I've never seen a comparison of the Honeywell package against AIrbus own so it would be interesting to see how much they differ. (especially as the Honeywell suite is brand-spanking new)
well said Alan. Second that emotion.
The Commercial Industry in Canada was killed anyway. Like the Military one - CF-105 Arrow - and by the usual suspects too. There is no chance that the Development of the CS500, 700 and 900, will happen in Canada. Actually no chance that will ever happened, why to bring pressure with a better aircraft to take sales from A320's and B737's a perfect duopoly?
Major difference between the two aircraft problems. One went faulty while flying and landed safely, the other crashed, killing everyone on board. Plane crashes tend to shift perceptions in the eyes of the public.
True, but also if a plane has a major problem but still comes home safe, people think, good plane, don't mind flying on it.
most epic maneuver a company made. ever.
Airbus idea how to get the A300 into the american market was about as epic in my opinion.
@@knownothing5518 at first they showed their range, efficient engines and comfort by flying through the Americas but failed to get orders, then they gave Eastern Airlines 6 A300 for free for 6 months. after these six months Eastern ordered 23 more planes.
the maneuver was Bombardier one.
Typical USA business approach, particularly large corporates, relying upon litigation over substance.... what amazes me is how a relatively small player Bombardier was able to fund and create an entirely new aircraft but greed and laziness blinded Boeing from reinventing the 737. Unfortunately, this seems to be a major trend inflicting US business culture.... from super stretched 737 to endless new “franchise” extensions from Hollywood.... endemic greed, laziness and aversion to risk taking which is an essential element of all innovation! Otherwise well done Airbus and Bombardier!
are you kidding???? Bombardier got taxpayer money! Just like that other farce, airbus.
@@Joe-sn6ir
Whatever metrics you use, Bombardier actually got less subsidies than Boeing, Embraer, COMAC, Airbus etc
Now, maybe Canada is too small to be a player in the aerospace business. (Considered strategic industrial base by many countries - thus the subsidies).
If we consider aerospace too "costly" to promote, how about that stupid auto bailout, where we actually lost Billions to save US auto makers doing little or no R&D in Canada. And despite those lost Billions, our auto plants are still closing (Oshawa etc) and/or rapatriated in the US.
@@Joe-sn6ir Because Boeing has never been bank rolled by the US taxpayer........
@@Joe-sn6irwaiting for your apology seeing as you got owned
@@erictremblay4940 Bombardier has been continuously bankrolled by the Canadian taxpayer over the last 40 plus years to the tune of multiple billions of dollars none of which has EVER been paid back. By the time the C series rolled around Bombardier had long since burned any chance of further taxpayer support. To be quite honest Bombardier lost the C series to Airbus by their own hand through continual mismanagement. Bombardier was as screwed up and mismanaged as bad a Boeing is and had been for decades... And FYI Canada MADE money on the Auto bailouts as they were NOT a bailout but a stock transfer to the Canadain gov't for cash so nice try but fail...
Yeah...Our Quebec jewel effectively slipped out of our hands !!! What a nice and modern airplane....
Seems to me as if Quebec got more shares than before the merger.
Now work on Justin.
This may go down as one of the greatest self inflicted wounds a company has made since IBM chose to lease DOS from Microsoft. One important fact that the video missed is that the C series as made by Bombardier used a large number of Boeing made componets. In fact Boeing parts made up almost 50% of the value of the plane, so if the C series was successful Boeing would have made millions supplying parts for both construction of new planes and and maintenence of existing ones. However now that Airbus is in control of the C series they will undoubtably replace Boeing parts with Airbus ones whenever possible, resulting in Boeing's loss of a potentually very profitable parts business.
Aeronautical company suppliers basically supply both Airbus and Boeing since Airbus and Boeing only make the assembly of the aircrafts
The CSeries is a XXI Century Design, the A320 and B737 are Second Half of the XX Century Designs. This Aircraft is a Serious Replacement if completed with the initially planned 150 to 190 passengers members.
Disgusting tactics from Boeing. They have no confidence in their own product obviously.
I can imagine Delta being pissed with Boeing for getting involved in its lower priced Airbus deal ?
Beautiful little jet!
Something about us Canadians do know how to build an airplane just have to learn how to sell them
New Twin Otter aircraft are "flying" out the doors. Even Russia likes them a lot.
The problem is that it's not a level playing field for a middle power country like Canada against the big boys USA, Europe and increasingly China.
The C Series got not support from the federal government, when it was needed. The US always support its own, why can't we?
You guys are being fooled by your leaders.
The Arrow then the Cs-300...
Big respect from France, to us, the A220 is Canadian.
Not a gripe but most expensive and difficult to design part, the wings, made in Britain, as are all Airbus wings. Bombardier originally De Havelland UK still not bad.
Boeing has lost its way. It bought MD then moved its HQ t Chicago. Why did it do these things is still amazing to me
Buying MD I could understand. Sadly, they copied the bad management of MD that was the reason for the sale in the 1st place. As for moving Boeing Headquarters to Chicago that was all engineered by their banksters: they wanted it nearer to a major stock exchange & Commodities market. They choked to death on the fat!
The reason that old man Douglas quit his company is that one day he looked around the board room of Douglas and realised that he was the only engineer in the room. Everyone else was managers, or lawyers or accountants. It was all downhill from there.
@@brucesmith3072 I'm sure if they copied, I think they inherited the upper execs.
@@brucesmith3072 Not quite right. The move to Chicago wasn't to get closer to the financiers as such as much as it was to get the engineers removed from any influence they had on Boeing management.
In general engineers are too honest a bunch to persuade investors to part with their money. They will quote realistic budgets which will scare off investors. Modern corporate management will have no qualms in claiming a project will cost less than half the realistic costs and when (surprise, surprise) the costs "skyrockets" they will go back to that same investors and give them the choice between offering up more money, or lose their current investments.
It's politics, and engineers are notoriously bad at that.
It's the same with national politics; large infrastructural projects will get political approval with a budget of $ x Billion. With that agreed low price tag no politician will get in trouble with voters for squandering taxpayers money. Any voter with some political awareness will absolutely know the final price tag will at least be 4 or 5 times the agreed amount. The point is though no political opponent of said politician will be able to proof the agreed price is too low. If he or she makes such a claim based on all the previous projects it can be simple countered with "we learned from our earlier mistakes". It's a cult of deceit.
Any graduate in the STEM-fields will be trained to be truthful about the figures as their results will be falsifiable i.e. able to be proven wrong by others. Graduates in management or finances will be trained to obfuscate the figures, only to be proven wrong after the fact.
There was a joke between Boeing employees that MD had bought Boeing with Boeing's money...
You have to admire Airbus for their quick thinking, well played...
Their bribes were a great idea too until they were caught.
It’s sad Canadian lost their aerospace industry due to USA’s back stab and sabotage both in the 1960s and today.
So did the British, sold out by their politicians, as the Canadians were by Diefenbaker.
@@None-zc5vg Not only sold out, but government funding allowed Bombardier to slip into being a shitty company. The same thing is happening to Boeing.
The up is that Boeing lost even bigger in doing so. So what goes around comes around
@@marcducati You can bet your taxpayer's bottom dollar that Boeing won't be allowed to go under, whatever happens to the airlines.
@@None-zc5vg three words - defence production act
Worse than that Boeing tried to block Bombardier using threat of countervailing duties.
and how much government research money has Boeing blown on a Moon capsule? SpaceX has embarrassed them on a fraction of the investment.
the department of Commerce did. Boeing went fishing they were no expecting to get a 300% advantage. Nor did Airbus expected a XXI Century design better that theirs and Boeing for $1.00
Why do i feel this revelation intensely satisfying to watch 🤔🤔🤔🤭🤭🤭
The C-Series was years ahead, and it sucks so bad that Boeing did what they did. Boeing is evil! But I am glad Boeing got smacked over their antics!
The A220 is amazing! It's a gorgeous airplane, and very comfortable. Flown on it twice and flying it again in a few days.
I will always call the 220 the C-Series. Canada made a hell of a nice plane! God bless my Canadian neighbors!
Boeing is exempt from free market forces with the Federal Reserve and US government raining cash down on them.
i wonder if boeing being the FAA, not a typo, has anything to do with it????????
or is it, the FAA is boeing?
as long as boeing has those military contracts, the commercial division is just a hobby.
And then Boeing kicked the Embraer deal into touch which could have helped them counter the A220. Smart thinking from money grabbing/ no safety Boeing lol. Thanks for another great video.
At the rate of descent of Boeing's fall from grace, Embraer may soon be able to buy out Boeing
As far as I can see Boeing screwed itself big time by backing out of the Embraer merger. They could've upgraded the E2 program to have better range and maybe even get Boeing jets built in Brazil at lower labour costs ?
The Bombardier C Series is one beautiful airplane and with fly by wire and side sticks clearly based on the Airbus philosophy. It's the plane Airbus would have designed for itself to replace the A318 and 319 which never sold well. The 737 Max is a total lash-up with a 70 year old air-frame and cable activated flight controls that belong in a museum, landing gear so low to the ground that they had to move the engines forward and raise them up creating an unstable airplane and an MCAS system that had more bugs in it than a bed on 'Hotel Nightmares.'
One possible reason that Boeing failed to do what Airbus did and do a deal with Bombardier is that they couldn't bring themselves to accept side sticks and fly by wire, not when they were trying to work out how on earth to prevent the new Max engines scraping along the runway. The MD80 was fine to re-badge as the 717 because it's design was even older than the 737. The C Series would have put them to shame.
The problem was that Boeing and the bean counters at the top had spent so many years pulling and stretching the original 737 design and had a massive logistics backup to it that building a new plane would have meant ditching all of that and the massive cost of logistics for a new plane. Thus they keep tweaking the original design to fit whatever modern parameters there are and keep going down a rabbit hole which they can never get out of. Until the 737 Max kept crashing! Boeing will probably survive, just. What needs to be done is break up Boeing into its constituent parts, aerospace, defence, space etc. Even in the Space division they are having problems. Their nearest rival SpaceX has put an american capsule back into space and they're still having problems with theirs. At present they're having to re-write some code (I believe?) for the rocket to get into the right orbit. They also got more money from the USA to develop theirs. This all sounds so familiar!
James Ward seems Boeing and Harley-Davidson have a lot in common,, rehashing old outmoded technology instead of making things anew
To date almost 1,500 A319's have been sold.
@dothemathright 1111 The tail that was ripped off the A320 was caused simply by appallingly bad pilot training and would have happened on any aircraft including any Boeing if the same rudder inputs were applied by an incompetent pilot just the same as if you swing the steering wheel of a car from full lock to full lock while driving down the road you will definitely crash it. There was no design flaw or mechanical fault on that aircraft. The one that crashed in the Atlantic, an A330, could have been saved if the pilots were a little more competent than they were. The problem was the failure of the airspeed indicators (pitot tubes). If they had correctly applied 'pitch and power' the aircraft would have remained flying at a safe speed and not stalled. However only two A330's have crashed in twenty six years of service and both were determined by independent investigators to be pilot error and not due to any fault in the design of the A330. Note the failure of the pitot tubes is NOT a design fault just like a punctured tyre on your car is not a design fault. The Boeing MAX crashed twice in less than twenty six weeks and both crashes were determined by independent investigators be be caused by dangerously flawed design by Boeing. Unlike the two Airbus aircraft you mention in your post the MAX is a flying death trap. And yes the Boeing 737 airframe is an antique design and the MAX version is simply yet another facelift on a very aged beauty queen, one facelift too far. The plane is inherently unstable which is why it needed the MCAS 'fix' to make it fly. Despite your arrogant and utterly wrong claim, Airbus never rushed designs into production without proper testing, the company that did that was Boeing, trying and failing miserably to cheapskate and lie their way into the same market as the very well designed and very safe A320 Neo. Airbus are not perfect and do have their faults but they have never lied to to their customers, their pilots and passengers and corporately murdered them to protect shareholder profits and CEO bonuses by putting an utterly dangerous and unsafe aircraft on the market and then lieing and lieing again when it crashed. I would bet that if any of your family members had been on either of the two MAX aircraft that nose-dived into the ground despite the best efforts of the pilots to prevent it doing so you would not be so quick to defend the utterly rotten Boeing company and its CEO's bonus. Airbus is the successor company to Aerospatiale, the company that built Concorde the greatest civil aeroplane ever built. It ruled the skies for twenty seven glorious years. Boeing tried to build a competitor aeroplane, the Boeing 2707. Four billion dollars later, totally and utterly unable to match Aerospatiale's (Airbus's) engineering they conceded defeat. All that they had to show for their four billion dollars was a wooden mock up of half an aeroplane.
dothemathright 1111 Ex Airbus (310, 20, 30, 40) and Boeing (757/67), presently CSeries (ok, Airbus 220 now) Driver here...
There are a lot of things that can be said about A and B. However, this „Airbus made it possible to crash a plane...“ is like saying Boeing made it possible for Hijackers to crash their jets (happened several times). Human factors flaws caused by Airbus rushing designs into production..?! Total nonsense. Period.
The A220 (CS 100/300) makes me proud to be 🇨🇦
I feel boeing is rushing the 777x program in order to counter the a350.. But definitely it wont work cause they also installed the MCAS software from the 737max to 777x
This is exactly why delta and Qantas has hugely moved away from boeing with the a350 and a330neo orders favouring them both....who agrees
Where did you get that Boeing is rushing the 777x? Probably from your ignorant ass. Also try to do some research before saying that the X has the "MCAS software from the Max" because guess what? It doesn't
no. On Instagram, Boeing replied to someone who asked if that plane had MCAS and they said no.
@@nicolasrosa37 Ignorant ass? LOL the BUTTHURT, go away you little fanboy :'D
An even bigger FU to Boeing could happen soon with the competition to replace the CF-18. Why buy from a company that has screwed over a Canadian company?
I really would have loved to be a fly on the wall in Boeing's upper management conference rooms after the deal was announced. That news must have hit like a bombshell.
So true!
Funny how Boeing always screams "Subsidy" towards Airbus... But runs to Washington DC crying for (political) help against foreign competition...
The biggest and maybe only problem in most major industries, especially in America, is that compensation of upper level management is tied directly to current share price usually through the granting of stock options. This makes the executives' income directly related to short term share price with long term prosperity not worth considering. This leads to many financial problems and to the executives moving on by choice or dismissal thus making long term consideration even less important to the executives; thus an accelerating spiral dive. Executives should be focused on long term financial growth and stability but are rewarded to ignore it and focus instead on day to day share price.
Very well summed-up!
well, we should always keep in mind there's a difference between engines exploding and everyone lives and aircrafts taking a spontanious dive and no-one lives.
airbus buying a part in c series in a single canadian dollar is a pro gamer move
If Boeing hadn't come out against the Bombardier deal with Delta, Bombardier would never have needed to sell the C-series to Airbus and Airbus wouldn't have gotten all that extra sales and revenue.
Boeing is a blight on humanity. They have messed up in commercial, military and space in just the last few years. Then they tried to torpedo the C series, tried desperately to dig themselves out of the mess they made by playing games with Embraer.
They deserve to go broke big-time, but they are a major defence contractor. The taxpayers will always bail them out.
Bombardier was in extremely bad shape. Not sure they would have survived without the deal with Airbus and selling their train division.
The real 'cost' was closer to $US6bn, that was how much Bombardier corporate debt Airbus took on.
Perhaps John Leahy should have got a mention?
Still, $US6bn and one dollar for a new plane is still a good deal. Designing a new plane is expensive.
Damn, that was a 200IQ PRO GAMER MOVE from Airbus.
This puts the inefficiancy at Boeing in a spotlight:
How many design engineers did Bombardier use to design the A220? 75.
How many did Boeing need for the 757: 10,000.
The mind boggles.
In the Program or the Engineering Department? In Bombardier or through the entire world with suppliers?
A master commercial move against US protectionism by Airbus. This the way to play fair game with cheater !
Lets Just say it right, Boeing Plays Dirty Pool, and thinks it's shit doesn't stink
No. It’s nothing like the Max. No 220 has crashed and killed its passengers.
And it was an engine issue. By Pratr&Whitney. Not a design and management priorities issue like Boeings.
Both XX century designs have multiple crashes B737 and A320. The XXI Century designs CSeries "A220" do not.
In the last few months Boeing has issued all it's senior management with bullet proof shoes and issued a safety warning that all firearms must be holstered with the safety catch on.
🤣🤣🤣
Thank you for the Tubie video. I was fortunate enough the fly in one of the Swiss Air CS100 planes. You could see this airplane was built with some new thinking in mind. The seats are wider and the cabin is far more passenger friendly than what I found with some other small planes. I think Delta made a good call to get the CS100. It also just goes to show politics can "almost" destroy a small company when bigger players try and close the door. This was an excellent call by Airbus and the move manufacture in the US. Good game of chess that was :)
One dollar.
One bloody dollar.
I can’t buy a toy A220 for that price....
Well, that was only the price for the stake. But with buying that stake Airbus also took other obligations on board. In order to make that program work Airbus had to invest quite a bit of money to make the production of the A220 compatible with its supply lines. And of course building up a new assembly line for a new aircraft type also costs money. But yes, in the end still a good deal.
For that one dollar they took on most all of Bombardier's debt from the C series so no it was not really one dollar.
When Chinese buy Boeing for 50 c they will produce drones and toy planes for a dollar and you will be able to buy......
A220 is so beautiful!
🛩❤👍AIRBUS👍❤🛩
Boeing stole the C-series from us. We, Canadians, hate Boeing.
As much as I love Airbus n think Boeing need to get back to making properly made aircraft, can’t help thinking Bombardier should have slogged it out on their own - that aircraft seems to be a real winner!
What you say is true. And with the consequences of the pandemic, the efficient C Series has a great potential in a different market with fewer passengers. Now Airbus will get all the benefits.
@@alaingadbois2276 Indeed. Airbus has cut back production for pretty much all aircraft types, except the A220.
But Bombardier was in an extremely bad shape. The deal with Airbus saved the company
@@aidanclarke6106 Yeah, and people forget that the A220 is much more attractive for airlines due to the support infrastructure Airbus has around the world. That is a major factor for airlines.
Great video. You have a nice presentation style And always informative and interesting. Thanks for sharing. Great channel.
Yeah as a Bomber shareholder we can only dream of getting $1.00 for our shares after the last CEO or corporate executioner has totally given away the assets of the Bomber for $.05 on the dollar, I will never invest in Canadian companies again, they just cost you money.
Excellent stuff. Best aviation channel on RUclips. Keep up the good work. How can the once mighty Boeing be letting this happen??
i remember the scathing reports of corruption, nepotism, and political wrangling going on in Wichita, along with deep union disatisfaction when i lived in KS in the 1960s. their solution was to terminate workers (before the term "layoff" was fashionable). this ruined hundreds of careers, didn't win them any friends. boeing was broadly despised throughout the aerospace industry long before this incident. good vid!
Great Information. Thank you
You want to know what I think? I think your RUclips videos are GREAT!
Fantastic Report!👌👍🙊🌝🌞
The Canadian government gave the middle finger to Boeing and the American aerospace industry when it happens, Canada was in the market to buy fighter jets when it happens, well they decided otherwise and bought used F-18 from Australia. Now that we are part of the Airbus family, maybe the next fighter jets will come from Airbus instead of America.
The best bit, the A220 engineers still with Bombardier are being asked to work on simulations for a stretched A220-500 variant. Which would really threaten Boeings 737 MAX 8.
*Karma* for boeing
Corporate greed pisses me off! I'm glad Boeing is sucking it right now.
The engine issue was a PW problem, not Airbus's.
True but when those engines are on your plane that becomes your problem too.
@@maximusaviationchannel I meant legally-speaking in terms of responsibility. Of course there's no doubt Airbus have their own inspection and testing packages once those engines are fitted to their jets.
@@KyleMontanaro Absolutely you are correct. Its the same thing with Rolls Royce and the 787. All the dreamliners with the GE engines are fine but the R/R engines are trash so people always just bash the "787" When it is like you said an engine problem
A) that Canadian dollar bill/note has not been in circulation for decades.
B) a loonie eh? Seriously?!?! Please...
Very interesting video. The engine problem on the A-220 has been solved. As for the "problem" with the 737 MAX, not quite solved yet...
The engine is in the 320 NEO and the Problem on the Core was on the F-35. Yes the issue was solved.
What has not been talked about in this is how the AIrbus acquisition also came with Airbus marketing.
Awesome video, thanks!
Sounds like Boeing has got complacent and arrogant believing that it's size and US power allows them to do anything and believe that they are both untouchable and top aviation dog. How come they became the only US manufacturer of big aircraft? Just as well there is AirBus to provide strong competition.
Boeing got screwed. Terrific
0:28 They did not get the entire C-Series for a dollar, as stated in the video. They got 50.01% They then bought the rest of the outstanding Bombardier shares for $591 million and now share ownership with the Quebec gov't 75%-25%.
3:06 The -100 seats up to 135 in a single class, not 150
The -300 seats up to 160 in a single class, not 135
3:34 Bombardier, not Embraer...sheesh
4:43 No, they did not suffer an uncontained engine explosion - they suffer an inflight shutdown.
5:33 Delta originally ordered 75 of the -100's, then dropped the order to 45 of the -100's and 50 of the -300's.
7:49 Airbus initially got 50.01%, Bombardier 31% Investement Quebec 19%
the CS500, 700 and 900 were supposed to go from 150 to 190 passengers - replacing a portion of A320's and B737's
3:35 Should that be Bombardier, not Embraer?
4:35 It’s Swiss, not Swissair. Swissair went out of business in 2002. It’s Swiss that was the launch airline for the CSeries.
I love it when vengeance has cold water poured on it. In regard to the engine problems of the C series, remind me where the engines are made or the maker's nationality.
Hi ! Bombardier did, what Boeing should have done with the 737: designing a clean sheet model with contemporary technology. But - it's America. Why changing something that sells ? They should have phased out the 60s 737 with the last classical series and then create something new instead of the doomed MAX. Or -at least- not diss the Embraer deal. During Covid-19 the major aircraft still flying was the A220 - formerly known as Bombardier C-Series, because it was the right plane at the right time. And even though it is Aribus now Canadians can be proud of it and its Bombardier heritage. Airbus as well made mistakes in the past by bringing the A380, which -as it seems- will never pay off anymore. They wanted to rival Boeing on the 747 - okay - and they built the biggest commercial airliner. Fine. But with the change from the Hub-strategy to Point-to-Point on airline companies it became an unwanted dinosaur pretty soon. With getting the C-Series they absolutely took the right step.
Just switched from D J to Maximus. Found that Maximus spoke the facts
not just facts but critical analysis, unlike DJ
Felt sorry for Bombardier. now only left with their Business jet and Fighter line-up.
It what they wanted tho.
@@maximusaviationchannel Yes, after all the loss in development and sales, it was best to sell the division with maximum price it could fetch, when it still had value.
The middle finger was for the USAF air refueling program, where Boeing did its usual "magic" and killed the Airbus/Northrop win on the program. This resulted Airbus taking the program alone and developing the MRTT also the first air tanker that managed a totally automated air mating with another aircraft while KC-46 is still "problematic". In fact when you search for KC-46 Google autocompletes the search with the word problems..
If it is Boeing I ain't going!
Hmm, comments for two videos at once. I was a Technical Designer in Payloads (Ceilings and Support Structure) for the 757 and the C-32A. The C-32 was Boeing's first foray into an "executive" type interior arrangement.
I also worked as a Flight Test Engineer (Avionics) for the CS100 and flew tests mostly on FTV 3 as it was the avionics test bed.
Cool! I illustrated the CSeries FCOM1
the Avionics Unit. From YMX or ICT?
@@francisdexaviermaurinus4695 At ICT
And then COVID19 came in...
When I worked at the ramp of cork airport I always loved when Swiss arrived and we went to clean inside the plane, the crew would always give us Swiss chocolates 😂😂 and the plane was just such an enjoyable thing to see, the engines are so much quieter, compared to the 737 and A320, but yeah, even tho I like this little bus, I’m going for the A320 type rating soon, but I’ll consider the A220-300 as well if all goes well
A friend of mine call me at my office and say "come here if you want to fly" - I try the Simulator Flughafen Zürich Airport - take off and landing, a bliss.
Another outstanding video, as usual - thx
Glad you enjoyed it. Thank you.
This is what happens when you forget your engineering excellence roots as a company and focus overwhelmingly on dollars and unit sales. It all looks great to Wall Street, for a while, but eventually the whole edifice crumbles, and if you don’t recover your cultural roots quickly, the business will fail. And it doesn’t matter how big the business is, the result is the same and entirely predictable.
So if Boeing would have played fair. This thing wouldn't be an Airbus. 😂
Ironic that Boeing rebranded itself as a money savvy business but missed the business opportunity.
Accountants now rule, we know how that ends.
3:31 isn't it bombardier?
Indeed!!
Not an Embraer or E2
Yeah, it's Bombardier. I also noticed he said Embraer, but you can literally read the name of the airplane on the cabin seats!
Boeing also subsequently lost out on the sale of F-18 Super Hornets to the RCAF. The Canadian government was so pissed at Boeing's trade actions they cancelled an almost done deal and bought used fighters from Australia.
Oh yeah.
Typical modern management style. Modern lol. Been this way for at least my near 40 yrs.
Boils down to "Why do it the hard way when you can slime around it?" and my personal favourite "A win today is a win no matter what, even if it's a triple loss tomorrow. Why think long term?"
I have a great boss right now, it must be said, but they're far too few and far between.
Gotta say, of the aircraft I've flown on in the last 10 years, nothing impressed me more than the Embraer. Quietest plane I've been on in quite some time!! Who knew Brazilians knew how to make a great aircraft?
I think that some here down in the comments do not understand how industry works. 1- Airbus was not planning a genius operation to grab Bombardier, 2- Boeing was fishing to improve their competitive advantage using the new Administration. 3- the Department of Commerce overkilled. 3- Bombardier was not in a position to go and wait to win the case on the WTO.
Canada (especially Quebec) and investors in Bombardier got screwed. They suck at delivering trains and subway cars to.
Was not the fault of employees but of Management.
The Canadian tax payer lost big time on this whole deal. But then Justin thinks that budgets balance themselves automagicially.
First the Arrow, then the Q400, CRJ and C Series. Canada knows how to design and build really good aircraft. It's just a shame they couldn't keep any of them.
The Q400 is built in Toronto and is owned by Viking Air in Victoria. They are going back to the DeHaviland Canada name or DHC8.
There is no surprise in how Boeing acted. Its how US Incorporated has always acted against superior foreign aircraft both military and civilian. The list speaks volumes:
TSR-2 (UK) Possibly the most advanced military aircraft of the day for many years after. Rather than try to get a piece of the action they killed it by use of the strength of the US Dollar and promises of cheaper F-111 aircraft that ended up more expensive than TSR-2 and never materialised.
Avro Arrow (Canada) - definitely better than anything on offer from the USA at the time and killed by hollow promises of advanced missiles that never materialised.
P1154 (UK) - The supersonic Harrier. Boeing were bitter McDonnel Douglas had a piece of the Harrier II and pulled strings to kill the new design which was 20 years ahead of the F-35B.
Concorde (UK & France) - the US aerospace industry took it as a threat rather than an opportunity to share in the most advanced passenger aircraft ever built. So corrupt politicians used their muscle to close down global routes. Surprising how many new 707 and 747 orders materialised ....
Boeing saw the CJ series as a threat so went aggressive as US Incorporated always does and missed a golden opportunity to get a brand new '737' for little cost. Just compare the 737MAX to the A220. Light years difference. And the attack on Bombardier by Boeing and the US Government was a seriously bad move. It put Delta (and other airlines) even more against Boeing and now who is doing the laughing? Delta have a US built aircraft supported by the biggest civilian aerospace company and Airbus have a brilliant new platform they can develop further so they can retire the A319 and smaller A320s.
Sadly the arrogant and inward looking US mindset will never change.
* There is also the Airbus 330MRTT vs Boeing KC-767 debacle where there was ilegal manipulation and corrupt practises done on the US side.
@@Cta2006 Exactly so. But at least 12 Air Forces have chosen the A330 MRTT and 60+ ordered so its still going well. The USAF also wanted it but as you say US Incorporated killed that idea and the KC-46 they were forced to take still doesn't work 10 years later and £4.6 Bn over budget.
Only in America.