Admiral Beez
Superstar
No country of Canada’s size can compete with Boeing or Airbus. Vickers-Armstrongs, British Aerospace, Fokker, SAAB, Embraer, Aérospatiale, etc. They had to merge or cooperate with Airbus/Boeing or close.
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
lenaitch
Senior Member
As far as I know, SAAB is still stand-alone. They partnered with Boeing on one aircraft, the T-7 Red Hawk trainer. Who approached whom seems to be a matter of debate, but it is interesting to note that the program wasn't expected to produce an aircraft until 2023/4 but rolled out in 2016 - sounds more like a SAAB business model than Boeing, and the aircraft is to be built at a new SAAB plant in the US, not a Boeing plant.
Amare
Senior Member
The problem with Bombardier was that they used their Transportation Division which was a solid performer to strain cash out from it and use it to finance their Aerospace Division. When that wasnt enough, they started begging the government for money. Then somehow that still wasnt enough, so they had no choice but to sell off the CSeries program. By the time they got around to looking into the Regional jet program, they had no money to innovate their planes so they sold it off to Mitsubishi. Then they turned to their Turboprop business and realized how bad they neglected that portion of their business, so they had no choice but to sell that off too since they had no money to invest into innovations their either. Then they turned to the Transportation business and realized that they stripped it bare from resources and neglected it as well, so they decided to sell if off as well since they had no idea how to turn that around either.
See a common theme here? Bombardier and their inept management neglected various parts of the company which were once solid performers for the company, and narrowly focused their attention on the CSeries and by the time they realized it, it was way too late and their management had no idea how to turn things around. The CSeries was a massive program, and Bombardier poorly calculated how resource intensive it was from the start. Had they properly calculated things, they could have either delayed it's development or abandoned it altogether.
See a common theme here? Bombardier and their inept management neglected various parts of the company which were once solid performers for the company, and narrowly focused their attention on the CSeries and by the time they realized it, it was way too late and their management had no idea how to turn things around. The CSeries was a massive program, and Bombardier poorly calculated how resource intensive it was from the start. Had they properly calculated things, they could have either delayed it's development or abandoned it altogether.
Last edited:
daka_x
New Member
Uh, there is zero logical basis for the idea of Vancouver's Expo/Millennium Line having to switch to conventional rail because of this purchase. I don't even understand how you or others are drawing this conclusion (if this is true then Toronto's subways are also doomed to have to go through gigantic billion-dollar rebuilds to convert the track gauge to standard gauge). Go ask your contacts at rail companies, email them, w/e but they will tell you the exact same thing: there is ZERO logical basis for this.
The only remotely "proprietary" component of the E/M lines (the linear induction motor) isn't even manufactured by Bombardier. In case you're curious, the company that makes them is called Unit Electrical Engineering and it is a multifaceted industrial company based in the B.C. Interior. I feel like this is the first time many of you are finding out about this, but Bombardier simply employs the LIM made by this company in its vehicle design. They are also most certainly not the only compatible producer because a different company makes the LIMs used by the same Mk III vehicles in Malaysia (this is why they sound completely different from the Vancouver cars. It's an LIM just the same, made by some other Asian industrial company)
Everything else is based on design specifications (i.e. height, width, loading gauge, weight) that are set by TransLink, and could be reasonably accomplished by most experienced rolling stock manufacturers. Heck, even if the current Mark III car body design were the only possible design that could fit (say) the weight specifications, Alstom has no reason to discard the Mark III design blueprints and can still make them as long as the manufacturing facilities exist. As proof that no company ever discards old blueprints, I will note that we in Vancouver are getting brand spanking new Rotem cars on the Canada Line and they are using the exact same outdated design as the first-gen cars from 10 years ago. NO interior/exterior design changes at all.
As far as I'm aware the Kingston, Sahagun Mexico and New York facilities are all equipped to manufacture these rail vehicles, just as they are equipped to manufacture a number of other rail vehicle designs (there was this picture I saw once of a Mk III train being manufactured alongside a BART fleet of the future train). Alstom has no reason to discard any of these facilities - on the contrary I believe they will be expanded, as they all give Alstom strong bases in NA to compete with Chinese rolling stock manufacturers (which are starting to reach even NA cities, i.e. Boston's tall order from CRRC for its Orange Line subway).
It is very likely that Alstom will merge or discard some Bombardier marketing brands and instead offer products under their own brands, so that all metro vehicles are produced under their "Metropolis" brand or all trams under their "Citadis" brand, that doesn't mean we're going to have cities unable to get the rolling stock they need or that any designs will be discontinued. Let's say that in the future the TTC needs new subway cars but decides that the Toronto Rocket carbody design is re-used (let's hope it's not and you guys actually get some new stuff), you could get the same Toronto Rocket trains from Alstom branded as "Alstom Metropolis" cars. Alstom will have the intellectual property and facilities acquired from Bombardier to pull it off. It's that simple.
Last edited:
CityStay
Active Member
Well, some would posit that they had found a niche that both Airbus and Boeing had previously ignored and had then been subjected to ruthless destruction by government-backed duopolies because of their potential competitiveness. Or, the New Capitalism.
So, let me try to understand. Avro was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hawker Siddely (now defunct - like most iconic British companies) and one of their employees (who still lives in Toronto at the age of 104 - now that's what I call a permanent resident!) was British? That's a relief, I thought the Arrow was a Canadian disaster. It obviously wasn't, it was a yet another British industrial disaster. Then why do we make such a fuss about it?
Now, I don't understand much about this stuff but it sounds to me like Bombardier Transportation (Germany) was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bombardier Canada just like Avro (Canada) was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hawker Siddely Britain? Am I correct?
I mean, Canadians are so accustomed to working for subsidiaries, the thought of actually having any is - simply unimaginable!
More importantly: Did Bombardier (Germany) or Bombardier Canada have any Brits working for them? Not saying that was the problem but.. there seems to be a pattern, though I don't suppose it will be a lingering problem for Alstom (Germany) after Brexit.
Last edited:
CityStay
Active Member
The C-series drained their resources. Not cheap, designing a completely new airframe.
They should have pulled an F-35. In the U.S., Lockheed-Martin ensures nationwide support by building a piece of the F-35 in every state. That way, no state will ever deny funding due to the potential closure of their aileron plant or their cockpit window plant.
Bombardier should have assembled their tails in B.C., their wings in Alberta, their fuselages in Ontario, their nacelles in Nova Scotia.
Such is the sad state of capitalism in general and regional politics in 21st century Canada but..
Investing in any one region in Canada - especially QC - is a non-starter, no matter what the innovation.
But hey! Google has blessed us with a new branch plant! Let's us rejoice at our success!
Toyata is threatening to move to Georgia - again! Let us give them another $200 million!
Assembly jobs - Mexico North.
Canada, where mediocrity rules and innovation either curls up and dies - or sells out.
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
Hey, want to do a job for me for $100 when you have to spend $95 on expensive and earn $5 at the end? Meanwhile there's a similar job that pays $100 but you only have to spend $60.
A company decides to take the order based on how much money they'll make not can they build them. Otherwise they end up losing money like the TTC streetcar order. The problem isn't the LIM but the amount of money they have to spend to retain the product and investments to improve it. TTC wanted more Mark I (Innovia 100s) but Bombardier stopped marking them and won't start up production even when TTC wanted them. TTC was forced to get Innovia 200s and upgrade their system if the original plan gone through.
For a custom design with different gauge is simpler than keeping a totally different product around. At the end, it's up to Alstom to do their math and decide if they should rebrand a product or phase them out.
Both the Movia and Metropolis are similar products but would need different supply chains to manufacture. They would obviously be a difference in net income for both products and different reliability. It would be wise to get rid of one if one makes way less money or is much less reliable. Meanwhile, they could keep both products but eventually they'll have to invest money to improve one of the models. Why would they spend money on both models? They same goes for the Flexity streetcars.
At the end, the question isn't why can't they build Bombardier products but does it financially make sense to keep them. It's like Target bought all those Zellers stores but realize they can't make money and got rid of them.
We aren't hating on SkyTrains. If the profit margin for Innovia trains are great and cities around the world are interested, there is no reason to get rid of them but if Alstom thinks their products are better and more attarctive for the future, they might have to go.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Rambling soliloquies aside, it was a Canadian disaster. It's often a disaster when large foreign overseers close their subsidiary plants in Canada, such as GM closing its Oshawa plant and its 4,000 workers. We may see this once again if/when Alstrom closes BBR Thunder Bay, since they've already got four operations in Canada.
I expect Thunder Bay will be closed, and its best workers offered jobs at Altrom's other Canadian operations. In the face of Buy American policies, if Alstrom wants a bigger piece of the US LRT business they'll be investing in US plants, not Thunder Bay.
Last edited:
daka_x
New Member
I'm not aware of Bombardier actually refusing to restart the Mark I production line. From what I can tell, it was understood by the TTC that restarting the Mark I product line or getting Bombardier to make shorter and compatible Mark IIs would have to be done at a significant premium (likely close to the cost of just rebuilding the line to use bigger and better Mark IIs) and as such the TTC did not include that option in its 2006 SRT refurbishment study. I'm just referring to this 2006 piece on Spacing, maybe y'all have better sources but I'm not seeing where Bombardier was the one who said no.
Even so, if the TTC had gone with the "build us some brand new Mark Is and we'll pay up!" route, that premium would have had a lot more to do with the tiny size of the vehicle order (the SRT is only 28 cars today, with the proposed 10% capacity increase at the time it would've been what... 36 cars tops?) than the specialized design/propulsion. This might not ever become an issue in Vancouver because we have more built-up SkyTrain infrastructure and more rolling stock to replace. Our next order of SkyTrain vehicles will be for over 200 cars. I'm pretty sure Alstom would be thirsty for that opportunity, esp given that with the Bombardier acquisition they now hold the keys to building fully compatible rail cars.
From what I can tell, most transit agencies prefer to retain existing vehicle designs as long as they're sufficient, even if those vehicle designs are older, for maintenance ease - and manufacturers do deliver. Denver, for example, opted for (and received) a new batch of SD160 light rail vehicles from Siemens just last year, even though the SD160 is a 20-year-old design, and even though Siemens was offering the newer S200.
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
The turnaround is over, Bellemare declares!
business.financialpost.com
Source
Bombardier declares its turnaround over, a shadow of its former self
The industry giant, which once made everything from snowmobiles to commercial aircraft, has just one business left
business.financialpost.com
Source
kEiThZ
Superstar
Bombardier would have been just fine had they not tried to run three different Part 25 aircraft programs at the same time. Pierre Beaudoin was a spectacularly incompetent CEO who tried to outdo his father and was willing to bet the company on those ambitions.
All that said, getting out of rail is smart. The Chinese are coming to crush margins for everyone in that sector. It's good to get out while they can still get good value for Bombardier Transportation.
All that said, getting out of rail is smart. The Chinese are coming to crush margins for everyone in that sector. It's good to get out while they can still get good value for Bombardier Transportation.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I‘m interested to see what Viking accomplishes now that they have the entire DeHavilland playbook. Perhaps they’ll rename the Q400 as the DHC-8.
It will be noteworthy if our largest domestic manufacturer of charter aircraft is headquartered in BC or Toronto, not Quebec.
It will be noteworthy if our largest domestic manufacturer of charter aircraft is headquartered in BC or Toronto, not Quebec.
Last edited:
Amare
Senior Member
If by "turnaround" he means successfully liquidated pretty much the whole damn company than he's bang on. Anyone could have done that, but what he's getting paid millions to have done so? Congrats to him I guess.The turnaround is over, Bellemare declares!
Bombardier declares its turnaround over, a shadow of its former self
The industry giant, which once made everything from snowmobiles to commercial aircraft, has just one business left
I'll admit i'm being a little harsh on him, most of the blame should go to Pierre Beaudoin and the rest of the family. We wouldnt be in this situation had they not been so inept.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
From a Bombardier family investment POV, he’s done a fine job. They sold these divisions for more than they paid for them, and used other people’s money to cover any spread.
In 1992 Bombardier paid $51 million for control over de Havilland Canada. In 2005 Bombardier then sold all DHC aircraft except the DHC-8 to Viking, followed by the entire Canadair amphibious water bombers to Viking in 2016. Finally Bombardier has now sold the Q400 program to Viking for $300 million. IDK how much the 2005 and 2016 sales made for Bombardier, but I expect the family has made at least x10 profit.
I imagine the same goes for the ground transportation division, but I’d have to dig through decades of acquisitions to unravel that birds nest. But, looking at one unit, AIUI, Bombardier paid peanuts for CC&F’s factory in Thunder Bay.
drum118
Superstar
I believe TB was bought for $25 million along with Kingston and designs.