If the sale completes at the agreed price it will give them just enough cash to pay debt.Standard PR spin. Bombardier is in financial trouble. Selling the rail division to get cash in hope to get a pay off from the airline division.
Standard PR spin. Bombardier is in financial trouble. Selling the rail division to get cash in hope to get a pay off from the airline division.
BBD and their workforce must be reeeally mad at Boeing. The (pretty ridiculous) dumping petition Boeing did scared them into selling the CS to Airbus, seemingly fearing the plane wouldn't be sellable in the US without them, and then the MAX mess showed up.
And now....the now-A220 is quite well received and has a 550 order backlog while the (still larger than the largest A220) MAX 7 hasn't even entered service yet.
I've taken writing classes before, and I was always instructed to make things simple. I had to look up what "deleveraging" meant. Let me give it a try.
"Bombardier announces plane to focus on commercial aviation and sell transportation division to reduce debt."
That, and "if it's on Facebook it must be true".And if comments in response to articles posted in Facebook is any indication, most people don’t read the article anyway. They let their imagination run wild with title and blather on endlessly based on that flow of consciousness. [emoji57]
So when does Siemens try to torpedo this? Alstom torpedoed the merger when Siemens tried to do this. Turnabout is fair play.
Siemens didn’t try to do anything like this. Siemens tried to merge with Alstom transportation division AFAIR. That is a much bigger deal than picking the carcass of a failing Bombardier, which is what Alstom is doing.
I think they did OK until they started the ineffective attempts at consolidation. There was a period in which they were practically a holding company, and if they'd let the individual divisions do their own thing (maybe liquidating the ones which were least successful at sales) they would probably have been OK.I have always had the impression that Bombardier's problem was that they emerged from a series of ad-hoc and often poorly thought out mergers of a large number of rail manufacturers, followed by ineffective attempts at consolidating these former rivals.
Yep. The outsourcing to Mexico was probably the last straw.Effectively Bombardier was handing away profitable market share on a silver tray.
In the rail business some of Bombardier's most recognizable products were acquired as you've described, rather than being their own designs. The two best examples - Superliner II's (Pullman Standard) and the ubiquitous lozenge-shaped commuter cars seen all over North America (Hawker-Siddley).
I think they did OK until they started the ineffective attempts at consolidation. There was a period in which they were practically a holding company, and if they'd let the individual divisions do their own thing (maybe liquidating the ones which were least successful at sales) they would probably have been OK.
There are potential add on orders from several US operations for those lozenges that may be forthcoming as various commuter agencies grow too. Two of them in Florida come to mind as a starter.You're right about the commuter coaches. Since they are the mainstay of GO Transit, the Government of Ontario has a vested interest in keeping Thunder Bay in operation. If they start rolling out with the Alstom name it will be the fourth "brand" for the same product: Hawker-Siddeley, UTDC, Bombardier and Alstom.
Enter your email address to join: