• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
ytz
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:25 pm

A nice benefit for B6, missed in the discussion. By switching some routes from A320 to A223, they now save one cabin crew per a/c. They got pushed into going over 150 seats on their A320s by investors. You could tell they were never entirely happy with the idea. And, when they get a few CS100/221s onboard, they can boost Even More Space a bit more than the E190s today. Their whole non-Mint fleet can now be consistent around 25% of seats being EMS, give or take a few to fill out a row.

For their non-Mint fleet, my prediction is this for Y+/Y:
A221 - 25/75
A223 - 35/95
A321 - 42/158

Add in lower pay for pilots on the CS3 (or same pay with no raise for a while....), and lower landing fees, etc., the CS300 is going to a real strategic gem for B6.
 
ytz
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:29 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
ScottB wrote:

The models within each product line do indeed compete with each other -- but that's generally OK since the revenue stays in the family.


What you are forgetting is that at present, Airbus will be receiving 50.01% of A220 profits rather than 100% for the A320. While Airbus only paid $1 for the A220, it is still a significant aspect to consider.


And what you are forgetting is that with CASM being the same, Airbus was being forced to discount the A320, every time it went up against the CS300. So they were discounting what they were selling. And facing potential order losses as well, wherever Bombardier could sneak in a win. Now, they get 50% of every CS3 sold. And 50% of every CS1 sold against the EJets, a market they didn't compete in before. And they get to move a lot of A320 orders up to the 321, while significantly cutting back on 320 family discounts. Those higher margins are making their investors very happy.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:32 pm

ScottB wrote:

The models within each product line do indeed compete with each other -- but that's generally OK since the revenue stays in the family.


What many are forgetting is that at present, Airbus will be receiving 50.01% of A220 profits rather than 100% for the A320. While Airbus only paid $1 for the A220, it is still a significant aspect to consider. In my opinion, if there is enough demand for the A220, Airbus will buyout the rest of the program in order to have full control and 100% of the profits.
Last edited by LockheedBBD on Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5880
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:46 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
While Airbus only paid $1 for the A220, it is still a significant aspect to consider. In my opinion, if there is enough demand for the A220, Airbus will buyout the rest of the program in order to have full control and 100% of the profits.


Airbus only paid US$1 to Bombardier, but even before the buyout, they will obviously bear considerable expense. They don't get a free lunch here. The agreement undoubtedly includes Airbus' investment into the program through facilities, marketing, whatever else.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3146
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:48 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
william wrote:

No, not really. It would be easier for Airbus to rewrite the CS software to mimic the rest of the Airbus line with their side sticks. The CS would stuck out like a sore thumb at Boeing. No commonality with the 737,upcoming MOM or 787. The cockpit hardware is different, if Boeing is going to redesign the cockpit and get it re certified then the CS is no longer the smoking deal everyone says it is, even if bought for a dollar. The CS is a much better fit as an Airbus.



:checkmark: :checkmark:


Well, not really. A significant amount of underlying logic is hardcoded, and can't be replaced with software update. Significant parts of hardware must be redeveloped. Not to mention that 50+% of the flight testing will have to be redone, as well as basically a new Flight Operations Manual will have to be developed.

Not saying it can't be done, but it's by no means just a rewrite of CS software. I think you're looking at redoing around 30 - 40% of the certification program. Sounds like something for a "neo" program in 15 years time . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:49 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
ScottB wrote:

The models within each product line do indeed compete with each other -- but that's generally OK since the revenue stays in the family.


What many are forgetting is that at present, Airbus will be receiving 50.01% of A220 profits rather than 100% for the A320. While Airbus only paid $1 for the A220, it is still a significant aspect to consider. In my opinion, if there is enough demand for the A220, Airbus will buyout the rest of the program in order to have full control and 100% of the profits.

At present Airbus will even have to pay 50.01% of the losses until the production turns profitable, that hasn't suddenly changed now Airbus has taken over. And they will only be able to reduce the production costs enough if there's enough volume on the production lines. They do need every single order that they can get hold of right now. So I don't think that Airbus will have any issues with airlines that want to order the A220 instead of the A320, or even convert orders to the A220. The backlog of the A320neo is gigantically large that it's absolutely not an issue, especially since any opened up A320 slots will be sold in no time and most of the times for a better price.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8140
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:18 pm

I keep reading suggestions from some posters that Boeing “could have had the CS for nothing” like Airbus did.

There is no evidence that BBD ever offered a partnership on the CS to Boeing for nothing. Or even to Airbus, for that matter, prior to the Boeing anti dumping case.

BBD was likely stronged armed by the Canadian government into giving up control of the program to Airbus during Boeing’s anti dumping case.

Indeed, both Airbus and Boeing previously PASSED on partnering with BBD on the CS.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
ScottB
Posts: 6282
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:41 pm

Momo1435 wrote:
So I don't think that Airbus will have any issues with airlines that want to order the A220 instead of the A320, or even convert orders to the A220. The backlog of the A320neo is gigantically large that it's absolutely not an issue, especially since any opened up A320 slots will be sold in no time and most of the times for a better price.


But if the issue is "too many discounted orders for A320neo in the backlog" (and I don't buy that for a nanosecond) then the better solution is to expand A320neo production and enjoy the economies of scale which come with that. It's not clear to me that those slots will necessarily be sold for a better price, either, if customers know that Airbus is willing to make deals on the A220 in order to support production ramp.

ytz wrote:
And what you are forgetting is that with CASM being the same, Airbus was being forced to discount the A320, every time it went up against the CS300. So they were discounting what they were selling. And facing potential order losses as well, wherever Bombardier could sneak in a win. Now, they get 50% of every CS3 sold. And 50% of every CS1 sold against the EJets, a market they didn't compete in before. And they get to move a lot of A320 orders up to the 321, while significantly cutting back on 320 family discounts. Those higher margins are making their investors very happy.


Airbus had to discount the A320neo anyway due to competition from the 737-8. I don't understand how they "[cut] back on 320 family discounts" by reducing aggregate demand for the family. The A320neos upgauged to A321neos would happen regardless if the customer felt that the A321neo was a better fit for their fleet plans going forward. But I'm still convinced we won't see any new A320neos delivered to B6; I think that's slightly less profitable for Airbus in the long run in that the E195-E2 is just a bit too small to effectively address that segment.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:42 pm

ytz wrote:
A nice benefit for B6, missed in the discussion. By switching some routes from A320 to A223, they now save one cabin crew per a/c. They got pushed into going over 150 seats on their A320s by investors. You could tell they were never entirely happy with the idea. And, when they get a few CS100/221s onboard, they can boost Even More Space a bit more than the E190s today. Their whole non-Mint fleet can now be consistent around 25% of seats being EMS, give or take a few to fill out a row.

For their non-Mint fleet, my prediction is this for Y+/Y:
A221 - 25/75
A223 - 35/95
A321 - 42/158

Add in lower pay for pilots on the CS3 (or same pay with no raise for a while....), and lower landing fees, etc., the CS300 is going to a real strategic gem for B6.


Well they're replacing 60 aircraft that need two FA's with 60 aircraft that will require three, they will have to add the flight attendants needed to provide 1 extra FA per A220-300 flight over the E190, so overall they'll be adding labor to work the same fleet count as the existing E190 fleet. I imagine they're counting on the lower costs of the A220 to offset that.
Last edited by WkndWanderer on Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2086
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:51 pm

tphuang wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
Wow this is great news great news indeed!!

Hope the A220 will make more inroads. There should be a lot of opportunities in Asia too.

What happen to the undelivered E190 for B6 then? I can't imagine Embraer will let B6 walk away from it?

According to leeham news, the cancellation fees are pretty low.

The bigger issue is what to do with the 30 e90s that they own. The leased ones will just get returned after 2023. There was quite a few uncomfortable questions about that on the conference call.


They aren't bad for shorter missions. They just aren't efficient enough for midcon to east or west coast length routes that Jet Blue was using them for.
 
queb
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:59 pm

Per JetBlue PR

The aircraft’s advanced aerodynamics combined with a specially designed Pratt & Whitney engine help the aircraft deliver approximately 40 percent lower fuel burn per seat than JetBlue’s current E190 fleet


http://blueir.investproductions.com/inv ... -211604881
 
ytz
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:09 pm

ScottB wrote:
Airbus had to discount the A320neo anyway due to competition from the 737-8. I don't understand how they "[cut] back on 320 family discounts" by reducing aggregate demand for the family.


There must be some serious debilitating amnesia or selective blindness being passed around this forum. Let's just ignore incidents like this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-t ... ion-2016-3

The CSeries had no impact on Boeing and Airbus narrowbody sales margins right?

ScottB wrote:
The A320neos upgauged to A321neos would happen regardless if the customer felt that the A321neo was a better fit for their fleet plans going forward.


Not necessarily. If you need aircraft around 130-160 seats, you may not necessarily upgauge.

ScottB wrote:
But I'm still convinced we won't see any new A320neos delivered to B6;


And they shouldn't. The 223 and 321 combo is practically custom made for B6. Opens up so much new opportunity. 320s/320NEOs were always overbuilt and overmatched for a lot of their routes. They now get to use 223s for frequency or long thin routes. And 321s for volume and Mint routes.

ScottB wrote:
I think that's slightly less profitable for Airbus in the long run in that the E195-E2 is just a bit too small to effectively address that segment.


Embraer had a legitimate shot. So either B6 could have gone with E195-E2s or the CS3 or discounted A320s. None of that would have been good for Airbus.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:10 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
WN has never ordered any plane from a factory that isn't a 737. Unfortunately for small market cities, the 737 is no longer the aircraft it used to be. It is no longer the short range small narrow body. The 737-800 is a 727-200 capacity plane with transcontinental range. The 8 Max has the same capacity but can fly shorter transatlantic routes. WN needs to get over their fixation with flying just one type of airplane. They no longer have planes suitable for small markets. I haven't flown WN from my home airport in 8 years. Lots of airports on their route system are not available from my city on their online ticket sales. Connection times at HOU can be so long that I can save time driving to SAT.


I agree with you 110%..WN treats the 737 is end all be all. I hope they are prepared for B6 & DL to eat their lunch on routes they directly compete with them on with their respective CS300s. WN is too navie for their own good. They refuse to accept the fact that the 737 is not a one size fits all. Most of the airlines who were based off "the southwest model" have already diversified their fleet.

CobaltScar wrote:
You don't need 135 seats for small island hops in the Caribbean or for their new england/new york regional flying to keep massport and the port authority of NY happy. You don't need 135 seats to go from San Juan to St. Tomas nor from Worcester to New York.

IMO there is still a place for a small e190 sub-fleet.


I want to believe...


I think B6 will end up with 20-30 CS100s for that role
 
ytz
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:12 pm

WkndWanderer wrote:
ytz wrote:
A nice benefit for B6, missed in the discussion. By switching some routes from A320 to A223, they now save one cabin crew per a/c. They got pushed into going over 150 seats on their A320s by investors. You could tell they were never entirely happy with the idea. And, when they get a few CS100/221s onboard, they can boost Even More Space a bit more than the E190s today. Their whole non-Mint fleet can now be consistent around 25% of seats being EMS, give or take a few to fill out a row.

For their non-Mint fleet, my prediction is this for Y+/Y:
A221 - 25/75
A223 - 35/95
A321 - 42/158

Add in lower pay for pilots on the CS3 (or same pay with no raise for a while....), and lower landing fees, etc., the CS300 is going to a real strategic gem for B6.


Well they're replacing 60 aircraft that need two FA's with 60 aircraft that will require three, they will have to add the flight attendants needed to provide 1 extra FA per A220-300 flight over the E190, so overall they'll be adding labor to work the same fleet count as the existing E190 fleet. I imagine they're counting on the lower costs of the A220 to offset that.


They have 60 options waiting to replace A320s. Writing is on the wall.

I think we'll see at least 20-30 221s eventually. And those will be back to 2 FAs.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2086
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:21 pm

Erebus wrote:
767333ER wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:

Any play of A320 vs. A220 isn't a good thing for Airbus. Competing against yourself is never a positive. Not only from a revenue side obviously, but also a cost side as you lose economies of scale. What is lost here is B6's desire to add 25 A321s to the order book. Those orders are lost.

The fact that Airbus is already 0 for 1 in preventing the A220 and A320 from competing against each other doesn't bode well for the belief that the A220 is only "complementary" to the A320. It's clearly also a competitor.

Your logic here is pretty much the same thing as saying the A319 and A320 compete with each other or the 737-7 and -8 compete with each other and it is bad to have both and this logic is most illogical and makes no sense.


:checkmark:

One could say that just about anything competes with everything as long as you add "to some degree" at the end of it. It would be like saying Boeing doesn't need to get the E-jets on its side because it would compete for sales of its own 737-7s or that it doesn't need to spend billions developing a MoM when it would eat into the sales of its own 787-8s. And that airlines should suck it up and take the existing aircraft on offer even though it isn't the perfect one for all missions.


If Boeing won't eat its own children, Airbus will. The 737 is basically a 1960's design based on 1950's anid 1960's parts developed for the 707 and 727. At the time it came out it was a short to md range jet that needed to allocate structure for a higher fuel fraction than is needed for planes designed today for the original 737 mission would have. Boeing was able to make lemonade out of lemons by multiple reenginings and stretches of the basic 737 airframe. This made the 737 both much longer ranged and higher capacity than its original models. It is fine for short routes that need the number of seats a 737-800 has, but the 700 and -7 are a bit heavy especially at new plane prices for short routes.

The growth of the 737 and the A320 for matter has left a rather large hole at the bottom of the mainline airliner market. Lots of cities can't support frequency of service at the size of Boeing's smallest planes on offer today. Depending on distance to other cities, people will just drive to another city to find flights rather than wait hours at connecting airports.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2086
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:38 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
Personally, I think the A220-100/300 would be a better fit for WN and I think had Boeing taken over CS100/300 production, it would’ve happened. WN is Boeing all the way.


WN has never ordered any plane from a factory that isn't a 737. Unfortunately for small market cities, the 737 is no longer the aircraft it used to be. It is no longer the short range small narrow body. The 737-800 is a 727-200 capacity plane with transcontinental range. The 8 Max has the same capacity but can fly shorter transatlantic routes. WN needs to get over their fixation with flying just one type of airplane. They no longer have planes suitable for small markets. I haven't flown WN from my home airport in 8 years. Lots of airports on their route system are not available from my city on their online ticket sales. Connection times at HOU can be so long that I can save time driving to SAT.


I concur with this. The underlying dynamic is that neither Boeing nor Airbus knew they were overbuilding those early 737/320s. Its bones were such that everyone now knows they were 150-200+ planes and with a lot of range. They both need a plane with smaller bones. So does WN


They weren't overbuilt for 1968 when JT-8D engines from the 727 were the best engines available. It's just in comparison to newer planes with more efficient engines, the 737 has too much structure for its original role flying 100 to 130 people on routes like LAX-SFO and HOU-DAL. Both Boeing and Airbus have left a very large hole at the bottom of the market for so long that Bombardier was able to develop a totally new optimized design over most if a decade.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4599
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:09 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Follow the debate points. No one is saying that B6 isn't getting what they want. In fact, only the opposite. They're getting the best deal on paper.

You're trying to paint the worst case scenario (B6 moving completely away from Airbus in the <160 seat range) as the key. Of course that was possible, but are we really going to believe that would have happened? What's more likely, that B6 moves completely away from Airbus, or B6 ordering more A320s instead of a floundering CS300 and E195-E2? Would seem doubtful. Instead Airbus purchased a partial substitute. Airbus lost the highly likely opportunity for 25 orders. If we assume that B6 knows what they are doing, we can assume they wouldn't have ordered or kept the 25 A320neos on order if they really wanted A321neos instead. And if they really wanted A321neos instead, an order for them would have come at some point. And if they indeed wanted A320neos later and A321neos now, there's still no need to wait for the A220 to exist prior to making those changes. Again, all assuming managerial competence from B6. If you assume competence from B6, you would not come to those incompetent scenarios. What we have is 25 aircraft that Airbus now isn't seeing on their potential order books.

Before today B6 had 25 A320neos on order. Do you think they just had them on order for the fun of it? Of course not, they had a purpose. And that purpose has now been taken by the A220.


I don't think you're quite getting that B6 was looking for a 190 replacement with this deal and the 320 is not a 190 replacement. Since it was never in contention, it was never going to be chosen. The only new sale that was going to take place was for a small single aisle aircraft. Because of the deal with BBD, Airbus is making money on a sale that they otherwise would have missed out on entirely.

What this deal did is multi layered...for both B6 and Airbus. On one hand, the economics of the 220 make it possible to replace both the 190 and 320 on many routes, reducing the need for more 320's, but it doesn't affect the business case for the 321, which also can replace the 320 on many routes. The combination of the 220 and 321 in their fleet means pretty much total overlap of the capabilities of the 320. The upgauge to the 321 from a previous order, means they get to further optimize their fleet and Airbus gets a bonus from selling a more expensive, and profitable, aircraft.

You are correct that the 220 does compete with the 320, but so does the 321. Their future fleet needs probably won't include the 320 but will definitely include the 220 and 321.

There was never going to be a sale of more 320's to B6, so Airbus lost nothing, and gained a multi billion dollar sale. Going forward, I can see other airlines going for this combination of aircraft sizes, and not just Airbus fleets. Airlines with 737 fleets would see the same advantages by adding 220's and 737-9/10's to their fleets.


ytz wrote:
They have 60 options waiting to replace A320s. Writing is on the wall.

I think we'll see at least 20-30 221s eventually. And those will be back to 2 FAs.


I don't think B6 is in any rush to get rid of their 320's but I doubt they will buy any more. I think we're seeing the future of their fleet unfold, with further expansion solely comprising of 220's and 321's.

flyingclrs727 wrote:
[

They weren't overbuilt for 1968 when JT-8D engines from the 727 were the best engines available. It's just in comparison to newer planes with more efficient engines, the 737 has too much structure for its original role flying 100 to 130 people on routes like LAX-SFO and HOU-DAL. Both Boeing and Airbus have left a very large hole at the bottom of the market for so long that Bombardier was able to develop a totally new optimized design over most if a decade.


Ironically, that the 737 and 320 were so overbuilt from the outset, is partly why they keep getting more efficient per pound, with every upgrade and stretch. Effectively, it's as if the 737-6/7/8 and 318/19/20 were shrinks of the 739/10 and 321. At the larger sizes, they have finally grown into the potential built into their airframes.
What the...?
 
ytz
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:14 pm

queb wrote:
Per JetBlue PR

The aircraft’s advanced aerodynamics combined with a specially designed Pratt & Whitney engine help the aircraft deliver approximately 40 percent lower fuel burn per seat than JetBlue’s current E190 fleet


http://blueir.investproductions.com/inv ... -211604881


If true....wow. I do think there's some marketing speak here.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8728
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:19 pm

ytz wrote:
queb wrote:
Per JetBlue PR

The aircraft’s advanced aerodynamics combined with a specially designed Pratt & Whitney engine help the aircraft deliver approximately 40 percent lower fuel burn per seat than JetBlue’s current E190 fleet


http://blueir.investproductions.com/inv ... -211604881


If true....wow. I do think there's some marketing speak here.

It’s believable. Remember it is fuel burn per seat. The A220-300 has newer more fuel efficient engines than the E190 E1 and will have ~30-40 more seats than the E190. So it is not a direct apples to apples comparison because the A223 is much larger (30-40% larger!). The fuel burn per a seat is probably even better on the A321neo.
 
TSA125
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:56 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:26 pm

queb wrote:
Block wrote:
The Question is whether the A220 will become etops certified. Or is it already?


ETOPS 120 flight test are done, Certification in the coming weeks.


Is it even a viable consideration for the 'long and skinny' TATL routes? Does the -300 have the range?
No not that TSA.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6282
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:35 pm

ytz wrote:
Not necessarily. If you need aircraft around 130-160 seats, you may not necessarily upgauge.


Let me be a bit more specific then. B6 upgauged to the A321neo for those specific orders because they identified that model as being a better fit for their fleet plans than the A320neo. Had they not ordered the A220-300, I suspect the likely outcome would have been additional orders for the A320neo and/or A321neo, rather than a conversion of the existing order.

ytz wrote:
The CSeries had no impact on Boeing and Airbus narrowbody sales margins right?


Of course it did; A & B were both trying to kill the C-Series. F9/Republic got a screaming deal on its A32Xneos in exchange for the A319neo order which was intended to kneecap the C-Series (as Republic had made a very high-profile C-Series order). But bringing the C-Series onboard as the A220 won't eliminate the pressure on sales margins for the A320.

ytz wrote:
Embraer had a legitimate shot. So either B6 could have gone with E195-E2s or the CS3 or discounted A320s. None of that would have been good for Airbus.


Eh, one might argue that margins are probably better on the A320neo and net profit might have been higher for Airbus without the A220 order given that some of the A220s supplant A320neos which might have otherwise been ordered by B6.
 
User avatar
FlightLevel360
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:26 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:44 pm

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:
The idea would be the A220 would replace the E190s plus some of the older A320s. Wouldn’t be surprised if Jetblue ends up being just an A321CEO/NEO/LR/XLR and A220-300/100 fleet and slowly retire the A320s.
The A220 has the advantage of flying short routes then fly a transcons with a red eye coming back to maximize aircraft utilization.


What do you mean by A321XLR? I'm not sure that variant exists yet. Surely they aren't going to eventually make the A321neo have the range to fly from the United States to Asia aren't they? That would be one heck of an uncomfortable flight...
The A380 is simply the best aircraft ever designed in every way. Period.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2086
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:47 pm

TSA125 wrote:
queb wrote:
Block wrote:
The Question is whether the A220 will become etops certified. Or is it already?


ETOPS 120 flight test are done, Certification in the coming weeks.


Is it even a viable consideration for the 'long and skinny' TATL routes? Does the -300 have the range?


I doubt very seriously the current generation of engines would allow an A220-300 have transatlantic range. Bombardier was talking about having CS-100's upgraded to CS-300 weights and engines do transatlantic routes. Making the structures of the CS-300 strong and big enough to carry enough fuel for transatlantic missions would make the CS-100 too heavy.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4599
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:09 pm

ScottB wrote:
ytz wrote:
Not necessarily. If you need aircraft around 130-160 seats, you may not necessarily upgauge.


Let me be a bit more specific then. B6 upgauged to the A321neo for those specific orders because they identified that model as being a better fit for their fleet plans than the A320neo. Had they not ordered the A220-300, I suspect the likely outcome would have been additional orders for the A320neo and/or A321neo, rather than a conversion of the existing order.

ytz wrote:
The CSeries had no impact on Boeing and Airbus narrowbody sales margins right?


Of course it did; A & B were both trying to kill the C-Series. F9/Republic got a screaming deal on its A32Xneos in exchange for the A319neo order which was intended to kneecap the C-Series (as Republic had made a very high-profile C-Series order). But bringing the C-Series onboard as the A220 won't eliminate the pressure on sales margins for the A320.

ytz wrote:
Embraer had a legitimate shot. So either B6 could have gone with E195-E2s or the CS3 or discounted A320s. None of that would have been good for Airbus.


Eh, one might argue that margins are probably better on the A320neo and net profit might have been higher for Airbus without the A220 order given that some of the A220s supplant A320neos which might have otherwise been ordered by B6.


If the 220 or E2-195 wasn't an option, then sure, B6 may have ordered the 320. They also may have ordered the 319, since it is closer to the size of the aircraft they wanted. Since the options were available, there was no chance that B6 was going to order the 320. If Airbus didn't take over the CSeries, then it's more than likely that B6 would have still ordered the CS300 or the 195. Either way, it was not going to be the 320.

No doubt the margins are better for Airbus on the 320 than the 220, but B6 didn't want the 320, so the point is moot. As well, the margins on the 321 are better than the 320, so Airbus wins both ways in this deal.

It's not just the 220 that puts pressure on the 320, but also the 321. Like most aircraft lines, the largest model is the most efficient, gaining greater CASM for minimum extra trip costs. It's the combination of the 220 and the 321 that really put the squeeze on the 320.

It was inevitable that the 320 was going to be challenged from within as well as from outside the company, just like the 318 and 319 were. That's not to say there isn't a market for the 320. It's capabilities can't be completely duplicated by either the 220 or 321 so though it is currently the most popular model of the family, I think new orders will shift the trend to the 321.

Overall, Airbus made the prudent choice of taking control of one of the competitors, and keeps the profits in house.
What the...?
 
ytz
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:12 pm

ScottB wrote:
ytz wrote:
Not necessarily. If you need aircraft around 130-160 seats, you may not necessarily upgauge.


Let me be a bit more specific then. B6 upgauged to the A321neo for those specific orders because they identified that model as being a better fit for their fleet plans than the A320neo. Had they not ordered the A220-300, I suspect the likely outcome would have been additional orders for the A320neo and/or A321neo, rather than a conversion of the existing order.


I think your assumption may be a bridge too far. I think the CS3 and E195-E2 were real contenders and the only way Airbus would have sold many more A320s would have been crazy discounting. Instead, they now up-gauge every A320 order to an A321 and get half on an order they might well have struggled on, or made little profit if they had won it.

ScottB wrote:
ytz wrote:
Embraer had a legitimate shot. So either B6 could have gone with E195-E2s or the CS3 or discounted A320s. None of that would have been good for Airbus.


Eh, one might argue that margins are probably better on the A320neo and net profit might have been higher for Airbus without the A220 order given that some of the A220s supplant A320neos which might have otherwise been ordered by B6.


See above. IMHO, there's no way Airbus would have walked away with a more profitable deal if the CSeries was not in their hands.

I don't get how somebody can say this:

ScottB wrote:
But bringing the C-Series onboard as the A220 won't eliminate the pressure on sales margins for the A320.


Right after saying this:

ScottB wrote:
ytz wrote:
The CSeries had no impact on Boeing and Airbus narrowbody sales margins right?


Of course it did; A & B were both trying to kill the C-Series. F9/Republic got a screaming deal on its A32Xneos in exchange for the A319neo order which was intended to kneecap the C-Series (as Republic had made a very high-profile C-Series order).


Also, strawman argument. Nobody ever suggested buying up the CSeries "eliminates the pressure on sales margins for the A320." What buying up the CSeries did is return everything to status quo ante, before the CSeries. Airbus has restored the duopoly and ended the collateral to their own programs from the shots Boeing and Airbus were taking on the CSeries.
 
queb
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:18 pm

Polot wrote:
ytz wrote:
queb wrote:


If true....wow. I do think there's some marketing speak here.

It’s believable. Remember it is fuel burn per seat. The A220-300 has newer more fuel efficient engines than the E190 E1 and will have ~30-40 more seats than the E190. So it is not a direct apples to apples comparison because the A223 is much larger (30-40% larger!). The fuel burn per a seat is probably even better on the A321neo.


there's also this:

The current E190s account for only 11% of its seat-miles, but 20% of its operating expense. The A220 has 29% lower direct operating cost per seat, says the airline.


https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status ... 2230846464
 
ytz
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:19 pm

Polot wrote:
ytz wrote:
queb wrote:


If true....wow. I do think there's some marketing speak here.

It’s believable. Remember it is fuel burn per seat. The A220-300 has newer more fuel efficient engines than the E190 E1 and will have ~30-40 more seats than the E190. So it is not a direct apples to apples comparison because the A223 is much larger (30-40% larger!). The fuel burn per a seat is probably even better on the A321neo.


Excellent point. In my excitement as seeing 40% lower fuel burn, I ignored the per seat part. This does explain a lot about why they were willing to upgauge to the 223. Effectively, the 30% extra seats are "free". Roughly the same fuel burn as their existing E190s (or slightly less) and a lot more pax. Given that they they can downsized from the 320 with the 60 options in the future, cutting costs there, this really starts to look like a solid proposition for B6.

queb wrote:
Polot wrote:
ytz wrote:

If true....wow. I do think there's some marketing speak here.

It’s believable. Remember it is fuel burn per seat. The A220-300 has newer more fuel efficient engines than the E190 E1 and will have ~30-40 more seats than the E190. So it is not a direct apples to apples comparison because the A223 is much larger (30-40% larger!). The fuel burn per a seat is probably even better on the A321neo.


there's also this:

The current E190s account for only 11% of its seat-miles, but 20% of its operating expense. The A220 has 29% lower direct operating cost per seat, says the airline.


https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status ... 2230846464


I wonder how the E195-E2 would have fared on these metrics.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15823
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:43 pm

ytz wrote:
Polot wrote:
ytz wrote:

If true....wow. I do think there's some marketing speak here.

It’s believable. Remember it is fuel burn per seat. The A220-300 has newer more fuel efficient engines than the E190 E1 and will have ~30-40 more seats than the E190. So it is not a direct apples to apples comparison because the A223 is much larger (30-40% larger!). The fuel burn per a seat is probably even better on the A321neo.


Excellent point. In my excitement as seeing 40% lower fuel burn, I ignored the per seat part. This does explain a lot about why they were willing to upgauge to the 223. Effectively, the 30% extra seats are "free". Roughly the same fuel burn as their existing E190s (or slightly less) and a lot more pax. Given that they they can downsized from the 320 with the 60 options in the future, cutting costs there, this really starts to look like a solid proposition for B6.

queb wrote:
Polot wrote:
It’s believable. Remember it is fuel burn per seat. The A220-300 has newer more fuel efficient engines than the E190 E1 and will have ~30-40 more seats than the E190. So it is not a direct apples to apples comparison because the A223 is much larger (30-40% larger!). The fuel burn per a seat is probably even better on the A321neo.


there's also this:

The current E190s account for only 11% of its seat-miles, but 20% of its operating expense. The A220 has 29% lower direct operating cost per seat, says the airline.


https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status ... 2230846464


I wonder how the E195-E2 would have fared on these metrics.

The A220-300 should have the same cost per seat as the A320NEO. I happen to agree JetBlue should go all A220-300 and A321NEO unless an A220-500 is gifted by Santa. :spin:

The E2-195 has a lower cost per flight, but higher cost per seat. Until I see some certified fuel burn numbers, I can only approximate and hand wave... It has a greater advantage on shorter missions as on longer missions the A220 subsystems save a few percent in fuel. (The E2-195 saves the money in takeoff and climb).

I see a market for the E2-195. Old posts of mine touted how it would far and away be the best selling E2S. But Boeing is being a brutal competitor in any bid they can spoil (thanks to good manufacturincosts enabled by production volume).

Never mistake any bid as a two way competition, it is always a four way decision (downselected to a pair usually). Embraer is in a bind. While Bombardier needs more customers too, at least the A220 has Delta and JetBlue as secondary customers (both buy or lease older airframes as needed). Embraer does not yet have such a customer (such as United who is shopping).

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
tphuang
Posts: 2173
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:57 pm

lightsaber wrote:
ytz wrote:
Polot wrote:
It’s believable. Remember it is fuel burn per seat. The A220-300 has newer more fuel efficient engines than the E190 E1 and will have ~30-40 more seats than the E190. So it is not a direct apples to apples comparison because the A223 is much larger (30-40% larger!). The fuel burn per a seat is probably even better on the A321neo.


Excellent point. In my excitement as seeing 40% lower fuel burn, I ignored the per seat part. This does explain a lot about why they were willing to upgauge to the 223. Effectively, the 30% extra seats are "free". Roughly the same fuel burn as their existing E190s (or slightly less) and a lot more pax. Given that they they can downsized from the 320 with the 60 options in the future, cutting costs there, this really starts to look like a solid proposition for B6.

queb wrote:


I wonder how the E195-E2 would have fared on these metrics.

The A220-300 should have the same cost per seat as the A320NEO. I happen to agree JetBlue should go all A220-300 and A321NEO unless an A220-500 is gifted by Santa. :spin:

The E2-195 has a lower cost per flight, but higher cost per seat. Until I see some certified fuel burn numbers, I can only approximate and hand wave... It has a greater advantage on shorter missions as on longer missions the A220 subsystems save a few percent in fuel. (The E2-195 saves the money in takeoff and climb).

I see a market for the E2-195. Old posts of mine touted how it would far and away be the best selling E2S. But Boeing is being a brutal competitor in any bid they can spoil (thanks to good manufacturincosts enabled by production volume).

Never mistake any bid as a two way competition, it is always a four way decision (downselected to a pair usually). Embraer is in a bind. While Bombardier needs more customers too, at least the A220 has Delta and JetBlue as secondary customers (both buy or lease older airframes as needed). Embraer does not yet have such a customer (such as United who is shopping).

Lightsaber


I would imagine JetBlue would be very interested in a 500 if it is offered. The gap between 300 and a321 is way too large. A320 replacement would have to be that or a320.5. Not every route needs to be upgauged to a321.

Also, embraer has serious shortcomings that caused some real problems for b6. While on paper, e2 may look competitive to a220, it very well could have the same reliability and maintenance issues that b6 ran into with e90. I don’t think b6 could have ordered more embraer jets after what happened this summer.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:06 pm

tphuang wrote:

I don’t think b6 could have ordered more embraer jets after what happened this summer.


What happened this summer?
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:26 pm

SteelChair wrote:
The A319 was dead already. Dead on arrival. DOA.


The A319Neo. The A319 has sold a solid almost 1500 units, not quite calling that a DOA plane.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15823
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:52 pm

Jayafe wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
The A319 was dead already. Dead on arrival. DOA.


The A319Neo. The A319 has sold a solid almost 1500 units, not quite calling that a DOA plane.

Once upon a time the A319 saved a significant amount of money per flight, but a higher cost per seat, than the A320. Then there were engine PIPs, Sharklets, and eventually new engines with other upgrades that reduced the cost per flight advantage to only a few seats.

The A319NEO is DOA for commercial flights. It is the new A318, too much potential revenue lost for a tiny cost per flight savings.

With the A320 SHARP shortfield kit coming, I see no reason to buy the short NEO. In fact, with the A220 part of Airbus' portfolio, I see NEO sales shifting to the A321. The Pratt PIP will accelerate the trend. CMC turbine blades are what is required to really motivate the shift. I'm not sure when the LEAP gets them (I will be shocked bif CFM isn't first in this size class considering the GE9X is the launch platform for the tech,). All PIPs reduce the cost of the stretches far more than short versions of an airframe.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 528
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:54 pm

Thank you for the clarification, i should have specified.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:55 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
tphuang wrote:

I don’t think b6 could have ordered more embraer jets after what happened this summer.


What happened this summer?



A couple broke and I think are down for the count.
 
ytz
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:08 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The A220-300 should have the same cost per seat as the A320NEO. I happen to agree JetBlue should go all A220-300 and A321NEO unless an A220-500 is gifted by Santa. :spin:

Lightsaber



tphuang wrote:

I would imagine JetBlue would be very interested in a 500 if it is offered. The gap between 300 and a321 is way too large. A320 replacement would have to be that or a320.5. Not every route needs to be upgauged to a321.


My dream fleet for B6 would be 221, 225 and 321s. But I think the 225s only work for B6, if they are sized such that B6 gets them to 150 pax in 2-class. They don't want to get pushed into 160 seat territory by their investors again.

Hopefully, when the 225 happens, it's sized smaller than an A320 (to about 155 in 2-class), which would let B6 upgauge to 150 seats birds. Till then, those 223s are perfect to boost frequencies, open some new routes and shift the heavy routes to the CASM king that is the 321N.

tphuang wrote:
Also, embraer has serious shortcomings that caused some real problems for b6. While on paper, e2 may look competitive to a220, it very well could have the same reliability and maintenance issues that b6 ran into with e90. I don’t think b6 could have ordered more embraer jets after what happened this summer.


Disagree. Embraer has been doing well getting the E2 up and going. I don't think B6 wanted to risk being a launch or early customer with Embraer again. But I do think they'd have considered the EJets for sure. I think Airbus' acquisition of the CSeries program changed the game for them. They now get the airplane size they wanted, with the support they wanted, and probably a few sweeteners from Airbus (like early delivery slots).
 
ytz
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:16 pm

lightsaber wrote:
In fact, with the A220 part of Airbus' portfolio, I see NEO sales shifting to the A321.

Lightsaber


Bingo. How do more people not see this? The model that B6 is using here works well for so many airlines. Classic high-low mix. Could do the same with Embraer and Boeing or Bombardier and Boeing or Embraer and Airbus. If you're large enough, you can get by with two narrowbody fleets with two models in each fleet, and you'll have a much more optimized fleet. In Airbus' case though, the case to upgauge to the 321 is much more clear though. Less so with Boeing, as we see more even distribution between MAX-9 and MAX-10.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 2834
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:37 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
I don't think you're quite getting that B6 was looking for a 190 replacement with this deal and the 320 is not a 190 replacement. Since it was never in contention, it was never going to be chosen. The only new sale that was going to take place was for a small single aisle aircraft. Because of the deal with BBD, Airbus is making money on a sale that they otherwise would have missed out on entirely.


What B6 was looking to replace is irrelevant to the fact that the A320neo ended up being part of the story. Clearly B6 sees the A220 as not only a E190 replacement, but also a substitute for A320s. It's taking roles from both.

JoeCanuck wrote:
There was never going to be a sale of more 320's to B6, so Airbus lost nothing, and gained a multi billion dollar sale. Going forward, I can see other airlines going for this combination of aircraft sizes, and not just Airbus fleets. Airlines with 737 fleets would see the same advantages by adding 220's and 737-9/10's to their fleets.


And you know this how? Why would they never order more of a new airplane of their most owned model that was already on their order book?

And even if we say that Airbus never sold another A320 to B6, what about more A321s that they clearly wanted? That's 25 that B6 now doesn't need. Everywhere you look, Airbus lost a portion of of their likely future sales.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15823
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:39 pm

ytz wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The A220-300 should have the same cost per seat as the A320NEO. I happen to agree JetBlue should go all A220-300 and A321NEO unless an A220-500 is gifted by Santa. :spin:

Lightsaber



tphuang wrote:

I would imagine JetBlue would be very interested in a 500 if it is offered. The gap between 300 and a321 is way too large. A320 replacement would have to be that or a320.5. Not every route needs to be upgauged to a321.


My dream fleet for B6 would be 221, 225 and 321s. But I think the 225s only work for B6, if they are sized such that B6 gets them to 150 pax in 2-class. They don't want to get pushed into 160 seat territory by their investors again.

Hopefully, when the 225 happens, it's sized smaller than an A320 (to about 155 in 2-class), which would let B6 upgauge to 150 seats birds. Till then, those 223s are perfect to boost frequencies, open some new routes and shift the heavy routes to the CASM king that is the 321N.

tphuang wrote:
Also, embraer has serious shortcomings that caused some real problems for b6. While on paper, e2 may look competitive to a220, it very well could have the same reliability and maintenance issues that b6 ran into with e90. I don’t think b6 could have ordered more embraer jets after what happened this summer.


Disagree. Embraer has been doing well getting the E2 up and going. I don't think B6 wanted to risk being a launch or early customer with Embraer again. But I do think they'd have considered the EJets for sure. I think Airbus' acquisition of the CSeries program changed the game for them. They now get the airplane size they wanted, with the support they wanted, and probably a few sweeteners from Airbus (like early delivery slots).

We can agree on the ideal B6 fleet of A223, A225, and A321.

We can agree that the E2 was a serious contender. However, there is little risk of a circa 2020 A223 becoming the fleet leaders (greatest number of cycles or hours). Fleet leaders find the unknown issues.. It is certain that for the E2-195 JetBlue would fly intensely enough to experience issues before inspection programs and standard repairs were created.

I estimate the fleet leader A223 will have 7k to 8k cycles when JetBlue takes first delivery and 9k to 11k hours. I do not expect JetBlue to accumulate more cycles, so their A223 will see issues about 3 years behind AirBaltic, Swiss, and Kirean on cycles. On hours I do expect JetBlue to accumulate them faster. But at most 200 to 400 hours per year faster. So JetBlue in 2045 might be the first to find out about an A223 issue. The present value of that risk isn't worth discussing


Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
tealnz
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:50 pm

ytz wrote:
Polot wrote:
ytz wrote:
If true....wow. I do think there's some marketing speak here.

It’s believable. Remember it is fuel burn per seat. The A220-300 has newer more fuel efficient engines than the E190 E1 and will have ~30-40 more seats than the E190. So it is not a direct apples to apples comparison because the A223 is much larger (30-40% larger!). The fuel burn per a seat is probably even better on the A321neo.

Excellent point. In my excitement as seeing 40% lower fuel burn, I ignored the per seat part. This does explain a lot about why they were willing to upgauge to the 223. Effectively, the 30% extra seats are "free". Roughly the same fuel burn as their existing E190s (or slightly less) and a lot more pax. Given that they they can downsized from the 320 with the 60 options in the future, cutting costs there, this really starts to look like a solid proposition for B6.
queb wrote:
Polot wrote:
It’s believable. Remember it is fuel burn per seat. The A220-300 has newer more fuel efficient engines than the E190 E1 and will have ~30-40 more seats than the E190. So it is not a direct apples to apples comparison because the A223 is much larger (30-40% larger!). The fuel burn per a seat is probably even better on the A321neo.

there's also this:
The current E190s account for only 11% of its seat-miles, but 20% of its operating expense. The A220 has 29% lower direct operating cost per seat, says the airline.

https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status ... 2230846464

I wonder how the E195-E2 would have fared on these metrics.

At first glance the 40% and 29% numbers are a sharp kick in the goolies for Embraer. But the real target has gotta be Boeing. JetBlue can't have been amused by [proud new E-jet marketer] Boeing's C-series dumping stunt. What's that they say about a dish best served cold...?
Last edited by tealnz on Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
klkla
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:50 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
Actually...it's almost both. As far as I can tell, lower trip costs and way better CASM than the 190...lower CASM and way better trip costs than the 320.


But wasn't the competition between the E2 and a220? The a220 should have better trip costs and CASM against orignal 190, but does it also have lower trip costs than E2?
 
msycajun
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:13 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:56 pm

Flighty wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
FlyBTV wrote:

I don't think the concern stems from performance issues - but rather can a small market like BTV support 145 seats on several departures for B6?

I'd argue it can, in part because historically it has and a number of legacy carriers have been upgauging into BTV as of late. United flies a 737-8 and Delta flies a 717, albeit each once daily and not to NYC-area airports, with other departures being covered by regional jets. BTV went through a decent slump in passenger traffic for several years but it is now approaching historical highs once again. Passenger volume is back to the level when B6 was flying A320s (which were configured to 150 seats at the time). I do always worry about B6 dropping BTV generally (even though I've moved from the area) - it is a small market, the smallest that B6 flies into. When I worked there, just under 50% of airport traffic was Canadian, no idea whether that is still the case (PBG has siphoned off some traffic as it is an easier drive from Montreal). B6 really never had an issue filling seats out of BTV, but yields were below other markets where the resources could be employed instead.

Another option would be dropping from 3x daily to JFK to 2x with the A220, although that would make them significantly less convenient as an option. No airline in recent times have had success with BTV-BOS, and they don't have slots to spare at DCA (and if they did, BTV wouldn't top the list of markets to launch from there). Any other focus city is just too far away for it to be an economic flight for them.

If a city can support the E-190, with the A220 having the same or lower cost per flight?

130 or 135 seater burning 40% less fuel per passenger is less fuel per flight than the E-190. Less maintenance. Prices were low and possibly higher daily utilization of the A220. Drop fares a little, the planes will be filled up. If a small market cannot grow 30% in 5 years, that is a marginal market anyway.

Lightsaber


Disagree on your last point lightsaber; North America is a mature market. A lot of these markets haven’t seen 30% growth in twenty years. The fact trip cost is so low is indeed very compelling. But the notion that unlimited latent traffic is in every market is a myth. Seats go empty if you over serve. Been there done that.


Two things to consider:
B6 is not the only carrier in most of its nonstop markets, if they can offer more seats at a lower cost, they can draw passengers from other carriers in addition to growing the overall market.

As the overall gauge grows there will be more seats at a lower cost for connecting passengers as well. Here again, having a lower operating cost puts them at an advantage over other airlines competing for those connecting passengers.

But, yes, some routes may be reduced or cut as better opportunities arise with the evolving fleet.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15823
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:57 pm

msycajun wrote:
Flighty wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
If a city can support the E-190, with the A220 having the same or lower cost per flight?

130 or 135 seater burning 40% less fuel per passenger is less fuel per flight than the E-190. Less maintenance. Prices were low and possibly higher daily utilization of the A220. Drop fares a little, the planes will be filled up. If a small market cannot grow 30% in 5 years, that is a marginal market anyway.

Lightsaber


Disagree on your last point lightsaber; North America is a mature market. A lot of these markets haven’t seen 30% growth in twenty years. The fact trip cost is so low is indeed very compelling. But the notion that unlimited latent traffic is in every market is a myth. Seats go empty if you over serve. Been there done that.


Two things to consider:
B6 is not the only carrier in most of its nonstop markets, if they can offer more seats at a lower cost, they can draw passengers from other carriers in addition to growing the overall market.

As the overall gauge grows there will be more seats at a lower cost for connecting passengers as well. Here again, having a lower operating cost puts them at an advantage over other airlines competing for those connecting passengers.

But, yes, some routes may be reduced or cut as better opportunities arise with the evolving fleet.

I 100% agree with your post. In particular if JetBlue is competing with a high cost per seat RJ. In my opinion, JetBlue will excercise options.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
mcg
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:09 am

edmaircraft wrote:
Great news for the program - enough to offset the awkward new name imo.


I think they should have named it the A-three-eighteen-and-a- half.
 
CaptPizzaPants
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:44 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:41 am

LockheedBBD wrote:
tphuang wrote:

I don’t think b6 could have ordered more embraer jets after what happened this summer.


What happened this summer?


Several had wing issues requiring extensive down-time (months) in heavy maintenance if i remember correctly.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:06 am

klkla wrote:

But wasn't the competition between the E2 and a220? The a220 should have better trip costs and CASM against orignal 190, but does it also have lower trip costs than E2?


According to JetBlue:

source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 20-450121/

"The E195-E2 is a fabulous next generation aircraft," JetBlue chief financial officer Steve Priest says on a call to discuss the airline's fleet changes. "It was incredibly close from an economic standpoint when we look at the two platforms. Both of them as next generation aircraft really drive a step change from existing technology."
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:28 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
TSA125 wrote:
queb wrote:

ETOPS 120 flight test are done, Certification in the coming weeks.


Is it even a viable consideration for the 'long and skinny' TATL routes? Does the -300 have the range?


I doubt very seriously the current generation of engines would allow an A220-300 have transatlantic range. Bombardier was talking about having CS-100's upgraded to CS-300 weights and engines do transatlantic routes. Making the structures of the CS-300 strong and big enough to carry enough fuel for transatlantic missions would make the CS-100 too heavy.

Nm
 
Skywatcher
Posts: 714
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:19 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:37 am

As a BBD shareholder and as a Canadian I am proud that the long aircraft design/manufacturing industry in this country has finally re-established itself with more solid fundamentals. I just can't help feeling that the Airbus takeover of the C-series was inevitable and that the bully tactics of Boeing have backfired on them. This B6 order is a benchmark for sure-everything C-series related will be different (better?) going forward now in my opinion at least. This is a game changer.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4599
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:50 am

MSPNWA wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
I don't think you're quite getting that B6 was looking for a 190 replacement with this deal and the 320 is not a 190 replacement. Since it was never in contention, it was never going to be chosen. The only new sale that was going to take place was for a small single aisle aircraft. Because of the deal with BBD, Airbus is making money on a sale that they otherwise would have missed out on entirely.


What B6 was looking to replace is irrelevant to the fact that the A320neo ended up being part of the story. Clearly B6 sees the A220 as not only a E190 replacement, but also a substitute for A320s. It's taking roles from both.

JoeCanuck wrote:
There was never going to be a sale of more 320's to B6, so Airbus lost nothing, and gained a multi billion dollar sale. Going forward, I can see other airlines going for this combination of aircraft sizes, and not just Airbus fleets. Airlines with 737 fleets would see the same advantages by adding 220's and 737-9/10's to their fleets.


And you know this how? Why would they never order more of a new airplane of their most owned model that was already on their order book?

And even if we say that Airbus never sold another A320 to B6, what about more A321s that they clearly wanted? That's 25 that B6 now doesn't need. Everywhere you look, Airbus lost a portion of of their likely future sales.



Hold on a sec. Why would B6 spend billions of dollars on aircraft they don't want or need? They obviously think they do have a need for the 321's otherwise they wouldn't have ordered them. JetBlue isn't a charity, after all.

The only thing that matters is that both B6 and Airbus are happy, so whatever happened regarding the 320 just doesn't seem like a big deal...and if they don't think it's a big deal, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

As for knowing that B6 won't order another 320, I don't. I'm merely extrapolating from their decision to not take 320's and switch their order to 321's. They had the option to take more 320's and they passed.

If B6 ever takes more 320's in the future, then I guessed wrong and I'll probably just keep on, keeping on.


klkla wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Actually...it's almost both. As far as I can tell, lower trip costs and way better CASM than the 190...lower CASM and way better trip costs than the 320.


But wasn't the competition between the E2 and a220? The a220 should have better trip costs and CASM against orignal 190, but does it also have lower trip costs than E2?


The E2-195 probably has better trip costs than the 220-300 with higher CASM, and probably has similar trip costs and CASM as the 220-100, so B6 has that option if they decide they need more of a 1-1 replacement for the 190.
What the...?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 8805
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:01 am

Skywatcher wrote:
As a BBD shareholder and as a Canadian I am proud that the long aircraft design/manufacturing industry in this country has finally re-established itself with more solid fundamentals. I just can't help feeling that the Airbus takeover of the C-series was inevitable and that the bully tactics of Boeing have backfired on them. This B6 order is a benchmark for sure-everything C-series related will be different (better?) going forward now in my opinion at least. This is a game changer.


Then you should be thanking Boeing’s tactics for saving your sh!t. Unless, of course, you (like a great many of us) expected JetBlue to order the CSeries. It had been rumored for months, though the Airbus deal surely helped remove some of the uncertainty surrounding BBD’s ability to execute on this program.

Boeing’s claims might be reviled, but they were a brief sideshow at the BBD circus. The fact remains that both Boeing and Airbus fought hard against CSeries sales, and apparently both Boeing and Airbus passed on investing good money in the program. BBD struggled with the development, production, certification, and marketing of the plane, to the point that they literally had to give 50%+ away to save it. It’s a great aircraft, and I think it makes a perfect fit with the Airbus lineup - together they are ideal. But the gesticulations being done to make this order a referendum against Trump and Boeing is a bit gratuitous. Sure, the deal with Airbus was spurred on largely due to the tariff drama, but that glosses over all that was going desperately wrong with BBD and the CSeries program.
-Dave


”Yet somewhere in Iceland a great anger stirred in the soul of a troubled individual...” - Revelation
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1528
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Re: JetBlue Orders 60 Airbus A220-300

Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:03 am

lightsaber wrote:
msycajun wrote:
Flighty wrote:

Disagree on your last point lightsaber; North America is a mature market. A lot of these markets haven’t seen 30% growth in twenty years. The fact trip cost is so low is indeed very compelling. But the notion that unlimited latent traffic is in every market is a myth. Seats go empty if you over serve. Been there done that.


Two things to consider:
B6 is not the only carrier in most of its nonstop markets, if they can offer more seats at a lower cost, they can draw passengers from other carriers in addition to growing the overall market.

As the overall gauge grows there will be more seats at a lower cost for connecting passengers as well. Here again, having a lower operating cost puts them at an advantage over other airlines competing for those connecting passengers.

But, yes, some routes may be reduced or cut as better opportunities arise with the evolving fleet.

I 100% agree with your post. In particular if JetBlue is competing with a high cost per seat RJ. In my opinion, JetBlue will excercise options.

Lightsaber


Not to mention, if the 40% lower trip cost vs. the current E190 fleet can be realised in service, having a larger aircraft (i.e. sharing a lower trip cost over a higher seat count) can only help the economics of many of those routes

Congrats to BBD, Airbus and B6 - I'm not surprised B6 went this way, and it's great to see the CS300/A220 expand its order book and (by virtue of the adjustment of B6's neo order) doing just what the CSAPL deal was intended to do. I have to say though, waking up to the press release from B6 and seeing "A220" in writing took a few reads and a bit/lot of getting used to!
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos