I’m surprised this order wasn’t saved for Farnborough.

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.

Not ever going to happen. Jetblue is trying to improve fleet flexibility, Why would they box themselves in. There ideal narrow body fleet will be a 120 seat A220-100, 145 seat A220-300, 162 seat A320,and a 200 seat A321.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I honestly don't believe this is the A220 and A320 competing against each other. The only way this happens is if there is an A220-500 (which would be of A320neo size). I also see this as finally killing off the A319neo for good, once some range improvements are made to the A223.

Well, believe it. Because it's now factual. Before the A220, we theoretically knew they were somewhat competitive because they're of reasonably close size and have very similar per-seat operating costs. Now today we have confirmation that B6 sees the two as significantly substitutable, as they just substituted A320neos for A220s. There's no other rational reason for B6 to swap out the A320neo for the A321neo due to an A220 order unless they saw them as highly competitive substitutes. The mistake you're making is narrowing your view of "competing" products into very small capacity ranges. That's simply not how this industry works.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Actually, only one assumption, and that is that B6 got the planes it wanted. They were looking for a 190 replacement and they got that with the 220. The only other option was the E2-195. It was not the 320. I mean...if they wanted 320's, they would have bought 320's. As it is, it seems they don't want any more 320's...at least for the near future. If Airbus didn't acquire the 220, then it very well may have not had any new orders from B6, and only gotten the 321 upgauge cash.

Airbus didn't lose out on 320 orders...they swapped 320 orders for 321's. They are actually dollars ahead on that part of their announcement. If they decided they want 320's in the future, nothing is preventing them from getting them.

So my assumption is that B6 knows what it's doing, and Airbus managed to make some money out of the deal. Everybody wins.

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.

Abeam79 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

With A220-300, I could see
JFK/BOS/FLL-SNA/BUR
JFK/BOS-EYW
Would A220-100 work with HPN-LAX/SFO?

More importantly, they can finally do red-eyes flights with something other than A320s. A220-300 will be a boon in the secondary transcon market.

It will also open up possibilities in the already proven tatl routes. Heard rumors of Jfk-lcy which was already proven. Even Jfk-opo or any of the other Canary Islands as a possibility. And yes, small midwest markets and long thin transcon as well.
As far as syr/btv/pwm/roc. They used to be all Airbus before the E190’s came and did a good job filling the A320 up. The A220-100/300 is a perfect aircraft on those very mature markets.

LCY-JFK is possible with the A220-100/CS100 and a test flight has been made to prove the point. Nobody has even considered using the -300 which as far as is known is physically incompatible with LCY airport. For those who don't know, even after LCY's expansion plan is completed, not all the stands will be able to take an A318 or A220-100 sized plane, and nothing can be done to extend the runway. But many of us at the UK end doubt that the route is viable. The BA all-business flights have already been cut back to 6 per week,and major changes to surface transport taking place between the end of this year and the end of next year (long before any new flights could be introduced) will dramatically improve access by rail from East and South East London, along with the main financial districts, to LHR.

MSPNWA wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I honestly don't believe this is the A220 and A320 competing against each other. The only way this happens is if there is an A220-500 (which would be of A320neo size). I also see this as finally killing off the A319neo for good, once some range improvements are made to the A223.

Well, believe it. Because it's now factual. Before the A220, we theoretically knew they were somewhat competitive because they're of reasonably close size and have very similar per-seat operating costs. Now today we have confirmation that B6 sees the two as significantly substitutable, as they just substituted A320neos for A220s. There's no other rational reason for B6 to swap out the A320neo for the A321neo due to an A220 order unless they saw them as highly competitive substitutes. The mistake you're making is narrowing your view of "competing" products into very small capacity ranges. That's simply not how this industry works.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Actually, only one assumption, and that is that B6 got the planes it wanted. They were looking for a 190 replacement and they got that with the 220. The only other option was the E2-195. It was not the 320. I mean...if they wanted 320's, they would have bought 320's. As it is, it seems they don't want any more 320's...at least for the near future. If Airbus didn't acquire the 220, then it very well may have not had any new orders from B6, and only gotten the 321 upgauge cash.

Airbus didn't lose out on 320 orders...they swapped 320 orders for 321's. They are actually dollars ahead on that part of their announcement. If they decided they want 320's in the future, nothing is preventing them from getting them.

So my assumption is that B6 knows what it's doing, and Airbus managed to make some money out of the deal. Everybody wins.

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.

More A320neos were not an option. It was between the E195-E2 or the C-Series. The C-Series got the nod. The A220 has a seating capacity closer to the A319neo than the A320neo. So it would compete more with the A319neo.
They clearly just don't have a need for the A320neo right now. Or they wouldn't have converted the order to A321neos.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

This was an order that Embraer needed to win badly. The only other customer in the Americas outside of Brazil that I could see having a need for the E2 might be Avianca. When it's time for UA and AA to replace their A319s (AA sooner for the ex-US Airways and America West A319s), I see the A223 as the likely winner. The center of this model could very well end up being JFK and LGA.

As for B6, I see a top-up order for A220-100s, maybe about 20, for the thin intra-NY and New England hops for which the A223 would be too much plane (I'm thinking JFK out to ACK, HYA, MVY, PWM, and SYR, as well as short hops from FLL and MCO into the Caribbean (also with CLT seeing some as rotation between hubs). At ACK, HYA, amd MVY, B6 is the only operator with mainline-sized equipment, and an A223 would be way too much plane.

As for the A320s, I see some of the 500-series (fleet numbers) being retired, but not for maybe another 10 years, as B6 would do well to fly these frames that are, or will be when the leases expire, fully-owned until economic end of life. HOWEVER, B6 will now have a more appropriate plane to send to markets like HPN and SWF.

I wish WN would consider the E2. They need a smaller plane for routes that used to be served by 732's and 735's. WN has cut back so many flights to CRP and other small market cities that many destinations aren't offered. The smallest aircraft Boeing will produce now is the 150 seat 737-7Max which is too much plane nowadays for short flights to smaller markets.

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.

WkndWanderer wrote:

ytz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think B would love A to commit to a 5x A220-500 and then let NSA come along with the optimal 6x and give them a beat down. Then Airbus would need to invest in something to cover the A321/NMA market segment too since the 6x NSA and 7x NMA will have them bracketed. Then B would have similar tech from NSA to NMA to 787 and even some crew crossover to 77X. It'd be a great product lineup.

Except that developing the CS5/A225 won't take much from Bombardier/Airbus. And they'll be able to do that and the NMA competitor at the same time. This is exactly what they will do as soon as Boeing firms up the NMA and is properly locked in. So Boeing is the one who will be on the defensive, fighting off the CSeries and Airbus' NMA response. It's why Boeing is gunning to get the EJets in their stable. It's a weak attempt at trying to have a response in the sub 150 seat class.

Boeing really should have picked up the CSeries. They had more to gain from it than Airbus.

There are around 4,000 A320NEO's outstanding that an A220-500 would directly undermine or cannibalize, the prospect of Airbus launching an A225 in the near term that would jeopardize their bread and butter product is a huge risk and pretty hard to believe as something they'd realistically consider when they still have a massive A320NEO backlog. The A319NEO was easy to throw under the bus (no pun intended) and sacrifice in lieu of an A220 because relatively speaking no one wanted the A319NEO compared to the bigger variants, but directly throwing competing wrenches at their lynchpin product in the form of an A220-500 is an entirely different ball game. They seem to be content to position the A220 as an A319 and 737-7 killer, but going any bigger would be a self-inflicted wound and an intra-house product fight that would be unacceptable while the A320NEO is still a viable and strong selling product which it obviously is.

At the moment, but with the CS500 would come the option to do a A320+ (offering up to 200 seats) A321 and A322.

Prost wrote:

I’m surprised this order wasn’t saved for Farnborough.

My feeling is there could be a European order at Farnborough & they want to milk every announcement on it for all they can - so want to make it a big event.

dampfnudel wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

This was an order that Embraer needed to win badly. The only other customer in the Americas outside of Brazil that I could see having a need for the E2 might be Avianca. When it's time for UA and AA to replace their A319s (AA sooner for the ex-US Airways and America West A319s), I see the A223 as the likely winner. The center of this model could very well end up being JFK and LGA.

As for B6, I see a top-up order for A220-100s, maybe about 20, for the thin intra-NY and New England hops for which the A223 would be too much plane (I'm thinking JFK out to ACK, HYA, MVY, PWM, and SYR, as well as short hops from FLL and MCO into the Caribbean (also with CLT seeing some as rotation between hubs). At ACK, HYA, amd MVY, B6 is the only operator with mainline-sized equipment, and an A223 would be way too much plane.

As for the A320s, I see some of the 500-series (fleet numbers) being retired, but not for maybe another 10 years, as B6 would do well to fly these frames that are, or will be when the leases expire, fully-owned until economic end of life. HOWEVER, B6 will now have a more appropriate plane to send to markets like HPN and SWF.

I wish WN would consider the E2. They need a smaller plane for routes that used to be served by 732's and 735's. WN has cut back so many flights to CRP and other small market cities that many destinations aren't offered. The smallest aircraft Boeing will produce now is the 150 seat 737-7Max which is too much plane nowadays for short flights to smaller markets.

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.

evank516 wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

"The [A220] aircraft opens the door to new markets and routes that would have been unprofitable with JetBlue's existing fleet". Very interesting! This probably means SNA, and perhaps other operationally challenging yet extremely popular places like APF, ASE, EGE, EYW and JAC too! I can't wait to see what B6 decides to do with these planes...

EYW won't happen with the -300 variant. Runway is too short unless they do FLL-EYW which to me is a waste to compete with their own code share partner when they should really aim for JFK/BOS-EYW. If they were getting the -100 variant I would say yes. They could manage APF though. You also won't see ASE since this is essentially the same size as the 737 which is prohibited in ASE.

The 737-700 is prohibited at ASE due wingspan, it is under the 160000 lb. dual random wheel limits by 5500 lb.
the 737-7 is under the 160000 lb. limit by 14400 lb. but also does not meet the wingspan limits.
The CS100 & 300 are as well, unless they modify the requirements, as both are under the weight limits, but over the span limits.

ytz wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I honestly don't believe this is the A220 and A320 competing against each other. The only way this happens is if there is an A220-500 (which would be of A320neo size). I also see this as finally killing off the A319neo for good, once some range improvements are made to the A223.

You shouldn't believe it, cause it's not true. It's fanboy nonsense from people who think they know better than the execs at Airbus.

And yet you have this whole story written as Boeing being the morons who screwed the pooch. Cuz, you know, you know better than the execs at Boeing.

WeatherPilot wrote:

Although it is a larger airplane the increased efficiency overall should allow B6 to try smaller routes it otherwise wouldn't even think about before. Here's hoping SYR gets a few more routes!

If larger airports like PIT only get BOS and FLL from B6, what makes you think SYR would get any new routes? B6 is a basic, hyper-regional hub-and-spoke operation which is virtually useless unless you're in originating NYC, BOS, FLL or MCO.

LuxuryTravelled wrote:

Prost wrote:

I’m surprised this order wasn’t saved for Farnborough.

My feeling is there could be a European order at Farnborough & they want to milk every announcement on it for all they can - so want to make it a big event.

It will almost certainly be "re-announced" at Farnborough. Same with the Air Baltic order. Airbus and Boeing started with this boring habit a few years ago.

It was timed to coincide with the pilot TA vote. More important than an airshow

The vote was iffy. This will send it flying over the top.

Finally! Congratulations to JetBlue, Bombardier for designing and building such superior and magnificent aircraft and to Airbus for successful sale.

Here's to many more orders for CSeries, er... A220!

lightsaber wrote:

A 5X A220-500 would be sub-optimal for 4+ hour missions, but very cost effective for <3 hour missions. The cost is low enough that Airbus would recover in plenty of time.

CFRP wings change the economics. It is better for Airbus to sacrifice the A320NEO and focus on building A321NEOs. Someone will be more efficient. This an industry of leap frogging.

I think the next LEAP frogger (bad pun with LEAP, eh?) will be NSA, and I think Boeing is fine with that scenario. In that time frame, we might see another big bump in laminar flow wings ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... xt-448911/ ) so all the current stuff might end up being economically disadvantaged.

ytz wrote:

Except that developing the CS5/A225 won't take much from Bombardier/Airbus. And they'll be able to do that and the NMA competitor at the same time. This is exactly what they will do as soon as Boeing firms up the NMA and is properly locked in. So Boeing is the one who will be on the defensive, fighting off the CSeries and Airbus' NMA response. It's why Boeing is gunning to get the EJets in their stable. It's a weak attempt at trying to have a response in the sub 150 seat class.

I think Boeing's timeline is pretty clear and won't be changed by Airbus. They're going to roll from 777X to NMA to NSA. The 737 backlog and ongoing sales lasts long enough to wait for NSA. EMB was bought to get resources. The sales in the 100-150 pax range aren't going to materially change the fortunes of either player. I think it's a mistake to over-invest in the <150 segment.

Slug71 wrote:

Maybe. But Airbus didn't pay anything to BBD for their share in the C-Series. And BBD may have had to pay 49.99% (their remaining share in the C-Series) of the costs for the FAL and other associated costs. But who knows.

BBD's cash commitment is limited to 350M CAD over the next ~3 years. After that, it's up to the company (held ~30% by BBD, ~20% by QC government, ~50% by Airbus) to fund itself in traditional ways (loans, selling more stock, taking on partners, etc). Given the board is controlled by Airbus, it's largely up to Airbus to decide how much of that can/will happen. They can chose to be aggressive or conservative. At least CS will (finally!) have some incoming cash as deliveries ramp up, but I think the early frames were "priced to sell".

ytz wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I honestly don't believe this is the A220 and A320 competing against each other. The only way this happens is if there is an A220-500 (which would be of A320neo size). I also see this as finally killing off the A319neo for good, once some range improvements are made to the A223.

You shouldn't believe it, cause it's not true. It's fanboy nonsense from people who think they know better than the execs at Airbus.

Seems you should use this own rationale to ask yourself why Boeing looked closely at BBD twice and walked away each time. In the end, fears about the CS program ending up in Chinese hands might be more significant than we seem to be willing to admit.

Prost wrote:

I’m surprised this order wasn’t saved for Farnborough.

I think they wanted to underscore the marketing moment of unveiling their new aircraft series with a great order. Up to 120 A223 for JetBlue and as a replacement for the Embraers.

The only thing that makes me wonder is that these airframes are on delivery from 2020 and should be built in Alabama. See link https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-450088/

However, the whole production line has yet to be built. Is that realistic?

Does this mean the a321 a330 order is done deal then ?

I hope they add the CS100/A220-100 to the mix later.

Boeing had every opportunity to get this plane and blew it even if they had paid a couple of Billion, it would have been worth it. Now AB grows their US/North American footprInt and it is forcing Boeing to answer with Embraer and it's lost some head to heads with the CS/A220.

What will United and Spirit do?

MSPNWA wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I honestly don't believe this is the A220 and A320 competing against each other. The only way this happens is if there is an A220-500 (which would be of A320neo size). I also see this as finally killing off the A319neo for good, once some range improvements are made to the A223.

Well, believe it. Because it's now factual. Before the A220, we theoretically knew they were somewhat competitive because they're of reasonably close size and have very similar per-seat operating costs. Now today we have confirmation that B6 sees the two as significantly substitutable, as they just substituted A320neos for A220s. There's no other rational reason for B6 to swap out the A320neo for the A321neo due to an A220 order unless they saw them as highly competitive substitutes. The mistake you're making is narrowing your view of "competing" products into very small capacity ranges. That's simply not how this industry works.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Actually, only one assumption, and that is that B6 got the planes it wanted. They were looking for a 190 replacement and they got that with the 220. The only other option was the E2-195. It was not the 320. I mean...if they wanted 320's, they would have bought 320's. As it is, it seems they don't want any more 320's...at least for the near future. If Airbus didn't acquire the 220, then it very well may have not had any new orders from B6, and only gotten the 321 upgauge cash.

Airbus didn't lose out on 320 orders...they swapped 320 orders for 321's. They are actually dollars ahead on that part of their announcement. If they decided they want 320's in the future, nothing is preventing them from getting them.

So my assumption is that B6 knows what it's doing, and Airbus managed to make some money out of the deal. Everybody wins.

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.

Let's not kid ourselves here. B6 was never going to take another A320. Those were always going to get converted to A321. And this deal gives them a chance to probably do the conversion much cheaper than they otherwise would have.

Now, if they pick the 60 options and add A220-500, I agree those will partially replace A320s. But A320 replacement in B6 is A321. The industry is upgauging.

MSPNWA wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

That reasoning only works if the 320 was in competition with the 220, which really doesn't seem to be the case.

How can you say this when it clearly just happened? Are the facts of the matter that hard to comprehend?

I guess you have missed that competition with the 737-7 (and for extension the A319) is exactly what Boeing thought, and took to BBD court and was massively defeated. Sorry if it’s hard to comprehend for you, but didn’t happen, and won’t.

This is awesome for this aircraft. Feel bad for Embraer but no doubt the new Boeing deal with provide new opportunities for them too.

To think this program was on life support. Totally impressed with how Airbus stepped up to this.

LuxuryTravelled wrote:

Prost wrote:

I’m surprised this order wasn’t saved for Farnborough.

My feeling is there could be a European order at Farnborough & they want to milk every announcement on it for all they can - so want to make it a big event.

And perhaps another continent too.

WkndWanderer wrote:

There are around 4,000 A320NEO's outstanding that an A220-500 would directly undermine or cannibalize, the prospect of Airbus launching an A225 in the near term that would jeopardize their bread and butter product is a huge risk and pretty hard to believe as something they'd realistically consider when they still have a massive A320NEO backlog. The A319NEO was easy to throw under the bus (no pun intended) and sacrifice in lieu of an A220 because relatively speaking no one wanted the A319NEO compared to the bigger variants, but directly throwing competing wrenches at their lynchpin product in the form of an A220-500 is an entirely different ball game. They seem to be content to position the A220 as an A319 and 737-7 killer, but going any bigger would be a self-inflicted wound and an intra-house product fight that would be unacceptable while the A320NEO is still a viable and strong selling product which it obviously is.

I agree with this fully. There won't be an A220-500 in the short term. It would directly cannibalize the A320 which is selling very well.

Things could change in the 5+ year perspective, if Boeing launches a new model. Could be either the "MoM" or a new narrowbody. Airbus would then have to make a choice for their A320-series replacement. And that could very well be an A220-500 stretch, plus a new narrowbody with A321 baseline size and A220-series commonality.

gsg013 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

With A220-300, I could see
JFK/BOS/FLL-SNA/BUR
JFK/BOS-EYW
Would A220-100 work with HPN-LAX/SFO?

More importantly, they can finally do red-eyes flights with something other than A320s. A220-300 will be a boon in the secondary transcon market.

I don't think JFK/BOS-EYW will work on the -300. Don't know if the plane would be light enough to handle the short runway. The -100 variant would be no problem.

What is the A220-300 MTOW and Empty weight? How does it compare to the 737-700 I would assume the 737 is a heavier plane than the A220 will be? DL flys the 737-700 3-5 times a day into EYW from ATL.

They do it from ATL though which is well under. Granted DL did LGA-EYW on the same aircraft, but they have the STOL package installed on it.

Abeam79 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

With A220-300, I could see
JFK/BOS/FLL-SNA/BUR
JFK/BOS-EYW
Would A220-100 work with HPN-LAX/SFO?

More importantly, they can finally do red-eyes flights with something other than A320s. A220-300 will be a boon in the secondary transcon market.

It will also open up possibilities in the already proven tatl routes. Heard rumors of Jfk-lcy which was already proven. Even Jfk-opo or any of the other Canary Islands as a possibility. And yes, small midwest markets and long thin transcon as well.
As far as syr/btv/pwm/roc. They used to be all Airbus before the E190’s came and did a good job filling the A320 up. The A220-100/300 is a perfect aircraft on those very mature markets.

JFK-LCY was proven on the CS100, not the 300.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ytz wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I honestly don't believe this is the A220 and A320 competing against each other. The only way this happens is if there is an A220-500 (which would be of A320neo size). I also see this as finally killing off the A319neo for good, once some range improvements are made to the A223.

You shouldn't believe it, cause it's not true. It's fanboy nonsense from people who think they know better than the execs at Airbus.

And yet you have this whole story written as Boeing being the morons who screwed the pooch. Cuz, you know, you know better than the execs at Boeing.

The A319 was dead already. Dead on arrival. DOA.

The 6 abreast A320neo is a different animal than the yet to be launched 5 abreast A220-500.

The head clown at the local clown show knows more about aviation than the execs at Boeing. Their C-suite have messed up everything they've touched for the last 15 years: 787 way late and overweight, 748 economic disaster, KC46 late and waaaay over budget, small union just got foot in the door at CHS (an unmitigated disaster imho), salesmen still pushing the 737 (love those 1968 systems and structures!) But hey, they've got the 1990s F18E/F and the 1970s F15 to lean on!

Leadership matters and Boeing needs to clean house.
They're slowly losing. A blind man could see it. I don't say it because i enjoy it. Its tragic.

There is no other way to spin this news (the JetBlue order for A220/CS) as anything other than a massive win for Airbus and Bombardier. Any intellectuallly honest observer would see it.

Boeing should be pouring footers for the CS factory in CHS this very moment. They could have had it for nothing. Airbus paid zero for controlling interest. Instead, they bought a 4 abreast RJ. Too little (literally) too late.

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

catiii wrote:

It means nothing.

What other examples are there where an airline replaced their smallest plane for a 30-40% increase in capacity without any smaller gauge replacement or regional flying in place? May be interesting to see to see how that affected smaller markets.

One example is Hilton Head, AA retired the Dash-8 and replaced it with E175

SWISS replacing the 20 ARJ 100 (ok, together with 5 A319) with 10 BCS100 and 20 BCS300 is an example. Upgrade from 98 seats to 125/145 seaters.

JBravo

MSPNWA wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Not really so tough, as long as the sales stay in the family. Not only does Airbus make a bunch of new sales, but they get an upgauge bonus by JetBlue switching their current orders from 320's to 321's.

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. The CS300 or rather A220-300 does compete with the A319, but it’s just about dead anyway, but I guess when ones mission is to point out negatives at certain companies they enjoy being critical of, they’ll then just go for the next closest thing above and use the same argument, but that just doesn’t work.

The way I see this is that JetBlue would rather something the size of the A220-300, but couldn’t really get one that size before so they order the next best thing and now that they can have that put those orders into focusing on larger aircraft. I imagine this deal has been done for some amount of time before the announcement and that they simply waited to go public the day of the great renaming to boost PR.

Delivery timeline

PlanesNTrains wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I want to be the first to say that JetBlue will be long gone before all these airplanes are delivered.

Just mho.

I'm sure AS will find a niche for them, don't worry.

I’m so bummed that AS probably won’t have the CSeries- ... uh, A220 in their fleet. Unless you want to hint at something.

Imo AS ends up with one major and B6 ends up with another.

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?

ahj2000 wrote:

1) Delta will be first in N America.

Yes that's true. You are right about that. However, when Delta placed its order Airbus and Bombardier were still two different companies. The airplane was still a Bombardier product called the C-Series when Delta ordered it. JetBlue was the first one to order it after the airplane was officially called the A220.

JetBuddy wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

There are around 4,000 A320NEO's outstanding that an A220-500 would directly undermine or cannibalize, the prospect of Airbus launching an A225 in the near term that would jeopardize their bread and butter product is a huge risk and pretty hard to believe as something they'd realistically consider when they still have a massive A320NEO backlog. The A319NEO was easy to throw under the bus (no pun intended) and sacrifice in lieu of an A220 because relatively speaking no one wanted the A319NEO compared to the bigger variants, but directly throwing competing wrenches at their lynchpin product in the form of an A220-500 is an entirely different ball game. They seem to be content to position the A220 as an A319 and 737-7 killer, but going any bigger would be a self-inflicted wound and an intra-house product fight that would be unacceptable while the A320NEO is still a viable and strong selling product which it obviously is.

I agree with this fully. There won't be an A220-500 in the short term. It would directly cannibalize the A320 which is selling very well.

Things could change in the 5+ year perspective, if Boeing launches a new model. Could be either the "MoM" or a new narrowbody. Airbus would then have to make a choice for their A320-series replacement. And that could very well be an A220-500 stretch, plus a new narrowbody with A321 baseline size and A220-series commonality.

Regarding the potential CS500 or A220-500. For Bombardier as a independent company it would perhaps made sense to add a CS500. But I would assume for the combined program it would not be that obvious. If you bring the CS500 as a straight stretch, you would end up with a short haul narrow body, less capable than a A320neo, but more economic I assume on short flights. If you want to bring a CS500 up to the same potentials as a A320 you start to add considerable weight to the CS. A bigger wing, bigger engines, stronger build for a higher payload, tankage and MTOW. Where is the point where a 6 across frame beats a 5 across frame? You exchange width for length.
Bringing the simple stretch CS500 could make sense in a combined program, but is it sure that a fully capable blown up CS500 is really the better proposition than a A320neo?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ytz wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I honestly don't believe this is the A220 and A320 competing against each other. The only way this happens is if there is an A220-500 (which would be of A320neo size). I also see this as finally killing off the A319neo for good, once some range improvements are made to the A223.

You shouldn't believe it, cause it's not true. It's fanboy nonsense from people who think they know better than the execs at Airbus.

And yet you have this whole story written as Boeing being the morons who screwed the pooch. Cuz, you know, you know better than the execs at Boeing.

When you have a worse product, by definition, you should acquire the newest when given a chance. The MAX is lipstick on a geriatric pig. We all know that. And we all know that they didn't acquire the CSeries because for some strange reason that thought Airbus would be onboard with their plan to kill it.

I'm not going to argue that I know better than Boeing execs. But I will argue, prima facie, Airbus execs know better than Boeing's (on this issue). Read the shocked responses of Boeing execs after the Airbus/Bombardier tie up last year. And their recent desperation to jump into bed with Embraer. Says it all.

For the record, I think Boeing could have done a hell of a lot more with the CSeries than Airbus will do.

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...

MSPNWA wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I honestly don't believe this is the A220 and A320 competing against each other. The only way this happens is if there is an A220-500 (which would be of A320neo size). I also see this as finally killing off the A319neo for good, once some range improvements are made to the A223.

Well, believe it. Because it's now factual. Before the A220, we theoretically knew they were somewhat competitive because they're of reasonably close size and have very similar per-seat operating costs. Now today we have confirmation that B6 sees the two as significantly substitutable, as they just substituted A320neos for A220s. There's no other rational reason for B6 to swap out the A320neo for the A321neo due to an A220 order unless they saw them as highly competitive substitutes. The mistake you're making is narrowing your view of "competing" products into very small capacity ranges. That's simply not how this industry works.

Agreed a 130 seat A220 would make JetBlue's iffy A320 markets sing. It does compete with the A320. JetBlue (for example) will never order another A320.

Hope the JetBlue pilots are happy with this plan.

ytz wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ytz wrote:

You shouldn't believe it, cause it's not true. It's fanboy nonsense from people who think they know better than the execs at Airbus.

And yet you have this whole story written as Boeing being the morons who screwed the pooch. Cuz, you know, you know better than the execs at Boeing.

When you have a worse product, by definition, you should acquire the newest when given a chance. The MAX is lipstick on a geriatric pig. We all know that. And we all know that they didn't acquire the CSeries because for some strange reason that thought Airbus would be onboard with their plan to kill it.

I'm not going to argue that I know better than Boeing execs. But I will argue, prima facie, Airbus execs know better than Boeing's (on this issue). Read the shocked responses of Boeing execs after the Airbus/Bombardier tie up last year. And their recent desperation to jump into bed with Embraer. Says it all.

For the record, I think Boeing could have done a hell of a lot more with the CSeries than Airbus will do.

Amen. You and SteelChair are on point with this. Boeing has been outclassed. And they brought it upon themselves. Their hamfisted effort to use politics (rather than the marketplace) to kill the CSeries was sickening. Boeing has been in a crisis of leadership and character for a long time. On the other hand their stock has nearly TRIPLED in TWO years.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

I wish WN would consider the E2. They need a smaller plane for routes that used to be served by 732's and 735's. WN has cut back so many flights to CRP and other small market cities that many destinations aren't offered. The smallest aircraft Boeing will produce now is the 150 seat 737-7Max which is too much plane nowadays for short flights to smaller markets.

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

ytz wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ytz wrote:

You shouldn't believe it, cause it's not true. It's fanboy nonsense from people who think they know better than the execs at Airbus.

And yet you have this whole story written as Boeing being the morons who screwed the pooch. Cuz, you know, you know better than the execs at Boeing.

When you have a worse product, by definition, you should acquire the newest when given a chance. The MAX is lipstick on a geriatric pig. We all know that. And we all know that they didn't acquire the CSeries because for some strange reason that thought Airbus would be onboard with their plan to kill it.

I'm not going to argue that I know better than Boeing execs. But I will argue, prima facie, Airbus execs know better than Boeing's (on this issue). Read the shocked responses of Boeing execs after the Airbus/Bombardier tie up last year. And their recent desperation to jump into bed with Embraer. Says it all.

For the record, I think Boeing could have done a hell of a lot more with the CSeries than Airbus will do.

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.

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...

Shirely that'd be a CS100 sub-fleet? [for about half a dozen different reasons]

Is the A-220 a renamed Bombardier/Canadair product?

Amiga500 wrote:

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...

Shirely that'd be a CS100 sub-fleet? [for about half a dozen different reasons]

I forgot about them. Yes so long as they stick to 100 seats ,bring on the cs100s.

Does anyone think Airbus will give the 220 raccoon eyes? It is interesting how similar the nose design is to the A350 - obviously no coincidence as it's dictated by a more modern understanding of aerodynamics like the 787, etc.

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.

Revelation wrote:

ytz wrote:

Except that developing the CS5/A225 won't take much from Bombardier/Airbus. And they'll be able to do that and the NMA competitor at the same time. This is exactly what they will do as soon as Boeing firms up the NMA and is properly locked in. So Boeing is the one who will be on the defensive, fighting off the CSeries and Airbus' NMA response. It's why Boeing is gunning to get the EJets in their stable. It's a weak attempt at trying to have a response in the sub 150 seat class.

I think Boeing's timeline is pretty clear and won't be changed by Airbus. They're going to roll from 777X to NMA to NSA. The 737 backlog and ongoing sales lasts long enough to wait for NSA. EMB was bought to get resources. The sales in the 100-150 pax range aren't going to materially change the fortunes of either player. I think it's a mistake to over-invest in the <150 segment.

Their timeline is clear. But that clear timeline also means a lack of flexibility and makes them very predictable. Enough for Airbus to game out their strategy. Airbus now has a 100-150 (and potentially 180 seat) competitor in their stable ready to go. And they can pull the trigger on the 225 for little investment as soon as they are confident Boeing is locked in. For Boeing, the EJets offer no such path. The EJets require a bit more investment to dominate their class. And a full cleansheet (NSA) to go toe-to-toe with the CS5. Thing are going to get very interesting in about 3-5 years.

Revelation wrote:

Seems you should use this own rationale to ask yourself why Boeing looked closely at BBD twice and walked away each time.

Asked and answered earlier. Pretty obvious they thought nobody else would bite and that it would die on vine. For some strange reason, they seemed to think that Airbus was onboard with this too. Read their reactions after the BBD/Airbus deal was announced. The butthurt over Airbus betraying Boeing's perception of the duopoly is almost palpable. But Boeing's strategy here was always flawed. And you point out exactly why:

Revelation wrote:

In the end, fears about the CS program ending up in Chinese hands might be more significant than we seem to be willing to admit.

The CSeries was never going to die. If Boeing or Airbus never got onboard, the Chinese would have. And they would have used the CSeries to club Boeing and Airbus in China and to make large inroads in Africa and Europe and around the Pacific. Why Boeing didn't worry about this more is a little surprising. Clearly, Airbus saw the threat and judged it sufficient enough to plunk down investment. And given Bombardier's desperation, the investment required was a rounding error for Boeing or Airbus. Wouldn't have taken much to keep the Chinese at bay.

Flighty wrote:

Boeing has been in a crisis of leadership and character for a long time. On the other hand their stock has nearly TRIPLED in TWO years.

Decent financial results and a massive share buyback program will do that.

GSPSPOT wrote:

Is the A-220 a renamed Bombardier/Canadair product?

No, but the Airbus A220 is.

CS100 = A220-100
CS300 = A220-300

767333ER wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Not really so tough, as long as the sales stay in the family. Not only does Airbus make a bunch of new sales, but they get an upgauge bonus by JetBlue switching their current orders from 320's to 321's.

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.

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.

And also, from the press stories about the deal, it is worth noting that a big reason why jetBlue was able to convert the A320s to A321s was that Airbus was able to allocate it preferred delivery slots.

william wrote:

ytz wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

And yet you have this whole story written as Boeing being the morons who screwed the pooch. Cuz, you know, you know better than the execs at Boeing.

When you have a worse product, by definition, you should acquire the newest when given a chance. The MAX is lipstick on a geriatric pig. We all know that. And we all know that they didn't acquire the CSeries because for some strange reason that thought Airbus would be onboard with their plan to kill it.

I'm not going to argue that I know better than Boeing execs. But I will argue, prima facie, Airbus execs know better than Boeing's (on this issue). Read the shocked responses of Boeing execs after the Airbus/Bombardier tie up last year. And their recent desperation to jump into bed with Embraer. Says it all.

For the record, I think Boeing could have done a hell of a lot more with the CSeries than Airbus will do.

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.

Fit is one thing. Necessity is another. I am arguing that Boeing needed the CSeries in its lineup more than Airbus. The 717 and 736 were dead. The MAX 7 got upsized. They had a huge hole below 140-150 seats. And the tech on the whole MAX line was aging. They could have used the CSeries to lay down a more modern foundation for the NSA. And having upto about 180 seats covered, the NSA and NMA tradespace would be very different. Good chance, now that this may just be what Airbus does if they don't use the 321 to build a 3 member family that spans 180-270 pax.

As for cockpit commonality? I think it matters far less than this forum thinks it does. Just look at how many airlines fly fixed fleets. And how many airlines are willing to change their single fleet concept to the opposing team if economics drives it. It's a cost. But it's one among many costs.

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.

If B6 decides it's worthwhile for slightly lower trip & capital costs, they'll go with the A220-100 for those markets. They have substitution rights for the -100 for a portion of the order and options. But in any event, when the A220-300 offers lower trip costs than the E190, it's a no-brainer to run the A220 even if the seats go empty.

767333ER wrote:

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. The CS300 or rather A220-300 does compete with the A319, but it’s just about dead anyway, but I guess when ones mission is to point out negatives at certain companies they enjoy being critical of, they’ll then just go for the next closest thing above and use the same argument, but that just doesn’t work.

The way I see this is that JetBlue would rather something the size of the A220-300, but couldn’t really get one that size before so they order the next best thing and now that they can have that put those orders into focusing on larger aircraft.

The models within each product line do indeed compete with each other -- but that's generally OK since the revenue stays in the family. The issue here is twofold: First, there's duplication of infrastructure and overhead costs in the two overlapping product lines; economies of scale in the A320 line don't necessarily create economies of scale in the A220 line. Related to that (and avoidable in a well-run company, but it happens more often than you think) there's an internal competition between the product lines and that can lead to members of each team trying to sabotage the other product. Second, there may be pressure on margins -- we don't know if the B6 order, for example, was sold at a margin that is better or worse than what Airbus would have gotten for A320neos. I'm inclined to think it's worse because the order is intended to be newsmaking.

That's meaningful because the E2s, at 4-across, really aren't suitable to replace A320s. A 140-seat A220-300 is a pretty damn good replacement for the A320s which B6 has been operating with 150 seats for a decade or so; in fact, a closer replacement than a 162-seat A320neo. If B6 had ordered E2s, they still would have needed A320neos for the ~150-seat capacity segment. With the A220-300, they won't.

tphuang wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves here. B6 was never going to take another A320. Those were always going to get converted to A321. And this deal gives them a chance to probably do the conversion much cheaper than they otherwise would have.

Nah, if they had gone with the E2, they still would have needed something in the 150-to-160-seat space since the E195-E2 is realistically a 125-seat aircraft in a hypothetical B6 configuration. The 130 A320s won't all be replaced with A320neos. My gut instinct is roughly half will be replaced by A220-300s and half by A321neos -- and that's somewhat consistent with the 60 A220 options announced

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.