Should Airbus launch an A220-500 ASAP and focus on A220 product increase equally or perhaps even more so than on A320 production mid-term?


- Any extra sold A220-500 in stead of an A320 would mean an extra production slot/sale for A320/A321 or what ever is available at that time to a customer who does need the range and/or capacity.
- Any A220 production rate decision is much leas related to what Boeing does with their NMA because it will not be in direct competition with part of it’s segment like the A321(X)LR. Airbus doesn’t have to wait for Boeing’s NMA decision.
- Increasing production rate on the A220 in stead of the A320 spreads the strain on a larger pool of suppliers.
- Fixed cost per plane will decrease more with A220 production increase compared to A320
- Better division in production rate between A220 and A320 programs provides more security/stability.
- Higher production rate of the A220 would allow more production sites distributed around the globe, offering yet more stability and political advantages in sales.
- Makes any ramp up of production for A320 replacement long term easier (which will be an extremely big deal by that time).
- Increasing A220 production together with the launch of an A220-500 and would put a lot of pressure on Embraer and Boeing and would also help keep newcomers from successfully entering that market.


The big problem I see is engine availability. It is doubtful PW would be able to deliver the amount of engines required. With the increased scope of the program there might be possibilities for a second engine longer term. A chance for RR to grab some market share again in the narrow body market?

A second issue might be the location and capacity of wing production in relation to any production hike of the A220.

I am not sure that Airbus wants the additional development investment in the A220 at the moment.

It needs to ramp up and establish a slick supply chain/manufacturing process.

Focus will be on delivery.

In the end of the day, the more A220 Airbus sells, the more the programme will be worth when they buy BBD and Quebec Government's share, I think Airbus will wait until it becomes a 100% Airbus product before doing any of that.

Yes.

Taxi645 your Ideas are basically right, however they are at least 5-7 years to early. It is time now to establish a broader customer base for the A220 and to drive cost down without the help of the A320. Currently each sales moved from the A320 to the A220-(500) drives Profit down for Airbus as a whole. Airbus will for sure not market the A319 anymore (only as a Business Jet who wants it).

Flyglobal

sibibom wrote:

In the end of the day, the more A220 Airbus sells, the more the programme will be worth when they buy BBD and Quebec Government's share, I think Airbus will wait until it becomes a 100% Airbus product before doing any of that.

Exactly my thoughts. Investing in a project where you only own 50% is not as important as in a 100% owned Airbus product.

When is the earliest Airbus could buy 100% of the A220 shares?

Is BBD and the Quebec government even interested in selling their shares?

sibibom wrote:

In the end of the day, the more A220 Airbus sells, the more the programme will be worth when they buy BBD and Quebec Government's share, I think Airbus will wait until it becomes a 100% Airbus product before doing any of that.

I agree. If Airbus see the product is appreciated, they'll push it. They are better-off to push it as late as possible in order to keep project value low but rump up immediately after they control it.

The A320 has 6000 on order. I think tHe A220 doesn’t overlap much and it is a seperate project.

An A320 is probably not more expensive to build and sells for more at his stage.

Also a A220-500 would only overlap seatcount. Not payload, range, Airbus (A321) commonality and cargo capability.

cuban8 wrote:

sibibom wrote:

In the end of the day, the more A220 Airbus sells, the more the programme will be worth when they buy BBD and Quebec Government's share, I think Airbus will wait until it becomes a 100% Airbus product before doing any of that.

Exactly my thoughts. Investing in a project where you only own 50% is not as important as in a 100% owned Airbus product.

When is the earliest Airbus could buy 100% of the A220 shares?

Is BBD and the Quebec government even interested in selling their shares?

They don't have a choice, they will have to sell (i can't recollect when) the only variable is the price.

The A220-500 does not exist. As it is, it is the figment of fantasy on a.net. After the ramp up of the A220-100/300 has been a successful, something that is not a given right now, than it would be time for a bigger model.
If Airbus/Bombardier start thinking about a bigger model, one has to look when a 5 across 220 starts to loss efficiency against a 6 across A320. That could through a damper on the enthusiasm for the A220-500. The A220-300 is already longer than the A320.
The stretch of the A220 to A320 capacity could bring that frame to well over 40 meters, perhaps a similar length as the 737-900.
The A220-300 is 38.7 m long, a 3.7 m stretch would bring that to 42.4 and a 4.2 m stretch to 42.9 m length. A A321 is 44.51m and the 737-9 is 42.16 m.

All such problems lie somewhere in the future and have no influence on that Airbus has still to deliver 4000 A320neo in the meantime, without counting the 2000 A321neo.

sibibom wrote:

cuban8 wrote:

sibibom wrote:

In the end of the day, the more A220 Airbus sells, the more the programme will be worth when they buy BBD and Quebec Government's share, I think Airbus will wait until it becomes a 100% Airbus product before doing any of that.

Exactly my thoughts. Investing in a project where you only own 50% is not as important as in a 100% owned Airbus product.

When is the earliest Airbus could buy 100% of the A220 shares?

Is BBD and the Quebec government even interested in selling their shares?

They don't have a choice, they will have to sell (i can't recollect when) the only variable is the price.

I was under the impression that Airbus could decide to purchase the remaining part of the project on a specific date or they could decide to not do it and leave it to BBD. That is to protect them self in case of a fiasco.

What they need to do is start a legit production that's not a joke.

sibibom wrote:

In the end of the day, the more A220 Airbus sells, the more the programme will be worth when they buy BBD and Quebec Government's share, I think Airbus will wait until it becomes a 100% Airbus product before doing any of that.

True, however that doesn't have to be the only consideration. If the strategic value of the above is considered great enough a higher price might be seen as an acceptable consequence.

I wouldn't be completely flabbergasted if there is some sort of agreement in relation to this considering the rediculously low price Airbus paid for the program.

Flyglobal wrote:

Taxi645 your Ideas are basically right, however they are at least 5-7 years to early. It is time now to establish a broader customer base for the A220 and to drive cost down without the help of the A320. Currently each sales moved from the A320 to the A220-(500) drives Profit down for Airbus as a whole. Airbus will for sure not market the A319 anymore (only as a Business Jet who wants it).

Flyglobal

Thanks, thought I did say mid term.

Plans for 5-7 years ahead is very much part of boardroom thinking right now. As somebody interested in long term strategies and product planning, discussing it now is not premature even though it's not always the most useful in the public domain.

A 2019 launch of a possible A220-500 would mean EIS not likely before Airbus' first opportunity for a complete take over.

keesje wrote:

An A320 is probably not more expensive to build and sells for more at his stage.

Indeed; "at this stage". That's part of my point, at this stage. Increasing rate on the A220 mid term will reduce cost per plane more than on the A320.

Also a A220-500 would only overlap seatcount. Not payload, range, Airbus (A321) commonality and cargo capability.

True, however someone who needs A320 capacity but not the range now has to buy an overbuilt plane. With the A220-500 that would change.

Taxi645 wrote:

sibibom wrote:

In the end of the day, the more A220 Airbus sells, the more the programme will be worth when they buy BBD and Quebec Government's share, I think Airbus will wait until it becomes a 100% Airbus product before doing any of that.

True, however that doesn't have to be the only consideration. If the strategic value of the above is considered great enough a higher price might be seen as an acceptable consequence.

I wouldn't be completely flabbergasted if there is some sort of agreement in relation to this considering the rediculously low price Airbus paid for the program.

Airbus brought a programme which at that moment was virtually worth nothing, it was on a verge of folding. By giving 50.01% to Airbus the programme gave it legitamacy and ensured future order, with the understanding after 5 years (not sure about this timeline), Airbus would purchase the rest of the programme at market rate of that day, there in ensuring BBD and Quebec got something which covered their investment and then some. Airbus has a choice of walking away, other don't have choice of not selling, the negotiation then will be what the programme is worth.

Taxi645 wrote:

True, however someone who needs A320 capacity but not the range now has to buy an overbuilt plane. With the A220-500 that would change.

This. 1,000 times this. Especially the capacity and overbuilt parts. Well established airlines are under no illusion....they are under extreme competitive pressure, from LCCs and each other. They've learned from the financial difficulties of the last 15 years. They'll never commit mistakes like 737-7 or A319 again (let alone the ridiculous A318), except perhaps outlier LUV (who has no other option as a sole source Boeing customer, they must buy 700s). But generally speaking, no more too heavy shrinks. How successful was the A310? How long since a 762 was built? How is the 338 doing? How many 319 neos and 737-7 maxes have been delivered? How is the 788 doing? 747SP anyone? L100-500? The CS500/A220-500 will be at least 5,000 lbs lighter (OEW) than the 320neo. 5,000 lbs (or more) PER PLANE in an era when airlines beg dispatchers to cut 100 lbs of fuel per flight!

And the operating characteristics of the GTF fundamentally changed the A320. The 321 and 321LR/XLR/whatevercomesnext at 6 abreast is optimised for the 160-200 seat market. The A220 series at 5 abreast is optimised for the 110-150 seats AND HAS NO 5 ABREAST COMPETITOR.

Haha, just mho. Right size outweighs fleet commonality in the airline economics world.

And to the original point, should Airbus launch the 500 immediately? No, too much on the plate right now. 12-18 months for launch with 2021-22 EIS would be my prediction. Get Alabama factory bult and get Montreal production rate up. Allow PW and other suppliers to continue ramp up in an orderly fashion.

Truth be told, I'll bet Bombardier had already done a lot of pre-engineering work on the 500 anyway. I'll bet it could be stood up in short order. The Russians or wiki leaks could hack in and tell us. I keed i keed! The real struggle is the supplier chain and completion imho.

Airbus probably isn't familiar with the design at all. This is after all a BBD product, designed in Canada.

vahancrazy wrote:

I was under the impression that Airbus could decide to purchase the remaining part of the project on a specific date or they could decide to not do it and leave it to BBD. That is to protect them self in case of a fiasco.

IIRC, BBD effectively has a 'put option', so they could force Airbus to take the remaining 49.9% on that same date even if Airbus doesn't want to take it.

However, I don't see a realistic scenario where Airbus doesn't willingly end up with 100% of the A220 project.

SteelChair wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

True, however someone who needs A320 capacity but not the range now has to buy an overbuilt plane. With the A220-500 that would change.

This. 1,000 times this. Especially the capacity and overbuilt parts. Well established airlines are under no illusion....they are under extreme competitive pressure, from LCCs and each other. They've learned from the financial difficulties of the last 15 years. They'll never commit mistakes like 737-7 or A319 again (let alone the ridiculous A318), except perhaps outlier LUV (who has no other option as a sole source Boeing customer, they must buy 700s). But generally speaking, no more too heavy shrinks. How successful was the A310? How long since a 762 was built? How is the 338 doing? How many 319 neos and 737-7 maxes have been delivered? How is the 788 doing? 747SP anyone? L100-500? The CS500/A220-500 will be at least 5,000 lbs lighter (OEW) than the 320neo. 5,000 lbs (or more) PER PLANE in an era when airlines beg dispatchers to cut 100 lbs of fuel per flight!

And the operating characteristics of the GTF fundamentally changed the A320. The 321 and 321LR/XLR/whatevercomesnext at 6 abreast is optimised for the 160-200 seat market. The A220 series at 5 abreast is optimised for the 110-150 seats AND HAS NO 5 ABREAST COMPETITOR.

Haha, just mho. Right size outweighs fleet commonality in the airline econimics world.

I guess I agree with most you say. The 737-600 and A318 never made much sense. But for 149 seats/3 fa operations, an airline operating a sizeable A320/321 fleet too, going for a stretched A220 would have to set up a new pilot/training infrastrucuture, a maintenance infrastructure, e.g. switch back to bulk loading and say goodbye to cargo. They'll surely put a dollar figure on that.

If that is the case with only a few airlines, that wouldn't be much of an issue. But there are 7500 A320s around and 6000 on order.

If an airline needs 100-120 seats too and hasn't bought into E jets yet (& doesn't need 75 seaters..) that changes the picture.

OA940 wrote:

What they need to do is start a legit production that's not a joke.

More specifically, they need to be convinced - if they didn't get this through thorough due diligence - that the design is sound, that assembly processes are reliable, and that the supplier base can ramp up to real volume. They are a very from way from 57 or 60 jets a month.

Whether they buy the remaining 49.9% now or later, unless the price is firm (I haven't researched this, but doubt it), increases in value of the operation (successful sales effort, manufacturing improvement) just push up the acquisition cost.

If Airbus did an A220-500 would there be certification issues if they redid the flight deck to be common with A320 allowing a single type rating for both aircraft? that would probably be one of the best things to add sales. (also could it be done cheaply to the 100/300?)

sagechan wrote:

If Airbus did an A220-500 would there be certification issues if they redid the flight deck to be common with A320 allowing a single type rating for both aircraft? that would probably be one of the best things to add sales. (also could it be done cheaply to the 100/300?)

Very interesting thought. It would certainly add a hefty benefit towards fleet commonality. But I guess the costs for the overall re-design of the existing units and re-certification might be prohibitive.

JWKIII wrote:

sagechan wrote:

If Airbus did an A220-500 would there be certification issues if they redid the flight deck to be common with A320 allowing a single type rating for both aircraft? that would probably be one of the best things to add sales. (also could it be done cheaply to the 100/300?)

Very interesting thought. It would certainly add a hefty benefit towards fleet commonality. But I guess the costs for the overall re-design of the existing units and re-certification might be prohibitive.

That would be my concern, but that's an area I have zero knowledge about!

vahancrazy wrote:

sibibom wrote:

In the end of the day, the more A220 Airbus sells, the more the programme will be worth when they buy BBD and Quebec Government's share, I think Airbus will wait until it becomes a 100% Airbus product before doing any of that.

I agree. If Airbus see the product is appreciated, they'll push it. They are better-off to push it as late as possible in order to keep project value low but rump up immediately after they control it.

Don't forget it more than a few A220's to equal the profit Airbus makes from (1) A320

mjoelnir wrote:

If Airbus/Bombardier start thinking about a bigger model, one has to look when a 5 across 220 starts to loss efficiency against a 6 across A320. That could through a damper on the enthusiasm for the A220-500. The A220-300 is already longer than the A320.
The stretch of the A220 to A320 capacity could bring that frame to well over 40 meters, perhaps a similar length as the 737-900.
The A220-300 is 38.7 m long, a 3.7 m stretch would bring that to 42.4 and a 4.2 m stretch to 42.9 m length. A A321 is 44.51m and the 737-9 is 42.16 m.

I would be very surprised if a sub 43m A220-500 would provide any prohibitive technical and/or efficiency issues.


On the topic off increasing the price Airbus has to pay for the remainder of the program.

In order to have any meaningful relieve on A320 series production demand and to have a significant reduction of production cost per plane, Airbus has to increase A220 production by a very significant amount. I’m talking about almost an order of magnitude change here. This sort of ramp up can not be achieved with a blink of an eye just after Airbus have taken over the remainder of the program. It will take a significant amount of time and resources to realized such a large increase.

As said the cost of taking over the rest of the program is certainly an important consideration, but not the only consideration. Airbus will have much on it’s hands in the 2025-2030 period. They have the A380 (segment) to address, the A330 successor, integrating ultrafan generation engines onto the A350 airframe in a technically and economically sensible way. Furthermore they will probably be in the middle of further A320 series improvements (which they understandably keep postponing because of the NMA decision dragging on).

In contrast, from an engineering-to-market point of view, the time frame from now till 2025 will most likely be relative quiet. Having to do this A220 ramp up in the middle of all the above around and after 2025 is not a sound approach in my view. Airbus is focussing on A320 production short term, which is good. After that they seem to go for the XLR which to me also seems a smart and logical thing to do (as argued in the “Is Boeing outfoxing Airbus?” thread). A third engineering-to-revenue conversion in this relatively quiet period up to 2025 could be focussing on the A220 range. It's better to have the A220 properly in place (including the A220-500) at the moment Airbus moves the A320 series on in size and technical state (especially the wing(box)).

Therefore, even it means taking over the remainder of the program might be more expensive, I reckon there are sounds reasons not to delay the start of this ramp up till after the complete take over.

Profit not only has a cost side, but also a revenue side to the equation (short and long term) even if the revenue side is almost always more uncertain especially long term.

SteelChair wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

True, however someone who needs A320 capacity but not the range now has to buy an overbuilt plane. With the A220-500 that would change.

This. 1,000 times this. Especially the capacity and overbuilt parts. Well established airlines are under no illusion....they are under extreme competitive pressure, from LCCs and each other. They've learned from the financial difficulties of the last 15 years. They'll never commit mistakes like 737-7 or A319 again (let alone the ridiculous A318), except perhaps outlier LUV (who has no other option as a sole source Boeing customer, they must buy 700s). But generally speaking, no more too heavy shrinks. How successful was the A310? How long since a 762 was built? How is the 338 doing? How many 319 neos and 737-7 maxes have been delivered? How is the 788 doing? 747SP anyone? L100-500? The CS500/A220-500 will be at least 5,000 lbs lighter (OEW) than the 320neo. 5,000 lbs (or more) PER PLANE in an era when airlines beg dispatchers to cut 100 lbs of fuel per flight!

And the operating characteristics of the GTF fundamentally changed the A320. The 321 and 321LR/XLR/whatevercomesnext at 6 abreast is optimised for the 160-200 seat market. The A220 series at 5 abreast is optimised for the 110-150 seats AND HAS NO 5 ABREAST COMPETITOR.

Haha, just mho. Right size outweighs fleet commonality in the airline economics world.

Sorry but the 762 was NOT a shrink, it was the original. The 763 was a stretch of the 762 design.

rbavfan wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

True, however someone who needs A320 capacity but not the range now has to buy an overbuilt plane. With the A220-500 that would change.

This. 1,000 times this. Especially the capacity and overbuilt parts. Well established airlines are under no illusion....they are under extreme competitive pressure, from LCCs and each other. They've learned from the financial difficulties of the last 15 years. They'll never commit mistakes like 737-7 or A319 again (let alone the ridiculous A318), except perhaps outlier LUV (who has no other option as a sole source Boeing customer, they must buy 700s). But generally speaking, no more too heavy shrinks. How successful was the A310? How long since a 762 was built? How is the 338 doing? How many 319 neos and 737-7 maxes have been delivered? How is the 788 doing? 747SP anyone? L100-500? The CS500/A220-500 will be at least 5,000 lbs lighter (OEW) than the 320neo. 5,000 lbs (or more) PER PLANE in an era when airlines beg dispatchers to cut 100 lbs of fuel per flight!

And the operating characteristics of the GTF fundamentally changed the A320. The 321 and 321LR/XLR/whatevercomesnext at 6 abreast is optimised for the 160-200 seat market. The A220 series at 5 abreast is optimised for the 110-150 seats AND HAS NO 5 ABREAST COMPETITOR.

Haha, just mho. Right size outweighs fleet commonality in the airline economics world.

Sorry but the 762 was NOT a shrink, it was the original. The 763 was a stretch of the 762 design.

Point taken. But it still sold.many fewer copies than the stretched 300. It was sub-optimized.

The efficiency of the C series is overrated.

Just look at the ACAP documents.

The A319 burns the same amount of fuel as the CS300 while carrying 160 passengers 2000nm. I tried to defend the C series in another thread but was shut down. The numbers dont lie.

I dont see how a stretched A220-500 could be more efficient than the A320 based on this.

Plus how much profit would Airbus make off the A220-500 versus an A320? I assume the A320 would be cheaper to produce due to the huge production runs giving economy of scale. Being sold at the same price the A320 would then make more profit.

The real kicker is that half of the A220 profit has to go back to Bombardier.

I think the A220 could be let down by the engines. The Pratt GTF is clearly optimised for the larger 81inch fan. The smaller engines are carrying around excess weight. With the 73inch fan it might be a couple percent worse SFC, it still using the same gearbox plus the core wouldnt be running as hot to produce the shaft horsepower required. Less heat means less efficiency. Though the smaller GTF engines will probably have great durability based on this.

Airbus still only have 50% right on A220 and A220 as a new product line still have to sell low to airlines to gain recognition compares to the matured A320 that has been recognized internationally and can command a price accordingly. Why invest into making an A225 now when A320 can be sold at higher price, does not require new R&D for the new variant, can receive all the profit by themselves, and still have such a huge backlog to be delivered and do not need to persuade airlines into getting it?

RJMAZ wrote:

The efficiency of the C series is overrated.

Just look at the ACAP documents.

The A319 burns the same amount of fuel as the CS300 while carrying 160 passengers 2000nm. I tried to defend the C series in another thread but was shut down. The numbers dont lie.

How do you conclude this from the ACAP documents?

JWKIII wrote:

sagechan wrote:

If Airbus did an A220-500 would there be certification issues if they redid the flight deck to be common with A320 allowing a single type rating for both aircraft? that would probably be one of the best things to add sales. (also could it be done cheaply to the 100/300?)

Very interesting thought. It would certainly add a hefty benefit towards fleet commonality. But I guess the costs for the overall re-design of the existing units and re-certification might be prohibitive.

...and the designs are 30 years apart

1989worstyear wrote:

JWKIII wrote:

sagechan wrote:

If Airbus did an A220-500 would there be certification issues if they redid the flight deck to be common with A320 allowing a single type rating for both aircraft? that would probably be one of the best things to add sales. (also could it be done cheaply to the 100/300?)

Very interesting thought. It would certainly add a hefty benefit towards fleet commonality. But I guess the costs for the overall re-design of the existing units and re-certification might be prohibitive.

...and the designs are 30 years apart

True, but iirc FAA said WN could fly two types of 737s not 3, so theoretically it could have kept the classics and Maxes that are 30 years apart!

I think the production rate needs to be kicked into high gear for the A220. It has delivered 38 to date, 17 this year. This is almost 3, yes 3 per month, if the production doesn't kick up the order book will disappear. It is a very good plane and as others have noted, about the only 5 ab plane in the market at this time. But production needs to get to 10/month soon to have a chance of market success. Then, other models can be considered.

If the A220-500 is to ever exist, it will be because of one airline that will lobby to the end to make it happen, Delta. Delta would order 150+ A220-500 that seat exactly 150 passengers to replace their entire 737-800 and A320 fleets. However, I am not sure how many other airlines out there would go so far.

scbriml wrote:

vahancrazy wrote:

I was under the impression that Airbus could decide to purchase the remaining part of the project on a specific date or they could decide to not do it and leave it to BBD. That is to protect them self in case of a fiasco.

IIRC, BBD effectively has a 'put option', so they could force Airbus to take the remaining 49.9% on that same date even if Airbus doesn't want to take it.

However, I don't see a realistic scenario where Airbus doesn't willingly end up with 100% of the A220 project.

As I understand, it could go one of three ways:
1) BBD can force Airbus to buy the remainder, or
2) Airbus can force BBD to sell, or
3) they can choose to continue the partnership.

What I don't know is, if option 3 were chosen, do options 1 and 2 remain open, or is there an expiry on them?

c933103 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The efficiency of the C series is overrated.

Just look at the ACAP documents.

The A319 burns the same amount of fuel as the CS300 while carrying 160 passengers 2000nm. I tried to defend the C series in another thread but was shut down. The numbers dont lie.

How do you conclude this from the ACAP documents?

I did a quick search of his post history and I'm not seeing where he defended the CSeries. He does have a few copy/paste paragraphs about how the CS weighs more per passenger vs. a comparable aircraft and therefore costs more to operate, and somehow he concludes that having 3x frequencies a day is just as good as having 5. Paraphrasing the above, because I'm unable to find a cohesive thought.

Airbus can concentrate on building A220 both -100 and -300. An A220-500 would have first to be designed, launched and so on. If a decision is made for it one could see that frame at the earliest 2026 and more likely later.
Airbus would make a grave mistake prioritising the A220 over the A320, the A220 would first have to sell in real numbers.

At this time the backlog for the A220 both types is 363 frames and the A320neo 3780 frames.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

If the A220-500 is to ever exist, it will be because of one airline that will lobby to the end to make it happen, Delta. Delta would order 150+ A220-500 that seat exactly 150 passengers to replace their entire 737-800 and A320 fleets. However, I am not sure how many other airlines out there would go so far.

May I ask how you know this - do you have inside knowledge of Delta? Or are you speculating and making your speculation a fact?

DeSpringbokke wrote:

If the A220-500 is to ever exist, it will be because of one airline that will lobby to the end to make it happen, Delta. Delta would order 150+ A220-500 that seat exactly 150 passengers to replace their entire 737-800 and A320 fleets. However, I am not sure how many other airlines out there would go so far.

I get your point but, the day Delta does this, they will wipe out almost their whole Boeing fleet when, at the same time, competing to be one of the launch customers for the MOM/797 and/or use other Boeing aircrafts. Nont comercially sensible.

It is not going to happen . Best would wish for a start-up airline or something the kind. IN small numbers, maybe Air Baltic could be incentivised to order some or Swiss.

I have said before and will say again since the A220-500 lob comes again and again: it is NOT going to happen anytime soon.

For the A220-500 to happen, regardless of performance, etc.:

1) Airbus would have to own the whole program. No point canibalize orders within their own portfolio and share any proceed with other partners;
2) Production of A220 really needs to take off otherwise slots on production will be on a premium and they will lose orders
3) They need (and I believe they will eventually...) reach flight commonality to fully integrate the A220 program within their portfolio. This will probably happen down the line and may involve a whole revamp of the A320 family with a potentially review of the whole offering all the way from todays A220-100 through to the A320 (if not A321) the very least.

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus can concentrate on building A220 both -100 and -300. An A220-500 would have first to be designed, launched and so on. If a decision is made for it one could see that frame at the earliest 2026 and more likely later.

We don't know if it has to designed first. In fact, as others have pointed out, a lot of design work will very likely be already done and being a simple stretch probably the required design work is not that extensive anyway. 2026 or later would be right in the middle of the above mentioned Airbus product update wave (only opinion of course). As lined out Airbus have a window of opportunity and a likely won't be bringing that much to market before 2025. Assuming the work needed for the 500 is partly done an EIS around 2024 does not seem out of the question. Problem could be it then will probably be missing out on the next generation of engines. That's one of the reasons I'm expecting a product EIS concentration post 2025.

Airbus would make a grave mistake prioritising the A220 over the A320, the A220 would first have to sell in real numbers.

At this time the backlog for the A220 both types is 363 frames and the A320neo 3780 frames.

Yes, and how long has the program been under Airbus control vs. the A320?

My point is that in my book it is smarter for Airbus to take the A220 for instance from 3 to 23 a month (for all the reasons mentioned in the opening post) than going 8 a months or so on the A220 and trying to take the A320 to beyond 80 a month.

Airbus can quite effectively calculate cost per plane for several production scale scenarios for the A220. If the coming 18-24 months sales continue under the leadership of Airbus (and all the advantages that brings) they will be able roughly extrapolate that based on the different production/cost scenarios and estimate a suitable production rate.

Jomar777 wrote:

DeSpringbokke wrote:

If the A220-500 is to ever exist, it will be because of one airline that will lobby to the end to make it happen, Delta. Delta would order 150+ A220-500 that seat exactly 150 passengers to replace their entire 737-800 and A320 fleets. However, I am not sure how many other airlines out there would go so far.

I get your point but, the day Delta does this, they will wipe out almost their whole Boeing fleet when, at the same time, competing to be one of the launch customers for the MOM/797 and/or use other Boeing aircrafts. Nont comercially sensible.

It is not going to happen . Best would wish for a start-up airline or something the kind. IN small numbers, maybe Air Baltic could be incentivised to order some or Swiss.

I have said before and will say again since the A220-500 lob comes again and again: it is NOT going to happen anytime soon.

For the A220-500 to happen, regardless of performance, etc.:

1) Airbus would have to own the whole program. No point canibalize orders within their own portfolio and share any proceed with other partners;
2) Production of A220 really needs to take off otherwise slots on production will be on a premium and they will lose orders
3) They need (and I believe they will eventually...) reach flight commonality to fully integrate the A220 program within their portfolio. This will probably happen down the line and may involve a whole revamp of the A320 family with a potentially review of the whole offering all the way from todays A220-100 through to the A320 (if not A321) the very least.

The commonalty at Airbus goes all the way from the A320 to the A380, so it is a big step to cut that to have a A220 A320 commonality. Will not be done.
Furthermore the A220 has to earn money. I can not imagine that Airbus is even thinking about the A220-500, before we see serious numbers of A220-100/300 being ordered and produced.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

[I did a quick search of his post history and I'm not seeing where he defended the CSeries.

The search function is clearly broken. It says i have 130 posts when you do a search but I have over 700. The last 10 months of my posts dont come up.

lightsaber wrote:

I'm confused by your statement that the CS300 isn't more efficient than the A319.
OEW CS300 is 37,081 kg. A319NEO is at 42,600kg, A319 CEO is 40.8 tons.

In other words, the C-series is 3.72 tons lighter than the CEO (NEO engines & stuff add 1.8 tons of weight or the NEO weighs 5.52 tons more).
Now, the A319 engines burn about 4% less fuel, but the subsystems of the A220 are so efficient those on the A319 require 3% more efficiency.

I'd like to know how you pulled out ACAP numbers for 2000nm fuel burn. When I do estimates, I find the A220-200 burning far less fuel than the A319CEO or NEO for the 2000nm mission.
So please share your numbers, I calculate at 2000nm, the A220-300 is burning 8% to 10% less than the A319NEO.

My numbers and how I calculated it is as follows.

Step 1: Look at the payload range chart and see how far both aircraft can fly with 14T payload.

Step 2: Deduct the OEW and 14T off the maximum takeoff weight and that determines the fuel carried to fly that distance.

Step 3. Take the fuel weight and divide it by the range to determine the fuel burn per mile.

A319NEO
OEW 42,600kg
MTO 75,500kg
Payload 14,000kg
Max range at 14T payload 3650nm
Fuel used 18,900kg
5.178kg of fuel per nm.

CS300
OEW 37,081 kg
MTO 67,585kg
Payload 14,000kg
Max range at 14T payload 3150nm
Fuel used 16,504kg
5.24kg of fuel burn per nm.

So the A319 actually burns 1% less fuel per mile.

I have no idea how you worked out the A220 burns 8-10% less fuel on any flight.

lightsaber wrote:

If fuel burn was matched, the 48,008lb of fuel in the A319NEO would take it far further than 3,750nm or the 37,950lb of fuel in the A220-300 wouldn't have 3,300nm of range.

If fuel burn matched, A319s would be selling (CEO or NEO), instead very low sales for the A319 and 400+ on the A220.

If Bombardier sold at a loss that would explain the sales. The A220 simply has too much comfort. If it was 4-5inch narrower it would be fractionally lighter and have a bit less drag putting it well ahead.

c933103 wrote:

How do you conclude this from the ACAP documents?

Im 90% sure the above is all correct.

RJMAZ wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

[I did a quick search of his post history and I'm not seeing where he defended the CSeries.

The search function is clearly broken. It says i have 130 posts when you do a search but I have over 700. The last 10 months of my posts dont come up.

lightsaber wrote:

I'm confused by your statement that the CS300 isn't more efficient than the A319.
OEW CS300 is 37,081 kg. A319NEO is at 42,600kg, A319 CEO is 40.8 tons.

In other words, the C-series is 3.72 tons lighter than the CEO (NEO engines & stuff add 1.8 tons of weight or the NEO weighs 5.52 tons more).
Now, the A319 engines burn about 4% less fuel, but the subsystems of the A220 are so efficient those on the A319 require 3% more efficiency.

I'd like to know how you pulled out ACAP numbers for 2000nm fuel burn. When I do estimates, I find the A220-200 burning far less fuel than the A319CEO or NEO for the 2000nm mission.
So please share your numbers, I calculate at 2000nm, the A220-300 is burning 8% to 10% less than the A319NEO.

My numbers and how I calculated it is as follows.

Step 1: Look at the payload range chart and see how far both aircraft can fly with 14T payload.

Step 2: Deduct the OEW and 14T off the maximum takeoff weight and that determines the fuel carried to fly that distance.

Step 3. Take the fuel weight and divide it by the range to determine the fuel burn per mile.

A319NEO
OEW 42,600kg
MTO 75,500kg
Payload 14,000kg
Max range at 14T payload 3650nm
Fuel used 18,900kg
5.178kg of fuel per nm.

CS300
OEW 37,081 kg
MTO 67,585kg
Payload 14,000kg
Max range at 14T payload 3150nm
Fuel used 16,504kg
5.24kg of fuel burn per nm.

So the A319 actually burns 1% less fuel per mile.

I have no idea how you worked out the A220 burns 8-10% less fuel on any flight.

lightsaber wrote:

If fuel burn was matched, the 48,008lb of fuel in the A319NEO would take it far further than 3,750nm or the 37,950lb of fuel in the A220-300 wouldn't have 3,300nm of range.

If fuel burn matched, A319s would be selling (CEO or NEO), instead very low sales for the A319 and 400+ on the A220.

If Bombardier sold at a loss that would explain the sales. The A220 simply has too much comfort. If it was 4-5inch narrower it would be fractionally lighter and have a bit less drag putting it well ahead.

c933103 wrote:

How do you conclude this from the ACAP documents?

Im 90% sure the above is all correct.

I am not an expert on this, but wouldn't the takeoff and landing process use considerable more amount of fuel, such that when you compare two flights with different flight lengths, the flight with longer length should give a lower average fuel burn? For example look at the A319neo document, if you look at the line for the 64000kg MTOW variants, the number would become:
A319NEO
OEW 42,600kg
MTO 64,000kg
Payload 14,000kg
Max range at 14T payload 1150nm
Fuel used 7,400kg
6.435kg of fuel per nm.

c933103 wrote:

I am not an expert on this, but wouldn't the takeoff and landing process use considerable more amount of fuel, such that when you compare two flights with different flight lengths, the flight with longer length should give a lower average fuel burn? For example look at the A319neo document, if you look at the line for the 64000kg MTOW variants, the number would become:
A319NEO
OEW 42,600kg
MTO 64,000kg
Payload 14,000kg
Max range at 14T payload 1150nm
Fuel used 7,400kg
6.435kg of fuel per nm.

Both aircraft have to takeoff and climb so that wouldnt make much difference.

Actually if you really want to get serious it would make the CS300 look even worse.

The aircrafts fuel burn reduces as the plane gets lighter. That fuel burn I calculated is for an A319 flying on a flight 500nm further so it would be taking off heavier than it would if it was flying the same distance as the CS300.

The A319 would take off more than 2500kg below its maximum takeoff weight if it only needed to fly the maximum distance of the CS300.

That means the A319 will be 3.2% lighter at every stage of the flight than what I used to calculate the fuel burn. So its fuel advantage would increase even further.

The A319 beats the CS300 in fuel burn. Airbus can't sell the A319 as the A320 has even better fuel burn per passenger. That clearly shows in my opinion the CS300 was sold very cheap to get sales.

A stretched A220 I cant see working.

The poor fuel burn figures must come down to the engines as the A220 is lighter.

SteelChair wrote:

Point taken. But it still sold.many fewer copies than the stretched 300. It was sub-optimized.

What is a "stretched 300" in your book ?

Quite right, poorly written on my part. I was being redundant. I was referring to the 300, the stretched version of the 200.

The stretched 300, the 400, sold poorly