User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8728
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:06 am

Just because there are still many A319/737-700s flying does not mean that the replacement market is equally huge. The market grew since most of those were bought and even the large customers seem to have moved to the next bigger version.

As always it is simple mathematics. Say your 150 seater promised 90% load factor one the day you bought it (135 seats), when you then calculate with a rather modest yearly traffic growth of 1,5% over 15 years of operational life, your replacement would need 169 seats. The 150 seater 1:1 replacement is only interesting if you need the sporty performance of the 737-700/A319 or when you are looking at replacing 120 seaters.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:59 am

Ignoring some "details", the 737-7 is failing in the market & the A220 is quickly gaining ground. Sitting back will further hit market share.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2019-01-09/a220-order-boosts-airbuss-modest-2018-sales-campaign

Are United, American, Southwest, Alaska and Indigo Partners specialist reviewing A220 proposals? Maybe not. Ask DoJ / Trump to block a US deal again? Maybe not.

Image

In my opinion a plan B is urgent and I'm looking forward to a quick boost after Boeing and Embraer join forces. Which means planning next steps as we speak.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:48 am

lightsaber wrote:
The E2-200 would have horrible short field performance. Considering it competes head to head with the A220-300 (sort of, I see no way to stretch the E195 to match), I think Embraer went as far as they could.


Isn't the 195-E2 already heavier per seat compared to the A223?

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:19 am

tommy1808 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The E2-200 would have horrible short field performance. Considering it competes head to head with the A220-300 (sort of, I see no way to stretch the E195 to match), I think Embraer went as far as they could.


Isn't the 195-E2 already heavier per seat compared to the A223?

Best regards
Thomas


- A195-E2 : OEW=35t, engines = 2x19,000–23,000 lbf, MTOW=61.5t, max seats 146
- A220-300 : OEW=37t, engines = 2x21,000-23,300 lbf, MTOW=67.7t, max seats 160

The A223 seems a bit more capable, the E195 cheaper. Efficiency per seat is probably very similar.
The A220 is newer, the E-jets have a huge existing customer base.

I think further crawling towards a realistic, lean 148 seater might help Embraer / Boeing a lot.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:28 pm

keesje wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The E2-200 would have horrible short field performance. Considering it competes head to head with the A220-300 (sort of, I see no way to stretch the E195 to match), I think Embraer went as far as they could.


Isn't the 195-E2 already heavier per seat compared to the A223?

Best regards
Thomas


- A195-E2 : OEW=35t, engines = 2x19,000–23,000 lbf, MTOW=61.5t, max seats 146
- A220-300 : OEW=37t, engines = 2x21,000-23,300 lbf, MTOW=67.7t, max seats 160

The A223 seems a bit more capable, the E195 cheaper. Efficiency per seat is probably very similar.
The A220 is newer, the E-jets have a huge existing customer base.

I think further crawling towards a realistic, lean 148 seater might help Embraer / Boeing a lot.


So it is:
A223 231Kg/Seat vs 192E2 239KG/Seat.
Gives me the feeling Embraer went the 3 types, 3 wings road because otherwise the 195E2 isn´t all that competitive.

I am also not sure if you could say that the A220 is just a bit more capable, considering hat it will take [email protected] over 3000nm still air, while it would appear the 195E2 will take 146 pax "only" 2400 nm, assuming their one class range is for their 132 seat one class layout.
I have a hard time seeing them stretch it and still remain competitive.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:07 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
keesje wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Isn't the 195-E2 already heavier per seat compared to the A223?

Best regards
Thomas


- A195-E2 : OEW=35t, engines = 2x19,000–23,000 lbf, MTOW=61.5t, max seats 146
- A220-300 : OEW=37t, engines = 2x21,000-23,300 lbf, MTOW=67.7t, max seats 160

The A223 seems a bit more capable, the E195 cheaper. Efficiency per seat is probably very similar.
The A220 is newer, the E-jets have a huge existing customer base.

I think further crawling towards a realistic, lean 148 seater might help Embraer / Boeing a lot.


So it is:
A223 231Kg/Seat vs 192E2 239KG/Seat.
Gives me the feeling Embraer went the 3 types, 3 wings road because otherwise the 195E2 isn´t all that competitive.

I am also not sure if you could say that the A220 is just a bit more capable, considering hat it will take [email protected] over 3000nm still air, while it would appear the 195E2 will take 146 pax "only" 2400 nm, assuming their one class range is for their 132 seat one class layout.
I have a hard time seeing them stretch it and still remain competitive.

best regards
Thomas


Now let us introduce airline reality;

:arrow: Only ~3% of flights in this segment are longer than 2000NM's, the A220 might be "over ranged" for most applications.

Image

:arrow: Going over 150 passenger forces you to hire a 4th cabin attendant for flight safety reasons. That why many airlines stay just under 150. At 151 seats, attendant costs jump 25%.. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.391

So while aircraft might be more capable, the airlines are willing to pay for 149 seats <2000Nm.
That's why the far more capable 737-7 & A319 are tanking in the first place.

:arrow: Luckely for Airbus / A220, Transcon requires a bit more range and for a legacy two class cabin, you need significant more space. But that's not single class SouthWest Airlines, Ryanair, AirAsia or Lucky Air.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:39 pm

keesje wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
keesje wrote:

- A195-E2 : OEW=35t, engines = 2x19,000–23,000 lbf, MTOW=61.5t, max seats 146
- A220-300 : OEW=37t, engines = 2x21,000-23,300 lbf, MTOW=67.7t, max seats 160

The A223 seems a bit more capable, the E195 cheaper. Efficiency per seat is probably very similar.
The A220 is newer, the E-jets have a huge existing customer base.

I think further crawling towards a realistic, lean 148 seater might help Embraer / Boeing a lot.


So it is:
A223 231Kg/Seat vs 192E2 239KG/Seat.
Gives me the feeling Embraer went the 3 types, 3 wings road because otherwise the 195E2 isn´t all that competitive.

I am also not sure if you could say that the A220 is just a bit more capable, considering hat it will take [email protected] over 3000nm still air, while it would appear the 195E2 will take 146 pax "only" 2400 nm, assuming their one class range is for their 132 seat one class layout.
I have a hard time seeing them stretch it and still remain competitive.

best regards
Thomas


Now let us introduce airline reality;

:arrow: Only ~3% of flights in this segment are longer than 2000NM's, the A220 might be "over ranged" for most applications.


I didn´t say the range is needed, i merely pointed out that you get the range for free, at least in terms of fuel burn.

That why many airlines stay just under 150. At 151 seats, attendant costs jump 25%


And yet there are a hell lot of 156 seat A319s flying around.....

So while aircraft might be more capable, the airlines are willing to pay for 149 seats <2000Nm.
That's why the far more capable 737-7 & A319 are tanking in the first place.


Or they want to pay for it, just not in the form of 737-7 and A319neo, since they did buy 450 A220-300......half of that after Embraer updated the 195E2 spec and 10 times what Embraer sold since then.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:06 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
keesje wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

So it is:
A223 231Kg/Seat vs 192E2 239KG/Seat.
Gives me the feeling Embraer went the 3 types, 3 wings road because otherwise the 195E2 isn´t all that competitive.

I am also not sure if you could say that the A220 is just a bit more capable, considering hat it will take [email protected] over 3000nm still air, while it would appear the 195E2 will take 146 pax "only" 2400 nm, assuming their one class range is for their 132 seat one class layout.
I have a hard time seeing them stretch it and still remain competitive.

best regards
Thomas


Now let us introduce airline reality;

:arrow: Only ~3% of flights in this segment are longer than 2000NM's, the A220 might be "over ranged" for most applications.


I didn´t say the range is needed, i merely pointed out that you get the range for free, at least in terms of fuel burn.

That why many airlines stay just under 150. At 151 seats, attendant costs jump 25%


And yet there are a hell lot of 156 seat A319s flying around.....

So while aircraft might be more capable, the airlines are willing to pay for 149 seats <2000Nm.
That's why the far more capable 737-7 & A319 are tanking in the first place.


Or they want to pay for it, just not in the form of 737-7 and A319neo, since they did buy 450 A220-300......half of that after Embraer updated the 195E2 spec and 10 times what Embraer sold since then.

best regards
Thomas


If you are a single class operator you might put in 156 seats, for flexibility, free middle seats, if there's a 4th crew onboard anyway, restricting sales to 149 seats in your reservation systems as required. As said Swiss, DL, Jetblue will probably not pass 150 seats on their A220's.(I checked ;) ) On the A220 orders, you are talking about 2 orders in the last two weeks & generalizing?

An interesting point IMO is that the A220 took off, after Airbus committed to it. Hopefully the same will happen when Boeing commits to the E2 jets. Airlines know that when things go south, Boeing will throw in a billion and a bunch of good people.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:23 pm

keesje wrote:
If you are a single class operator you might put in 156 seats, for flexibility, free middle seats, if there's a 4th crew onboard anyway, restricting sales to 149 seats in your reservation systems as required. As said Swiss, DL, Jetblue will probably not pass 150 seats on their A220's.(I checked ;) )


I never said they would put 150+ seats into the A220, just pointed out that it obviously makes sense to do so.
Below 150 seats it becomes a non-issue, as the smaller 195E2 would have higher cabin crew costs/pax than the A220-300 anyways.

On the A220 orders, you are talking about 2 orders in the last two weeks & generalizing?


I am counting orders since Embraer changed the 195E2 spec, in February 2016. All as per Wikipedia, since the numbers are so far apart that a few frames give or take won´t really change that the 195E2 fares worse against the A220-300 than the 739max did vs. the A321neo.

An interesting point IMO is that the A220 took off, after Airbus committed to it. Hopefully the same will happen when Boeing commits to the E2 jets. Airlines know that when things go south, Boeing will throw in a billion and a bunch of good people.


still most A223 where sold before the merger.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
iceberg210
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:59 pm

I bet Embraer decided to stretch the 195E2 just as much as they possibly could, and more than likely even with a slight stretch it wouldn't really change any dynamic of competition between it and the A220-300 already.

The bigger nut to crack for the E2 is they need to keep the production rate advantage which is what has helped it in my opinion beat up on the CRJ as of late, and helped it continue to sell at a good rate. They've been running the line at just south of 100 a year for a while now, multiple times what the 220 has been able to run at. If Embraer can keep the line running that quickly it helps them enough in costs to make it very price competitive, which along with the fleet commonality with the 1400 + E1's in service make for a pretty good combo. The problem is getting the 175E2 started (and I understand there's only so much they can do thanks to scope) because that could be the key to unlocking being able to produce 100+E2's a year. If they can unlock 500+ sales in 175's E2 and then use the lower production costs and availability to help the 190 and 195E2 compete with the 220, and bury the MRJ that's probably the way forward to a successful program, especially if it unlocks PIP's that the MRJ or even 220 might not have enough sales to justify. The one thing the E2 has that the 220 can't is that having mainline and regional planes be part of the same family might have some serious advantages for an airline in terms of maintenance cost etc, and I could see a 175 195 E2 fleet being a really nifty combo for a US major (especially for those who own their regional like Alaska etc).

The problem again is breaking the scope, but it's also something I think will be a dam if it breaks, once one carrier goes the rest will follow (who wants to fly E1's against E2's?) so seems to me that if you're Embraer or Boeing now the number one priority isn't a stretch, but breaking the dam for the next generation of RJ, because there's probably enough sales behind that door to shoulder the cost to make the other E2's sell. The gambit of a 4 abreast plane hinges much more on can you sell it on the regional side, and also sell it as a 100+ seater, and unfortunately stretching it won't solve the problem that Embraer is having right now.
Erik Berg
“Little by little, we advance with each turn. That's how a drill works!”
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:22 pm

tommy1808 wrote:

An interesting point IMO is that the A220 took off, after Airbus committed to it. Hopefully the same will happen when Boeing commits to the E2 jets. Airlines know that when things go south, Boeing will throw in a billion and a bunch of good people.


still most A223 where sold before the merger.

best regards
Thomas


Yes, the 4 biggest A220 orders came after Airbus committed, Delta, Moxi, Jetblue and Baltic. A strong signal. Hopefully Embraer will also benefit from Boeing support.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A220_orders_and_deliveries
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:20 am

keesje wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

An interesting point IMO is that the A220 took off, after Airbus committed to it. Hopefully the same will happen when Boeing commits to the E2 jets. Airlines know that when things go south, Boeing will throw in a billion and a bunch of good people.


still most A223 where sold before the merger.

best regards
Thomas


Yes, the 4 biggest A220 orders came after Airbus committed, Delta, Moxi, Jetblue and Baltic. A strong signal. Hopefully Embraer will also benefit from Boeing support.


Oh... i agree. But it won´t be any more an A223 competitor than the A320 competes with the B737-7. There is a full size class difference between them.

Where is the 195E2 going to go?

US Market? By far to big to be flown by the feeder airlines, the low cost market seems to prefer the A223, one even switching from E-Jet to it. Mainline could be a market, it is obviously there with Delta flying both the smaller A221 and the bigger A223, but they want first class seating, and on the E-Jet they lose 25% capacity/row vs. 20% on the A220. That doesn´t help the weight/seat numbers.

European Market? While not having scope clauses the way the US has, those big small aircraft usually have to be negotiated with unions and have limits. European Mainline carriers also tend to have "seat next to you not occupied" Business class, costing 50%/row on a E-Jet, but just 40% on the A220. The (U)LCCs in Europe where the ones that paid for two extra overwing exists, the maintenance costs that come with it, and a 4th FA to put 156 seats into the A319, so they won´t have a problem with a 4th FA for 160 seats. Charter operators have huge overlap with LCCs and often do both, with the same high density extra FA seating. But their problem is that there are two places they want to be able to fly to a) the Canary Islands and b) Egypt. The 195E2 is already geographically limited: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=2000nm%40h ... 00nm%40tfs . While the E2 will struggle from Berlin to Tenerife, only Helsinki will be a stretch for the A220 Just more flexibility to move frames around.

Asia? They don´t seem to need all too many 100-150 seaters, Africa is not yet the big "New Aircraft" customer and the ME3 don´t seem to be interested either.

Now you suggest to stretch that to match the A223s capacity, min. 3m. Two tons extra structure, 1.2 tons extra passengers and all of a sudden 2000nm is about 500nm further than it can go. It would weigh the same, have the same engines, probably a wing with very similar effectiveness and a lot less range. With same weight and engines there isn´t a real good reason to assume maintenance will be cheaper or either..... or that one will have a fuel burn advantage over the other.

This is not "is the A223 better than the 195E2", this is simply "The E195 sits well where it is, in its own niche, and trying to make it reach one size up is one stretch too far".

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:41 am

tommy1808 wrote:
keesje wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:



still most A223 where sold before the merger.

best regards
Thomas


Yes, the 4 biggest A220 orders came after Airbus committed, Delta, Moxi, Jetblue and Baltic. A strong signal. Hopefully Embraer will also benefit from Boeing support.


Oh... i agree. But it won´t be any more an A223 competitor than the A320 competes with the B737-7. There is a full size class difference between them.

Where is the 195E2 going to go?

US Market? By far to big to be flown by the feeder airlines, the low cost market seems to prefer the A223, one even switching from E-Jet to it. Mainline could be a market, it is obviously there with Delta flying both the smaller A221 and the bigger A223, but they want first class seating, and on the E-Jet they lose 25% capacity/row vs. 20% on the A220. That doesn´t help the weight/seat numbers.

European Market? While not having scope clauses the way the US has, those big small aircraft usually have to be negotiated with unions and have limits. European Mainline carriers also tend to have "seat next to you not occupied" Business class, costing 50%/row on a E-Jet, but just 40% on the A220. The (U)LCCs in Europe where the ones that paid for two extra overwing exists, the maintenance costs that come with it, and a 4th FA to put 156 seats into the A319, so they won´t have a problem with a 4th FA for 160 seats. Charter operators have huge overlap with LCCs and often do both, with the same high density extra FA seating. But their problem is that there are two places they want to be able to fly to a) the Canary Islands and b) Egypt. The 195E2 is already geographically limited: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=2000nm%40h ... 00nm%40tfs . While the E2 will struggle from Berlin to Tenerife, only Helsinki will be a stretch for the A220 Just more flexibility to move frames around.

Asia? They don´t seem to need all too many 100-150 seaters, Africa is not yet the big "New Aircraft" customer and the ME3 don´t seem to be interested either.

Now you suggest to stretch that to match the A223s capacity, min. 3m. Two tons extra structure, 1.2 tons extra passengers and all of a sudden 2000nm is about 500nm further than it can go. It would weigh the same, have the same engines, probably a wing with very similar effectiveness and a lot less range. With same weight and engines there isn´t a real good reason to assume maintenance will be cheaper or either..... or that one will have a fuel burn advantage over the other.

This is not "is the A223 better than the 195E2", this is simply "The E195 sits well where it is, in its own niche, and trying to make it reach one size up is one stretch too far".

best regards
Thomas


You should not project typical US flights on Europe and Asia operations, the flights there are are shorter, First doesn't exist & mainline passengers don't expect big seats on those short flights. Scope clauses don't exist, no Alpha here. Business Class: a different (color) seat/headrest, more pitch, a cabin divider, better catering & no middle seat is widely accepted for business class on E-jets, even with carriers flying 4 class long haul. The free middle seat is typical for 737/A320. So in that respect, the E jet are more efficient than the A220's and NB's.https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/British_Airways/British_Airways_Embraer_190_B.php

I'm not suggesting to match E220-300 capacity. I'm suggesting closing in on a realistic 150 seat / 3 crew configuration, which means a slight stretch. If 146 seats (60 inch shorter) if more feasible, probably that won't be a deal breaker. It could be a real cost / seat reducer on routes were 4 abreast cabins fly noise sensitive 500-1000Nm routes with 3 ca's. And those are a lot, most even.

We can discuss all kinds of possible risks and disadvantages, but 6 t lighter than 737-7 / A319, cheaper, quieter, more comfortable and fuel efficient is gonna drop in. And soon we will have big Boeing backing the business case :thumbsup:

Image


iceberg210 wrote:
I bet Embraer decided to stretch the 195E2 just as much as they possibly could, and more than likely even with a slight stretch it wouldn't really change any dynamic of competition between it and the A220-300 already.

The bigger nut to crack for the E2 is they need to keep the production rate advantage which is what has helped it in my opinion beat up on the CRJ as of late, and helped it continue to sell at a good rate. They've been running the line at just south of 100 a year for a while now, multiple times what the 220 has been able to run at. If Embraer can keep the line running that quickly it helps them enough in costs to make it very price competitive, which along with the fleet commonality with the 1400 + E1's in service make for a pretty good combo. The problem is getting the 175E2 started (and I understand there's only so much they can do thanks to scope) because that could be the key to unlocking being able to produce 100+E2's a year. If they can unlock 500+ sales in 175's E2 and then use the lower production costs and availability to help the 190 and 195E2 compete with the 220, and bury the MRJ that's probably the way forward to a successful program, especially if it unlocks PIP's that the MRJ or even 220 might not have enough sales to justify. The one thing the E2 has that the 220 can't is that having mainline and regional planes be part of the same family might have some serious advantages for an airline in terms of maintenance cost etc, and I could see a 175 195 E2 fleet being a really nifty combo for a US major (especially for those who own their regional like Alaska etc).

The problem again is breaking the scope, but it's also something I think will be a dam if it breaks, once one carrier goes the rest will follow (who wants to fly E1's against E2's?) so seems to me that if you're Embraer or Boeing now the number one priority isn't a stretch, but breaking the dam for the next generation of RJ, because there's probably enough sales behind that door to shoulder the cost to make the other E2's sell. The gambit of a 4 abreast plane hinges much more on can you sell it on the regional side, and also sell it as a 100+ seater, and unfortunately stretching it won't solve the problem that Embraer is having right now.


Interesting perspective! I wonder if the regional / mainline combination advantage will be hindered as much in Europe and Asia as in the US. As you say the E175-E2 seems a neat aircraft, but its slightly too heavy for US regionals.. The MRJ is a different story. Maybe they will be forced to join a bigger OE too, now that Embraer and BBD have chosen to do so. Maybe the MRJ could fit under the A220-100 as "Airbus A110-200". It compete head to head with the <100 seat E-jets.. a speculative different topic I guess.
Last edited by keesje on Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Slightly capacity / MTOW increase E195-E2, possible / feasible?

Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:04 am

keesje wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
keesje wrote:

Yes, the 4 biggest A220 orders came after Airbus committed, Delta, Moxi, Jetblue and Baltic. A strong signal. Hopefully Embraer will also benefit from Boeing support.


Oh... i agree. But it won´t be any more an A223 competitor than the A320 competes with the B737-7. There is a full size class difference between them.

Where is the 195E2 going to go?

US Market? By far to big to be flown by the feeder airlines, the low cost market seems to prefer the A223, one even switching from E-Jet to it. Mainline could be a market, it is obviously there with Delta flying both the smaller A221 and the bigger A223, but they want first class seating, and on the E-Jet they lose 25% capacity/row vs. 20% on the A220. That doesn´t help the weight/seat numbers.

European Market? While not having scope clauses the way the US has, those big small aircraft usually have to be negotiated with unions and have limits. European Mainline carriers also tend to have "seat next to you not occupied" Business class, costing 50%/row on a E-Jet, but just 40% on the A220. The (U)LCCs in Europe where the ones that paid for two extra overwing exists, the maintenance costs that come with it, and a 4th FA to put 156 seats into the A319, so they won´t have a problem with a 4th FA for 160 seats. Charter operators have huge overlap with LCCs and often do both, with the same high density extra FA seating. But their problem is that there are two places they want to be able to fly to a) the Canary Islands and b) Egypt. The 195E2 is already geographically limited: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=2000nm%40h ... 00nm%40tfs . While the E2 will struggle from Berlin to Tenerife, only Helsinki will be a stretch for the A220 Just more flexibility to move frames around.

Asia? They don´t seem to need all too many 100-150 seaters, Africa is not yet the big "New Aircraft" customer and the ME3 don´t seem to be interested either.

Now you suggest to stretch that to match the A223s capacity, min. 3m. Two tons extra structure, 1.2 tons extra passengers and all of a sudden 2000nm is about 500nm further than it can go. It would weigh the same, have the same engines, probably a wing with very similar effectiveness and a lot less range. With same weight and engines there isn´t a real good reason to assume maintenance will be cheaper or either..... or that one will have a fuel burn advantage over the other.

This is not "is the A223 better than the 195E2", this is simply "The E195 sits well where it is, in its own niche, and trying to make it reach one size up is one stretch too far".

best regards
Thomas


You should not project typical US flights on Europe and Asia operations, the flights there are are shorter, First doesn't exist & mainline passengers don't expect big seats on those short flights. Scope clauses don't exist, no Alpha here.


i addressed all that.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos