Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
queb wrote:A220s Mirabel workers have signed a new 5 years labour contract with Airbus Canada.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 52773.html
The new deal include the creation of a pre-FAL line (called suppliers center by Airbus) for all A220, including those for Mobile.
aerolimani wrote:queb wrote:A220s Mirabel workers have signed a new 5 years labour contract with Airbus Canada.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 52773.html
The new deal include the creation of a pre-FAL line (called suppliers center by Airbus) for all A220, including those for Mobile.
Thank you for sharing this!
I'd like to know more about this pre-FAL "suppliers center." What is it intended to do? I couldn't find anything online about it.
yyztpa2 wrote:UA947 wrote:Jetsouth wrote:Actually, 2 A220-100's remain to be delivered to SWISS. One apparently is in production, the other, apparently in outside storage.
And the one in production that you mention is now in the air for the first time.
With 50018 to be delivered this month, 50030 delivered earlier this month to Delta and 50034-37 also to be delivered to Delta, there should be 6 A221 this month. A A223 is whitetail and parked due to Redwings. Production uptick?
AWY wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:UA947 wrote:And the one in production that you mention is now in the air for the first time.
With 50018 to be delivered this month, 50030 delivered earlier this month to Delta and 50034-37 also to be delivered to Delta, there should be 6 A221 this month. A A223 is whitetail and parked due to Redwings. Production uptick?
From what I can tell, there is always a production surge near the end of quarters. So March, June, September and especially December see huge output relative to the other months. I wonder if this is intentionally planned or the result of quarterly incentives.
queb wrote:aerolimani wrote:queb wrote:A220s Mirabel workers have signed a new 5 years labour contract with Airbus Canada.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 52773.html
The new deal include the creation of a pre-FAL line (called suppliers center by Airbus) for all A220, including those for Mobile.
Thank you for sharing this!
I'd like to know more about this pre-FAL "suppliers center." What is it intended to do? I couldn't find anything online about it.
it's for sub-assemblies like fuselage sections to be mated and prepared before the FAL instead of doing it directly in the FAL.
AWY wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:UA947 wrote:And the one in production that you mention is now in the air for the first time.
With 50018 to be delivered this month, 50030 delivered earlier this month to Delta and 50034-37 also to be delivered to Delta, there should be 6 A221 this month. A A223 is whitetail and parked due to Redwings. Production uptick?
From what I can tell, there is always a production surge near the end of quarters. So March, June, September and especially December see huge output relative to the other months. I wonder if this is intentionally planned or the result of quarterly incentives.
pik1 wrote:AWY wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:
With 50018 to be delivered this month, 50030 delivered earlier this month to Delta and 50034-37 also to be delivered to Delta, there should be 6 A221 this month. A A223 is whitetail and parked due to Redwings. Production uptick?
From what I can tell, there is always a production surge near the end of quarters. So March, June, September and especially December see huge output relative to the other months. I wonder if this is intentionally planned or the result of quarterly incentives.
A "surge" in production during the Paris Air show is probably also the goal.
So with Swiss 50018 now flight testing is there any movement with 50019? Or is 50019 a "right off" as an early production model? I can only find vague third party comments about the last two Swiss cs100s. Is 50019 stored out in the open at Mirabel? Just curious.
Canuck600 wrote:How do these surges affect production & the supply chain? I would think that running at a regular steady pace is the most efficient.
lightsaber wrote:keesje wrote:After a few years in passenger service, it seems the CSeries / A220 is doing pretty well in service with regards to reliability, fuel efficiency & passenger feed-back. We now have to see how the hours are going to work on the aircraft (engines, SB, AD's, checks) but all is still under warrantly. It seems at this stage BBD engineers / supply chain did a pretty good job on the A220.
Doing much better:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ential?amp
Engine seals are almost completely replaced. That fixes dispatch reliability.
The combustors currently only have a 13,000 hr life. Oops. Design was 48,000 hr. So right now, about a 3 year life until 1st overhaul. An ouch on warranty bills, but not the end if the world.
I believe sales will now increase.
Lightsaber
PW100 wrote:lightsaber wrote:keesje wrote:After a few years in passenger service, it seems the CSeries / A220 is doing pretty well in service with regards to reliability, fuel efficiency & passenger feed-back. We now have to see how the hours are going to work on the aircraft (engines, SB, AD's, checks) but all is still under warrantly. It seems at this stage BBD engineers / supply chain did a pretty good job on the A220.
Doing much better:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ential?amp
Engine seals are almost completely replaced. That fixes dispatch reliability.
The combustors currently only have a 13,000 hr life. Oops. Design was 48,000 hr. So right now, about a 3 year life until 1st overhaul. An ouch on warranty bills, but not the end if the world.
I believe sales will now increase.
Lightsaber
Does one need to do a full overhaul to replace the combustors? Can the combustors be refurbished (zero time, TSO = 0)?
Not familiar with the GTF design and maintenance philosophy, but most engines you can do that at HSI (Hot Section Inspection) and some even on-wing. I know several engines where one can be replace the combustors without having to perform a test cell run; a pre- and post-mainmtenance validation ground run could do the trick.
rrbsztk wrote:The first four flights were on the 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th. Then there were 4 yesterday and 2 today. Not sure but im wondering if it's just Swiss being EXTREMELY thorough before accepting a plane stored outside for so long and it's just a lot of customer acceptance flights.
Jetsouth wrote:rrbsztk wrote:The first four flights were on the 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th. Then there were 4 yesterday and 2 today. Not sure but im wondering if it's just Swiss being EXTREMELY thorough before accepting a plane stored outside for so long and it's just a lot of customer acceptance flights.
Its up to 11 pre-delivery flights now.....
Jetsouth wrote:13 pre-delivery flights so far for the 29th A220 to be delivered to SWISS. This must be some kind of record......
yyztpa2 wrote:Jetsouth wrote:13 pre-delivery flights so far for the 29th A220 to be delivered to SWISS. This must be some kind of record......
Perhaps Airbus and Swiss have agreed to use it for certification for capability that FTVs are not capable of.
DeltaB717 wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:Jetsouth wrote:13 pre-delivery flights so far for the 29th A220 to be delivered to SWISS. This must be some kind of record......
Perhaps Airbus and Swiss have agreed to use it for certification for capability that FTVs are not capable of.
Is it a -100 or a -300? Could it be testing related to LCY approaches? Is there anything unusual about the flight profiles (steep approach angles, etc.)?
yyztpa2 wrote:DeltaB717 wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:
Perhaps Airbus and Swiss have agreed to use it for certification for capability that FTVs are not capable of.
Is it a -100 or a -300? Could it be testing related to LCY approaches? Is there anything unusual about the flight profiles (steep approach angles, etc.)?
It's the 100 which is already LCY certified.
Perhaps the MTOW change?
rrbsztk wrote:AIB says flight 13 was "circuits at ymx"
https://aibfamily.flights/Airbus-A220
Does circuits clarify anything? (Im not really sure what circuits means besides the obvious general dictionary definition...not sure exactly what it means for flights)
bspc wrote:rrbsztk wrote:AIB says flight 13 was "circuits at ymx"
https://aibfamily.flights/Airbus-A220
Does circuits clarify anything? (Im not really sure what circuits means besides the obvious general dictionary definition...not sure exactly what it means for flights)
Circuits means it’s flying in circles around the airport, either doing touch and go’s or go arounds at the end of each round. In the aircrafts case it could test things like auto land or other landing/takeoff related items.
Unrelated to this aircraft, circuits are one of the basic maneuvers when learning how to fly.
TObound wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:DeltaB717 wrote:
Is it a -100 or a -300? Could it be testing related to LCY approaches? Is there anything unusual about the flight profiles (steep approach angles, etc.)?
It's the 100 which is already LCY certified.
Perhaps the MTOW change?
I've always been curious. Seems to me that the 300 might be able to be certified for LCY. Dunno if Airbus and Bombardier would be interested.
VV wrote:TObound wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:
It's the 100 which is already LCY certified.
Perhaps the MTOW change?
I've always been curious. Seems to me that the 300 might be able to be certified for LCY. Dunno if Airbus and Bombardier would be interested.
It would be damn stupid to certify 300 for LCY.
Which stupid aircraft manufacturer would certify an aircraft just to make it able to land at LCY basically empty?
lightsaber wrote:VV wrote:TObound wrote:
I've always been curious. Seems to me that the 300 might be able to be certified for LCY. Dunno if Airbus and Bombardier would be interested.
It would be damn stupid to certify 300 for LCY.
Which stupid aircraft manufacturer would certify an aircraft just to make it able to land at LCY basically empty?
The A220-300 would be able to fly more people than the -100, just on shorter missions.
With a typical configuration I expect, I see missions limited to 500nm to 750nm.
That is enough to get to quite a few EU3 hubs:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=500nm%40lcy
But we have another thread on IAG's decision:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1424001
The CS300 has the thrust versus the A318 and wing area. I see no technical reason it won't be certified for LCY.
I'm curious as to the next orders for the A220.
We've seen LOIs for Air lease, Nordic aviation, DL, and B6 this year.
Lightsaber
VV wrote:lightsaber wrote:VV wrote:
It would be damn stupid to certify 300 for LCY.
Which stupid aircraft manufacturer would certify an aircraft just to make it able to land at LCY basically empty?
The A220-300 would be able to fly more people than the -100, just on shorter missions.
With a typical configuration I expect, I see missions limited to 500nm to 750nm.
That is enough to get to quite a few EU3 hubs:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=500nm%40lcy
But we have another thread on IAG's decision:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1424001
The CS300 has the thrust versus the A318 and wing area. I see no technical reason it won't be certified for LCY.
I'm curious as to the next orders for the A220.
We've seen LOIs for Air lease, Nordic aviation, DL, and B6 this year.
Lightsaber
I said it would be stupid to certify the A220-300 to land at LCY. Isn't that clear enough?
It won't be able to carry more passengers than the A220-100 into LCY for LANDING issues.
Full stop.
Please stop the madness about CS300 certification at LCY. It will never happen.
ExMilitaryEng wrote:VV; is it "stupid" the same way as increasing the MTOW of both the CS100 and the CS300? Oh wait, Delta just switched to that heavier MTOW...
However, I indeed see the difficulty about LCY. The tricky part was slowing down a fully loaded CS100 with a wet pavement.
Cheers.
ExMilitaryEng wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-delta-to-take-higher-weight-a220-459113/
Not sure though how many will be of the higher MTOW.
Oops, someone else answered first. Please delete my post...
ExMilitaryEng wrote:VV; is it "stupid" the same way as increasing the MTOW of both the CS100 and the CS300? Oh wait, Delta just switched to that heavier MTOW...
...
Cheers.
VV wrote:TObound wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:
It's the 100 which is already LCY certified.
Perhaps the MTOW change?
I've always been curious. Seems to me that the 300 might be able to be certified for LCY. Dunno if Airbus and Bombardier would be interested.
It would be damn stupid to certify 300 for LCY.
Which stupid aircraft manufacturer would certify an aircraft just to make it able to land at LCY basically empty?
TObound wrote:VV wrote:TObound wrote:
I've always been curious. Seems to me that the 300 might be able to be certified for LCY. Dunno if Airbus and Bombardier would be interested.
It would be damn stupid to certify 300 for LCY.
Which stupid aircraft manufacturer would certify an aircraft just to make it able to land at LCY basically empty?
It's an assumption on your part that they can't certify the aircraft to land at LCY with a useful load. You know what they say about assumptions....
I am fairly sure any investment study/business case would consider what's feasible and the costs to achieve the pledged performance and proceed from there. If feasible, the only thing stupid would be not to canvas their customers for interest in such an option.
lightsaber wrote:VV wrote:lightsaber wrote:The A220-300 would be able to fly more people than the -100, just on shorter missions.
With a typical configuration I expect, I see missions limited to 500nm to 750nm.
That is enough to get to quite a few EU3 hubs:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=500nm%40lcy
But we have another thread on IAG's decision:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1424001
The CS300 has the thrust versus the A318 and wing area. I see no technical reason it won't be certified for LCY.
I'm curious as to the next orders for the A220.
We've seen LOIs for Air lease, Nordic aviation, DL, and B6 this year.
Lightsaber
I said it would be stupid to certify the A220-300 to land at LCY. Isn't that clear enough?
It won't be able to carry more passengers than the A220-100 into LCY for LANDING issues.
Full stop.
Please stop the madness about CS300 certification at LCY. It will never happen.
My job is to make aircraft perform in ways the competition thinks is impossible. I see an easy path for the A220-300:at LCY. Thinking about it last night, it might just be a software upgrade.
Watch words like stupid. Winning the IAG order alone is sufficient to pay the costs for the certification, including new breaks (if required).
Outside sources are discussing the certification as I posted earlier. I see no reason that the A220-300 couldn't be LCY certified. This would improve sales to IAG, LH Group, and possibly others. One would certainly expect AirBaltic to sign up for the opportunity.
Again, my job is to help improve aerospace performance. So I have a feel of what is plausible. So far, it looks like Bombardier's work optimizing the c-series for LCY operations will allow the A220-300. There could be gotchas. Another solution is change a linkage in the spoilers to provide more downforce.
As we say at work, present solutions, not problems.
Lightsaber
rrbsztk wrote:Link for Delta mtow
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... craft.html
"Le Bourget – Delta Air Lines has ordered five additional A220-100 aircraft, bringing to 95 the total number of orders placed, including both the A220-100s and A220-300s. The airline is the first to select the new increased maximum takeoff weight option for its entire fleet from 2020."
lightsaber wrote:I'm done reponding to someone saying it just won't happen. If there is a business case and buyers commit, it happens.
In my opinion, the A220-300 at LCY increases the chance IAG buys the type. It depends on quantity that Spirit might, or might not, orders as to which is more interesting.
...
Lightsaber
VV wrote:lightsaber wrote:I'm done reponding to someone saying it just won't happen. If there is a business case and buyers commit, it happens.
In my opinion, the A220-300 at LCY increases the chance IAG buys the type. It depends on quantity that Spirit might, or might not, orders as to which is more interesting.
...
Lightsaber
There will never be any business case and there will be NO buyers.
Please stop this madness about CS300 at LCY.
rrbsztk wrote:ExMilitaryEng wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-delta-to-take-higher-weight-a220-459113/
Not sure though how many will be of the higher MTOW.
Oops, someone else answered first. Please delete my post...
Haven't seen official numbers but if entire fleet from 2020 will have higher mtow means all deliveries from January 2020 that would include 100% of A220-300 and about 35% of the 100s (based on 4 delivered in 2018 and planned 24 deliveries in 2019 leaving 17 of the A220-100s to be delivered 2020 onwards)
Scheduled for approval in the A220-300 in mid-2020 and in the A220-100 about a year later, the mtow and resulting range increase will certainly open more transatlantic routes, added Dewar, while the 180-minute ETOPS capability will allow the likes of Asian launch customer Korean Air to fly more direct routes over the Pacific.