It seems the two threads that were posted on A220 Developments were (probably accidentally) closed / removed:
- https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1400805&p=21014975&hilit=A220#p21014975
- https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1413185

To summarize those :
A220 have gained some traction by recent new and additional orders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A220_orders_and_deliveries

Airbus is investing to grow production to 10-15 a month in the next few years
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-airbus-lifts-a220s-future-with-mobile-gro-455082/

Ground breaking ceremony took place yesterday for new A220 assembly. Airbus doesn't wait for full ownership..
https://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2019/01/dsc_1383.jpg

Airbus is now openly considering the time table for a stretched "A220-500" .
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-open-to-developing-larger-version-of-a220-455067/

PIPs are planned for A220, to improve operating costs
https://leehamnews.com/2019/01/17/pips-planned-for-a220-to-improve-operating-costs/



Source : https://leehamnews.com/, I think they visited A220 Mobile media / ground breaking event.

If the A220-300 isn't already overlapping with the A320NEO, a A220-500 certainly will. But probably that's the intention. The Boeing 737-8 is 2 rows larger than the A320NEO, so would be less exposed. But I doubt Boeing will give up on the huge 130-150 seats "small single aisle" segment. Now the 737-7 seems to be side-lined, what are they planning with the Partners in Brasil?

Would make total sense if the A220-500 is about the same size as the A320. This leaves the airlines with the choice of either going A220 fleet or A320 fleet, depending on their needs (size of aircraft) instead of operating some A220-100&300 plus some A320.

forgot:

A220 got ETOPS180 approval this week.



Expanding operational flexibility and giving a sign of confidence on reliability.

I plotted a "simple stretch" ZFW-range diagram based on the aircraft characteristics for airport planning document.



You see there's a potential to significantly increase CS100 payload-range capability.
A standardization and increased commonality of parts among the family members will also improve CS100's production cost in a very significant manner.

Thanks Keesje for bundling up the discussion a bit.

For Airbus it could be interesting to launch the A220-500 and A321XLR together.

Both likely EIS before NMA with the A220-500 opening the A320 series slots to be able to add the XLR and giving customers a lower cost option for shorter range missions.

However, perhaps XLR launch would come a bit too early for the 500.

Will we see a 2nd engine on the A220?

The A220-500 keeps being a white elephant. Nowhere has an Airbus spokes person, manager or director said, that they will build a A220-500. The only reaction to the questions of the journalists, is that of course Airbus will evolve the A220.

Quote Guillaume Faury:
As the A220 program evolves and becomes a commercial success you could expect Airbus to invest in it further as we have done with the A320 family.

You need to be a journalist to hear, we will build the A220-500.

Taxi645 wrote:

Thanks Keesje for bundling up the discussion a bit.

For Airbus it could be interesting to launch the A220-500 and A321XLR together.

Both likely EIS before NMA with the A220-500 opening the A320 series slots to be able to add the XLR and giving customers a lower cost option for shorter range missions.

However, perhaps XLR launch would come a bit too early for the 500.

Will we see a 2nd engine on the A220?

Issue will still be A220 production rate. Airbus really needs to get that up before a A225 can take over A320neo duties. 10-15 a month (in the “next few years”) still won’t cut it.

mjoelnir wrote:

Quote Guillaume Faury:
As the A220 program evolves and becomes a commercial success you could expect Airbus to invest in it further as we have done with the A320 family.

You need to be a journalist to hear, we will build the A220-500.

They may decide to not build it, but airlines should understand that the economics of such simple stretch is eye watering. Compared to 737 MX 8 or A320neo.

Hey guys,
'Seoul to Darwin' shown on the ETOPS graphic? I doubt that there would be a market for that but Seoul is where A220 operator #3 is based.... I'm sure however that at route was displayed just to 'fill in' at part of the map!
The 'Auckland to Papeete' route also shown on the graphic is much more likely : I believe that the A220 would be a great fit in Air New Zealan's fleet, though I don't know the specifics of the Auckland-Tahiti market!
Cheers
Bunumuring

Airbus and Bombardier should look at the A220-500, as well they should look at scaling up the plane to be the A320, A321 replacement.

Polot wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Thanks Keesje for bundling up the discussion a bit.

For Airbus it could be interesting to launch the A220-500 and A321XLR together.

Both likely EIS before NMA with the A220-500 opening the A320 series slots to be able to add the XLR and giving customers a lower cost option for shorter range missions.

However, perhaps XLR launch would come a bit too early for the 500.

Will we see a 2nd engine on the A220?

Issue will still be A220 production rate. Airbus really needs to get that up before a A225 can take over A320neo duties. 10-15 a month (in the “next few years”) still won’t cut it.

Completely agree. Even though I wouldn't expect the A220-500 to take more than half the A320 sales, when the A220-500 enters service we would be rather looking at 20+ a month and more production sites outside North-America.

The idea that the A220 can indeed fly from London to New York, in particular the westbound journey, sounds really optimistic.

Polot wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Thanks Keesje for bundling up the discussion a bit.

For Airbus it could be interesting to launch the A220-500 and A321XLR together.

Both likely EIS before NMA with the A220-500 opening the A320 series slots to be able to add the XLR and giving customers a lower cost option for shorter range missions.

However, perhaps XLR launch would come a bit too early for the 500.

Will we see a 2nd engine on the A220?

Issue will still be A220 production rate. Airbus really needs to get that up before a A225 can take over A320neo duties. 10-15 a month (in the “next few years”) still won’t cut it.

Well, Faury says an A225 could be launched "once the A220 has done the ramp up", which won't be ready until the mid-2020s: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -2-455029/ which should see Mirabel produce 10 a month and Mobile 4 a month. By that time, not only Boeing will have launched the 797, but Airbus will also have their response ready with further developments of the A32x. Most likely a small stretch of the A320 will be part of it, enabling the A225 to take the spot of the old A320.

I don't think a 2nd engine supplier for the A220 is likely, an improved GTF for the A225 is very likely though.

And this is where Keesje tells us that the A220-500 will take over the A320's role and that Airbus should stretch the 320 a few frames, as well as rewing the whole family towards 320+, 321 and 322.

3, 2, 1...


Not that I disagree.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A220-500 keeps being a white elephant. Nowhere has an Airbus spokes person, manager or director said, that they will build a A220-500. The only reaction to the questions of the journalists, is that of course Airbus will evolve the A220.

Quote Guillaume Faury:
As the A220 program evolves and becomes a commercial success you could expect Airbus to invest in it further as we have done with the A320 family.

You need to be a journalist to hear, we will build the A220-500.

I would think that depends on what Boeing is doing next in single aisle. If they go bigger from the 737, and hence the A32s follow on has to grow too, the A225 would probably much more attractive than a, then A319esk heavy A320NG. The won´t make it because they can, they will not not make it to "protect" the A320 family, at least not once they fully own the program.

best regards
Thomas

Keesje, what do you mean by "now that the 737-7 seems to be sidelined"? Did I miss something? It's a low demand derivative that remains on offer despite some setbacks, like the Southwest deferral. I don't think Boeing has given up on it yet. And I don't think Embraer has anything to offer as yet that can substitute for it.

AvObserver wrote:

Keesje, what do you mean by "now that the 737-7 seems to be sidelined"? Did I miss something? It's a low demand derivative that remains on offer despite some setbacks, like the Southwest deferral. I don't think Boeing has given up on it yet. And I don't think Embraer has anything to offer as yet that can substitute for it.

Few customers (backlog 60) after 7 years of active sales.

** The biggest customer that needs to start replacing 500 737-700 soon, Southwest (30 on order), replaces their -7 slots with -8's and defers the rest for 4 years, after Boeing stretched the -7 for them. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/southwest-moves-up-40-max-737-8-orders-delays-23-max-7-planes
** #2 customer Westjet (23 on order) ) is doing the same: https://airlinerwatch.com/westjet-delays-the-delivery-of-its-first-boeing-737-max-7/
** The you have Turkmenistan (3 on order) & to be resurrected Jetlines (5 on order) are unclear.

Maybe Boeing hasn't given up on the (stretched) 737-7, but it seems the market has. Boeing will only admit when they have a solution. I think they have to show fresh initiative (other than filling a lawsuit) or there is a risk they might loose the big one. Embraer might help.

I would see A220 commercial success (and future growth to -500, may be beyond) depending on its appeal to LCCs, for starters signs appear to be good with the confirmation of 60 A220-300 for US LCC start-up Moxy. I would have no doubt about production success as we are talking Airbus expertise in this field, but rather how much Airbus is successfully convincing to LCCs in moving them beyond B737/A320 economics and into the A220 era.

Deferments aren't cancellations and maybe when they finally go into service, their performance will alleviate enough doubts that these carriers will order more for specific thin routes. The A319 NEO is in roughly this situation as well but favorable performance by in service examples could help that model as well. They are both niche aircraft but could still fill fleet roles that the baseline larger variants can't on longer, thinner routes. I won't yet call the A319 sidelined just yet, despite the current low order count. Until the airframers make a decision to not further produce these models, I don't think they should be considered sidelined as they remain on firm offer.

As an aside, I also think that sales of corporate versions of both could help keep the production justification for both alive longer than you think.

Keesje, thank you for an excellent OP post to enable discussion.

I'm most excited about the PIPs. I see:
1 Aero
a. Wheel covers? (Adds weight/cost). 1/2%
b. Minor details, each tiny, in total about 1%
c. Underside laminar flow: 1% to 2%
d. Scimitar (underside) winglets 1.5% to 2%
2. Structure
a. 200 to 500 kg of easy weight removal (as management always rushes design.
b. Another 300 to 600 kg of more challenging weight reductions. (Challenging=hundreds of millions of investment. Best if combined with a transition to 3D printing as much is creating more monolithic parts.
c. Increase limit of validity from 60,000FC and 90,000FH. I see no reason the fusalage isn't ready for a Douglas 110,000 FC (cycles). For hours, a CFRP wing should be good for 200,000 FH.
d. Small MTOW increase prior to -500.

3. Engine
a. Fan and low compressors always have a late found mismatch. 1/2% fuel burn reduction.
b. Eventually CMCs
c. Can Pratt improve the low turbine? We know they figured out new tech, in a PW1100G PIP.

All of the above requires volume to create a business case. Which means some investment at risk as volume is not yet there.

100 per year is survival. More is needed. Minimum a plan to 200/year to pay for PIPs.

VV wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Quote Guillaume Faury:
As the A220 program evolves and becomes a commercial success you could expect Airbus to invest in it further as we have done with the A320 family.

You need to be a journalist to hear, we will build the A220-500.

They may decide to not build it, but airlines should understand that the economics of such simple stretch is eye watering. Compared to 737 MX 8 or A320neo.

While I personally predict the stretch will weight more than others, I too think the stretch will have great economics. About 8% lower cost per passenger than the A320Neo.

Lightsaber

]From Leeham

Airbus new A220 is more of a match for the A320neo than Airbus says
https://leehamnews.com/2019/01/17/airbu ... rbus-says/

While the tour presents the A220 in the best of lights, it can’t shine brighter than Airbus’ own A320neo. The graph from the tour which positions them in capacity and range shows a clear little brother-large brother relationship. The reality, when comparing apples to apples, is another.

fcogafa wrote:

]From Leeham

Airbus new A220 is more of a match for the A320neo than Airbus says
https://leehamnews.com/2019/01/17/airbu ... rbus-says/

While the tour presents the A220 in the best of lights, it can’t shine brighter than Airbus’ own A320neo. The graph from the tour which positions them in capacity and range shows a clear little brother-large brother relationship. The reality, when comparing apples to apples, is another.

The Leeham article avoids discussion of CASK/CASM.

In particular on shorter missions the A220-300 has a lower CASK than the A320NEO (assuming slight pilot pay reduction) for a 2-class or JetBlue/LH comfy 1-class. For ULCC the NEO matches or slightly beats (Assuming a fair f/a wage where 4fa for 160 pax vs. 4 fa for 186).

Lightsaber

Imo the A220-100 has more to fear from the A220-500 than the A320neo does.

Once airlines see the seat mile costs on the 500, the 100 won't be competitive.

Also, imho, a 149 seat 160,000 lb A220-500 is the sweet spot. Will be about 42 meters long (spots on FAL1 won't hold longer plane?) and OEW will be about 91-92,000 lbs with 2,800 mi all seats full maximum range. Burn about 5,000 lb/hr. Same engine with pin programming thrust bump amd exact same wing.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A220-500 keeps being a white elephant. Nowhere has an Airbus spokes person, manager or director said, that they will build a A220-500. The only reaction to the questions of the journalists, is that of course Airbus will evolve the A220.

Quote Guillaume Faury:
As the A220 program evolves and becomes a commercial success you could expect Airbus to invest in it further as we have done with the A320 family.

You need to be a journalist to hear, we will build the A220-500.

While it's far from a commitment, it is the first public suggestion from the manufacturer (either Airbus or BBD) that a larger model is in consideration. And actually, Faury goes a little further than using the vague terms evolve and invest.

Faury: "It is very likely that once the A220 has done the ramp up and is economically viable – and that's the challenge we have ahead of us – then we can further invest and grow the product and this is going to happen."

https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... nd-beyond/

As to A320NEO overlap, I don't see it really being a problem. I can imagine an airline having a fleet of A320NEO and A321NEO (or whatever variety), and another fleet of A220-500, -300, and possibly a few -100's for special missions. Having two pilot groups who can fly a similar sized aircraft, the A220-500 and the A320NEO, could be helpful for scheduling.

VV wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Quote Guillaume Faury:
As the A220 program evolves and becomes a commercial success you could expect Airbus to invest in it further as we have done with the A320 family.

You need to be a journalist to hear, we will build the A220-500.

They may decide to not build it, but airlines should understand that the economics of such simple stretch is eye watering. Compared to 737 MX 8 or A320neo.

I won't challenge VV's knowledge on the A220, but looking at numbers, the A220-300 might sit in a valuable spot. A decent 2 class cabin (a few rows 2-2 in front) using 3 FA's seems attractive.



For First/Business class by giving up 1 seat, you get 4 full size premium seats offering no middle seat (You have to surrender 2 seats to achieve that on a 737/A320). If an A223 weighs 5-6t less than a A319/737 and still offers good range, it seems to be attractive option for mainline operations. To offer significant Business / First (e.g. 20 seats) a stretch would be required to get back to ~150 seat capacity.

I do not really see the A220 as threatening the A320. There are more than 4000 on order, 7-8 years of production. Airbus can set a pricing strategy. Creating some air / securing market share doesn't seem a bad idea. Plus an A320 Plus doesn't seem unfeasible Hence Airbus seemingly going full force with the CSeries.

Like any major new aircaft project a 40 year plus lifespan should be expected.Over that period there is no doubt incremental improvements of all shapes and sizes will be made as the new structure is better understood.
Official reports from operators have stated that it has already exceeded brochure guarantees.From a business POV it's fine as it is right now.
Time to streamline and optimise manufacturing- and sell hard.No need to confuse the market with another variant at the moment.Its very good as it is.
Long term I imagine most/all the ideas discussed here will happen - just not now.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A220-500 keeps being a white elephant. Nowhere has an Airbus spokes person, manager or director said, that they will build a A220-500. The only reaction to the questions of the journalists, is that of course Airbus will evolve the A220.

Quote Guillaume Faury:
As the A220 program evolves and becomes a commercial success you could expect Airbus to invest in it further as we have done with the A320 family.

You need to be a journalist to hear, we will build the A220-500.

I'm also reading:

keesje wrote:

:arrow: Airbus is investing to grow production to 10-15 a month in the next few years
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ro-455082/

And not finding any info about Airbus investments, yet am finding push back on whether or not CS can hit 10/month, never mind 15/month:

Questions also abound as to whether Airbus can meet a 168-aircraft annual rate even if demand exists. After all, Bombardier had hoped to hit 10 aircraft monthly in Mirabel by 2020. That site delivered 33 A220s in 2018.

The hype train seems to be running on overdrive.

A more sober assessment shows there are some big preconditions to Airbus putting significant amounts of its own money into the enterprise.

By saying "As the A220 program evolves and becomes a commercial success" is a politically correct way of saying the A220 program right now is not a commercial success.

Just like the A320 facility in BFM will host the early A220 work, the new facility will be easily repurposed if the rosy plans don't come true.

Rejoicing after delivering 33 aircraft is akin to looking at an infant and celebrating its future as a medical doctor.

Revelation wrote:

I'm also reading:

keesje wrote:

:arrow: Airbus is investing to grow production to 10-15 a month in the next few years
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ro-455082/

And not finding any info about Airbus investments, yet am finding push back on whether or not CS can hit 10/month, never mind 15/month:

Questions also abound as to whether Airbus can meet a 168-aircraft annual rate even if demand exists. After all, Bombardier had hoped to hit 10 aircraft monthly in Mirabel by 2020. That site delivered 33 A220s in 2018.

The hype train seems to be running on overdrive.

A more sober assessment shows there are some big preconditions to Airbus putting significant amounts of its own money into the enterprise.

That is the crux of the problem. As of yet, Airbus has put almost none of its own money into the program. Remember that agreement between BBD and AIB?

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/ ... r-a-airbus

This one is in French, and the journalist is (arguably, rightly) cranked against BBD and then-Quebec government, but the bottom of the question is that the Mobile FAL is in fact built with BBD's money. BBD is on the hook for 925M USD. Plus, it has given AIB subscription rights for shares that may be worth three times what they'll cost. So, in a way, AIB would be foolish not to "invest" in the CSeries… It it not an investment, it is a gift!

If anyone has any doubts about any of the preceding… Wondered why BBD had to fire sell the Q400 and the training centers, this last fall?

Revelation wrote:

A more sober assessment shows there are some big preconditions to Airbus putting significant amounts of its own money into the enterprise.
By saying "As the A220 program evolves and becomes a commercial success" is a politically correct way of saying the A220 program right now is not a commercial success.

Thanks for your sobering input Revelation; all you say is the current reality.

Indeed commercial success includes achieving a production volume that enable lower unit costs. Obviously current early production aircrafts are sold at a loss. Furthermore, we all know that BBD had no negotiation power whatsoever and was raped big time by suppliers. So no, we can't pretend the A220 is a commercial success just yet. As everyone is saying, the immediate challenge is to tackle supplier's (and production) costs and then increase sales/production accordingly.

However, we can pretend that since the last few months Airbus has shown an increasing optimism toward a profitable production ramp up. It has successfully tackled Zodiac's A220 interiors "difficulties". FWIW, the same Airbus team that helped Zodiac streamlined the A350 interiors production has done the same with the A220. Zodiac happens to make those from the same facility.

I've no reason to believe production costs won't be sufficiently lowered eventually. FWIW, the "bulk" of the economy of scale was calculated to be achieved with an annual 120 production with one FAL. Once Mirabel achieves this production level, we should be ok.

However, I'm not really sure how Mobile can be profitable @ 4 A220/month. Same logic for its low A320 production level. Can someone explain me the Mobile production profitability?

In the mean time, you can expect Airbus to keep selling the aircraft, even at a loss; particularly if it displaces a Boeing/Embraer sale...

I have a feeling delta did their Bombardier CS300 order to replace the A319

I saw on another site a discussion on who owns the Intellectual Property (IP). BBD designed and got the certification on the CS series. Before the Airbus 'rescue' the production (but not the IP) the CSALP was created, a JV basically of the government and BBD. There has been zero mention of the IP being transferred, it is quite a valuable thing if the 220 becomes a success but if the 220 dies it will be worthless.

So BBD will be the engineering house for any PIPs, updates, and stretches until Airbus purchases it. Is BBD engineering capable of doing a major project like design the -500, there still is an engineering staff but several RIFs have happened at BBD. It is likely that only 40% of the design staff at first flight are still there today. That was in 2015, over 2 years later than original due to some problems with the CS-100, including an uncontained engine failure, and a large RIF in that period. The vast majority of the design was completed by 2013, over 5 years ago.

So yes there are CATIA drawings on the server and tons of calculations in the files, but it is far harder to reopen a cold design compared to a design that a large portion of the design staff worked on recently. The planes absorbed into B from McD were always the step children.

I love the CS-300 and would like to see the -500 come to fruition, but it is going to be harder than doing a A320 variant.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

However, I'm not really sure how Mobile can be profitable @ 4 A220/month. Same logic for its low A320 production level. Can someone explain me the Mobile production profitability?

Maybe you 1st clarify what economy of scale effects exist in a FAL?
How large is the FAL part to the cost of an aircraft and how can you safe??
Rough uneducated guess the FAL work is less than 10%, even less than 5%. Most of the work is manual stuff not automated?

JayinKitsap wrote:

I saw on another site a discussion on who owns the Intellectual Property (IP). BBD designed and got the certification on the CS series. Before the Airbus 'rescue' the production (but not the IP) the CSALP was created, a JV basically of the government and BBD. There has been zero mention of the IP being transferred, it is quite a valuable thing if the 220 becomes a success but if the 220 dies it will be worthless.

So BBD will be the engineering house for any PIPs, updates, and stretches until Airbus purchases it. Is BBD engineering capable of doing a major project like design the -500, there still is an engineering staff but several RIFs have happened at BBD. It is likely that only 40% of the design staff at first flight are still there today. That was in 2015, over 2 years later than original due to some problems with the CS-100, including an uncontained engine failure, and a large RIF in that period. The vast majority of the design was completed by 2013, over 5 years ago.

So yes there are CATIA drawings on the server and tons of calculations in the files, but it is far harder to reopen a cold design compared to a design that a large portion of the design staff worked on recently. The planes absorbed into B from McD were always the step children.

I love the CS-300 and would like to see the -500 come to fruition, but it is going to be harder than doing a A320 variant.

It appears CSALP has always included Airbus (https://centreforaviation.com/data/prof ... artnership):

Airbus SE and Bombardier Inc. signed a partnership agreement on 16-Oct-2017, to establish the C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP). Under the agreement, the partnership will bring together complementary product lines with the 100-150 seat market segment, and leverage the reach of Airbus and scale of Bombardier's C Series line. Airbus officially closed the transaction on 01-Jul-2018, confirming Airbus as a majority (50.01%) owner of the CSALP while Bombardier and Investissement Québec own approximately 34% and 16% respectively.

I could not find any mention of IP rights anywhere; but, if (or when, as I predict) Airbus buys the remaining shares of CSALP to become sole owner, I doubt the CSeries IP will be excluded. It'd be very dumb of them.

WayexTDI wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I saw on another site a discussion on who owns the Intellectual Property (IP). BBD designed and got the certification on the CS series. Before the Airbus 'rescue' the production (but not the IP) the CSALP was created, a JV basically of the government and BBD. There has been zero mention of the IP being transferred, it is quite a valuable thing if the 220 becomes a success but if the 220 dies it will be worthless.

So BBD will be the engineering house for any PIPs, updates, and stretches until Airbus purchases it. Is BBD engineering capable of doing a major project like design the -500, there still is an engineering staff but several RIFs have happened at BBD. It is likely that only 40% of the design staff at first flight are still there today. That was in 2015, over 2 years later than original due to some problems with the CS-100, including an uncontained engine failure, and a large RIF in that period. The vast majority of the design was completed by 2013, over 5 years ago.

So yes there are CATIA drawings on the server and tons of calculations in the files, but it is far harder to reopen a cold design compared to a design that a large portion of the design staff worked on recently. The planes absorbed into B from McD were always the step children.

I love the CS-300 and would like to see the -500 come to fruition, but it is going to be harder than doing a A320 variant.

It appears CSALP has always included Airbus (https://centreforaviation.com/data/prof ... artnership):

Airbus SE and Bombardier Inc. signed a partnership agreement on 16-Oct-2017, to establish the C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP). Under the agreement, the partnership will bring together complementary product lines with the 100-150 seat market segment, and leverage the reach of Airbus and scale of Bombardier's C Series line. Airbus officially closed the transaction on 01-Jul-2018, confirming Airbus as a majority (50.01%) owner of the CSALP while Bombardier and Investissement Québec own approximately 34% and 16% respectively.

I could not find any mention of IP rights anywhere; but, if (or when, as I predict) Airbus buys the remaining shares of CSALP to become sole owner, I doubt the CSeries IP will be excluded. It'd be very dumb of them.

Wiki notes the following: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Series_ ... artnership

C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership , CSALP for short , is a Limited Partnership founded on June 23, 2016 by Bombardier Aerospace , which holds a 50.5% stake, and the Province of Quebec , which holds a 49.5% stake. In it, the assets , liabilities and obligations of the then Bombardier CSeries , since July 2018 Airbus A220 , were transferred. [1]

Airbus and CSALP published their plans in October 2017 that Airbus would acquire a 50.0 % majority stake in CSALP . At the time, Bombardier held approximately 62% and Investissement Québec approximately 38% of the shares, which would thereby reduce to 31% (Bombardier) and 19% (Investissement Québec). The Board of Directors of CSALP would initially consist of seven members, four of which, including the Chairman, may be proposed by Airbus, two by Bombardier and one by Investissement Québec. [2] This acquisition took effect on July 1, 2018th [3] On 10 July 2018, Airbus announced that the CSeries in Airbus A220rename.

CSALP was created prior when Investissement Québec in 2016 infused a ton of capital into BBD in trade for the CS assets, however it appears that it does not include the IP, BBD has been providing that to the JV since CSALP has been created.

Yes, Airbus has to own the IP if it buys the program. I am just bringing up a point that a former engineer at BBD expressed online that is rather sure that the IP is still possessed by BBD.

VV wrote:

I plotted a "simple stretch" ZFW-range diagram based on the aircraft characteristics for airport planning document.



You see there's a potential to significantly increase CS100 payload-range capability.
A standardization and increased commonality of parts among the family members will also improve CS100's production cost in a very significant manner.

I don't think that chart makes sense. A "simple stretch" would not change the planes MTOW, but the chart shows exactly that.

It probably has advantages to develop and certify a stretch and a first round of PIP's while all the people and the supply chain that created the CSeries are still in place.

VV wrote:

They may decide to not build it, but airlines should understand that the economics of such simple stretch is eye watering. Compared to 737 MX 8 or A320neo.

lightsabre wrote:

, I too think the stretch will have great economics. About 8% lower cost per passenger than the A320Neo.

I'm not arguing, but I'm curious what you think the economics would be, and why you think that.

I understood that Boeing/Airbus thought that a clean sheet A320/737 would only have economics 3-5% better than the NEO/MAX, and that was for a plane custom made for the passenger capacity, not a stretch/derivitive.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

However, we can pretend that since the last few months Airbus has shown an increasing optimism toward a profitable production ramp up. It has successfully tackled Zodiac's A220 interiors "difficulties". FWIW, the same Airbus team that helped Zodiac streamlined the A350 interiors production has done the same with the A220. Zodiac happens to make those from the same facility.

I've no reason to believe production costs won't be sufficiently lowered eventually. FWIW, the "bulk" of the economy of scale was calculated to be achieved with an annual 120 production with one FAL. Once Mirabel achieves this production level, we should be ok.

I agree there is increasing optimism.

I just think people are losing perspective on when A220 will hit its preconditions for additional investment.

It would be nice if a viable timeline was being discussed, but it seems the discussion is presuming instant success.

To me, becoming a commercial success means making aircraft at a profit while sustaining a healthy backlog.

I think it'll be hard to compete at 120/year or 10/month while A320 and 737 will combine to do 120/month at better margins.

Currently CSALP is producing launch discounted orders using BBD funding.

The struggle to commercial success will intensify when they have to price to make profit and BBD funding runs out.

Sure, they have a rich uncle, but it's not like that rich uncle doesn't have its own kids to worry about.

lightsaber wrote:

100 per year is survival. More is needed. Minimum a plan to 200/year to pay for PIPs.

I dunno. 100 per year for 12 years is 1,200 aircraft. And that doesn't even count follow on aircraft.

That's not a bad run. It's more than the CRJ-700/900. It's more than 707. It's twice as much as the A300.

JayinKitsap wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I saw on another site a discussion on who owns the Intellectual Property (IP). BBD designed and got the certification on the CS series. Before the Airbus 'rescue' the production (but not the IP) the CSALP was created, a JV basically of the government and BBD. There has been zero mention of the IP being transferred, it is quite a valuable thing if the 220 becomes a success but if the 220 dies it will be worthless.

So BBD will be the engineering house for any PIPs, updates, and stretches until Airbus purchases it. Is BBD engineering capable of doing a major project like design the -500, there still is an engineering staff but several RIFs have happened at BBD. It is likely that only 40% of the design staff at first flight are still there today. That was in 2015, over 2 years later than original due to some problems with the CS-100, including an uncontained engine failure, and a large RIF in that period. The vast majority of the design was completed by 2013, over 5 years ago.

So yes there are CATIA drawings on the server and tons of calculations in the files, but it is far harder to reopen a cold design compared to a design that a large portion of the design staff worked on recently. The planes absorbed into B from McD were always the step children.

I love the CS-300 and would like to see the -500 come to fruition, but it is going to be harder than doing a A320 variant.

It appears CSALP has always included Airbus (https://centreforaviation.com/data/prof ... artnership):

Airbus SE and Bombardier Inc. signed a partnership agreement on 16-Oct-2017, to establish the C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP). Under the agreement, the partnership will bring together complementary product lines with the 100-150 seat market segment, and leverage the reach of Airbus and scale of Bombardier's C Series line. Airbus officially closed the transaction on 01-Jul-2018, confirming Airbus as a majority (50.01%) owner of the CSALP while Bombardier and Investissement Québec own approximately 34% and 16% respectively.

I could not find any mention of IP rights anywhere; but, if (or when, as I predict) Airbus buys the remaining shares of CSALP to become sole owner, I doubt the CSeries IP will be excluded. It'd be very dumb of them.

Wiki notes the following: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Series_ ... artnership

C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership , CSALP for short , is a Limited Partnership founded on June 23, 2016 by Bombardier Aerospace , which holds a 50.5% stake, and the Province of Quebec , which holds a 49.5% stake. In it, the assets , liabilities and obligations of the then Bombardier CSeries , since July 2018 Airbus A220 , were transferred. [1]

Airbus and CSALP published their plans in October 2017 that Airbus would acquire a 50.0 % majority stake in CSALP . At the time, Bombardier held approximately 62% and Investissement Québec approximately 38% of the shares, which would thereby reduce to 31% (Bombardier) and 19% (Investissement Québec). The Board of Directors of CSALP would initially consist of seven members, four of which, including the Chairman, may be proposed by Airbus, two by Bombardier and one by Investissement Québec. [2] This acquisition took effect on July 1, 2018th [3] On 10 July 2018, Airbus announced that the CSeries in Airbus A220rename.

CSALP was created prior when Investissement Québec in 2016 infused a ton of capital into BBD in trade for the CS assets, however it appears that it does not include the IP, BBD has been providing that to the JV since CSALP has been created.

Yes, Airbus has to own the IP if it buys the program. I am just bringing up a point that a former engineer at BBD expressed online that is rather sure that the IP is still possessed by BBD.

OK, it seems that Centre for Aviation was wrong, or used the wrong term; CSALP was indeed created in June 2016 (so before Airbus' involvement) https://www.societe.com/societe/societe ... 49254.html

keesje wrote:

It probably has advantages to develop and certify a stretch and a first round of PIP's while all the people and the supply chain that created the CSeries are still in place.

Probably? That doesn't align well with what Jay wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I saw on another site a discussion on who owns the Intellectual Property (IP). BBD designed and got the certification on the CS series. Before the Airbus 'rescue' the production (but not the IP) the CSALP was created, a JV basically of the government and BBD. There has been zero mention of the IP being transferred, it is quite a valuable thing if the 220 becomes a success but if the 220 dies it will be worthless.

So BBD will be the engineering house for any PIPs, updates, and stretches until Airbus purchases it. Is BBD engineering capable of doing a major project like design the -500, there still is an engineering staff but several RIFs have happened at BBD. It is likely that only 40% of the design staff at first flight are still there today. That was in 2015, over 2 years later than original due to some problems with the CS-100, including an uncontained engine failure, and a large RIF in that period. The vast majority of the design was completed by 2013, over 5 years ago.

So yes there are CATIA drawings on the server and tons of calculations in the files, but it is far harder to reopen a cold design compared to a design that a large portion of the design staff worked on recently. The planes absorbed into B from McD were always the step children.

I love the CS-300 and would like to see the -500 come to fruition, but it is going to be harder than doing a A320 variant.

It also doesn't align well with Faury saying the investment would come only after A220 is a commercial success.

keesje wrote:

Looking at this image, reminds me that we only have seen three of the four meanings that could be linked to CSeries.
1) Canadian Series
2) Crossover Series (Sized between regional jet & narrow bodies [737MAX / A320NEO)
3) Comfortable Series >18,5" seats in economie.

Now the one that LCC's would like:
4) The Compact Series. AKA going 6 abreast 32" pitch. (trade seat width with leg room)
How would this compare to the 9abreast A330 / 10abreast A350?
CS300/ A220-300 has 135pax at 5abreast 32" pitch, or 27 rows. The Compact could already seat 162pax. or even 180pax when 30" pitch.

Aircellist wrote:

As of yet, Airbus has put almost none of its own money into the program. Remember that agreement between BBD and AIB?

Well, few months ago Airbus published a "forward" looking financial statement (was linked here, on A.net) and it mentioned it would incur "losses" this year - in relation to its A220 investment. So to incur losses, Airbus must have spent something, somehow. (Costs of integrating the A220 into its supply chain, marketing and after sale network maybe?).

Aircellist wrote:

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/07/21/les-cadeaux-de-bombardier-a-airbus
This one is in French, and the journalist is (arguably, rightly) cranked against BBD and then-Quebec government, but the bottom of the question is that the Mobile FAL is in fact built with BBD's money. BBD is on the hook for 925M USD

While the numbers (US$925 spread over a 3 years period) are correct, it will procure BBD with equivalent CSALP non-voting shares, earning an annual 2% dividends. So it basically put an upper limit into what BBD has to invest into the CSALP.

It's fair game to me, and it secures me as a BBD shareholder...

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

Looking at this image, reminds me that we only have seen three of the four meanings that could be linked to CSeries.
1) Canadian Series
2) Crossover Series (Sized between regional jet & narrow bodies [737MAX / A320NEO)
3) Comfortable Series >18,5" seats in economie.

Now the one that LCC's would like:
4) The Compact Series. AKA going 6 abreast 32" pitch. (trade seat width with leg room)

How about an additional one, the Canadair Series...

As we all know BBD Aerospace presence in the Greater Montreal Area all started and was centered around the Canadair acquisition in 1986 - which was BBD first incursion into aerospace...

kitplane01 wrote:

VV wrote:

They may decide to not build it, but airlines should understand that the economics of such simple stretch is eye watering. Compared to 737 MX 8 or A320neo.

lightsabre wrote:

, I too think the stretch will have great economics. About 8% lower cost per passenger than the A320Neo.

I'm not arguing, but I'm curious what you think the economics would be, and why you think that.

I understood that Boeing/Airbus thought that a clean sheet A320/737 would only have economics 3-5% better than the NEO/MAX, and that was for a plane custom made for the passenger capacity, not a stretch/derivitive.

It is very simple.

Most of the savings comes from a much lighter aircraft and also because the MTOW is much lower (landing fees).

Why the OEW is lighter? There are several fundamental reasons, one of them is the fact PW1500G is a much smaller engine than PW1100G, thus it is lighter. Another reason is because the range capability of a potential "simple stretch" is lower than A320neo, meaning that a lot of things are sized for that payload-range capability.

The reality is that most of narrowbody fly short distances, thus the simple stretch of CS300 is better suited for it.

It is not about technology, it is more about the adequation between the platform and the missions it is serving.

A new narrowbody design can potentially be abut 12% better in efficiency if it is properly design with a shorter range capability than the current neo or MAX. This is where I think Boeing is heading to when they will define MAX's replacement. After all, NMA will cover the need for longer distances. You always need to think on several fronts at the same time. This is why I think it is not reasonable to offer a narrowbody aircraft in the NMA segment. Anyway, this is another debate.

I really hope they develop the CS500/A220-500. It should be longer than the A320 and shorter than the A321. That would be the perfect thing.

Slash787 wrote:

I really hope they develop the CS500/A220-500. It should be longer than the A320 and shorter than the A321. That would be the perfect thing.

It is a bit of a crazy thought, such a long, skinny tube. I already find the A321 a bit of a strange experience, especially when sitting toward the rear. Seeing as the A220-300 is already longer than an A320, I imagine that an A220-500 would end up pretty close to an A321 length. Talk about long and skinny! I wonder if with such a fuselage, you'd be able to notice flexing.

If the A220 is to become a core Airbus product with new versions, are they going to have to port an Airbus cockpit onto it?

Lots of if's here, not dissimilar to those facing the MRJ.

One thing for operating costs to be lower than for smaller members of the A320 family, but without economies of scale, acquisition cost may not be meaningfully different.

Airbus has virtually the entire current and future PW engine building capacity booked out for the next 5 years. Increasing A220 production means either fewer engines allocated for the A320, or further engine capacity increases by PW than already committed, or an engine choice on the A220 (RR), or reviving a semi-retired alliance to boost production.

The latter if stage managed by Airbus, could usher in Mitsubishi and the MRJ, as an Airbus offering, plus Japanese A220 FAL, together with additional Japanese manufacturing involvement with both PW and RR.

The future of Airbus increasingly revolves around PW and RR. The A220 acquisition raised the stakes further. Time to review your aerospace investment portfolios?