• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:11 pm

aerolimani wrote:
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.


I recently had a few flights with the kings of stretches, the DC-MD family, didn't notice..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:17 pm

keesje wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
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.


I recently had a few flights with the kings of stretches, the DC-MD family, didn't notice..

Would the A220's Al-Li fuselage be more, or less flexible than the fuselage of the DC/MD aircraft?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17708
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:26 pm

VV wrote:
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.

VV, I agree with your points, but would add:
1. Must lower cost subsystems to opperate (3% fuel savings and due to advanced/software nature, lower maintenance once debugged).
2. CFRP opportunity to extend limits of validity (cycles and much more on hours). This extends overhaul intervals.
3. Engines better optimized for climb (but a little worse for cruise). Enabled in part by weight reductions of the system.

But mostly weight. ;)
Recall the CS300 weights 7.6 metric tons less than an A319 NEO or 6 tons less than a CEO.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17708
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:29 pm

aerolimani wrote:
keesje wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
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.


I recently had a few flights with the kings of stretches, the DC-MD family, didn't notice..

Would the A220's Al-Li fuselage be more, or less flexible than the fuselage of the DC/MD aircraft?

The MD-90 went beyond the economical limit of 5-across with an aluminum wing box. Yes, the wing box material changes the stretch optimization. But it does show the A220 may be stretched.

And do people fear the A346 or 757-300? :no:

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:53 pm

smartplane wrote:
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?


Agreed on potential for a 2nd engine and possible further production sites:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1412777&p=20999009#p20999009
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:42 pm

Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:56 pm

smartplane wrote:
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?


I believe the GTF's used on the 220's are made in Mirabel, not at the same facility as the 320neo's engines so an increase in one line shouldn't mean a shortage in another line.
What the...?
 
ZPhoto
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 10:04 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:05 am

Airbus will wait to see what Boeing's NMA looks like and what the Embraer partnership produces before deciding how to respond.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:01 am

ZPhoto wrote:
Airbus will wait to see what Boeing's NMA looks like and what the Embraer partnership produces before deciding how to respond.

As they actually stated..... :yes: .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ro-455136/
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:18 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
smartplane wrote:
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?


I believe the GTF's used on the 220's are made in Mirabel, not at the same facility as the 320neo's engines so an increase in one line shouldn't mean a shortage in another line.

PW is struggling to source / manufacture components and assemble new engines, let alone components to repair and upgrade in service engines.

Amazing if Mirabel hasn't been pressed into service, when they have some strange bedfellows assisting, including RRD.
 
VV
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:10 pm

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.


Where does the discussion take place? It seems to be a very interesting one.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:25 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
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?


16" seat with a minimum aisle... quite bad.

aerolimani wrote:
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.


You'd be looking at 35 (175 seats) or 36 (180) rows, a few less than the A321. Would probably feel very much the same.
If that feels strange, many trains or subways would feel downright scary.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:56 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
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.


You'd be looking at 35 (175 seats) or 36 (180) rows, a few less than the A321. Would probably feel very much the same.
If that feels strange, many trains or subways would feel downright scary.

Scary, no. But, I do find it a rather odd experience, riding the metro/subway trains where you can see down the length of the train, especially when you start into a corner and the cars ahead bend out of view.

What makes the difference with a potential A220-500 is the narrower cross-section versus an A321. Of course, as others have pointed out, the MD90 already pushed the 5-across tube to a considerable length. I’ve just never had the opportunity to fly on one.

Of course, widebodoes are longer, but they all have bulkheads, galleys, and lavatories which interrupt the view. On an NB, you often can see down the entire length.

I’ve sat in the last row of an A321 in heavy turbulence. You get thrown around pretty roughly at the back when the plane sideslips. Looking down the tube while it’s happening is an odd feeling as your brain tries to cope with the competing information coming from your eyes versus your inner ear.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:52 pm

Doing an A220-500 only makes sense if it makes more money for Airbus than an A320NEO and if you look at production rates, this seems very unlikely. Airbus has much more pressing problems, like achieving a decent margin over the whole product line, before doing a new version that will only hurt one of the few money making types they have.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:08 pm

Devilfish wrote:
ZPhoto wrote:
Airbus will wait to see what Boeing's NMA looks like and what the Embraer partnership produces before deciding how to respond.

As they actually stated..... :yes: .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ro-455136/

Does anyone care to offer a timeline for when we will see the "more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says" version of the A220 emerge?

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... ement.html says Airbus has call rights and BBD has put rights 7.5 years after closing, which works out to Jan 2026. Is that going to be influential on when the increased investment needed for a stretch happens?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17708
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:14 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
smartplane wrote:
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?


I believe the GTF's used on the 220's are made in Mirabel, not at the same facility as the 320neo's engines so an increase in one line shouldn't mean a shortage in another line.

Sub assemblies are routinely made in the other factory to cut costs. Fuel injectors, high compressors, rotors, and combustor liners. Also, the Hartford casting shop provides turbine surge.

The even surge on the CFM-56 clone blades. :wide-eyed:

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:14 pm

Revelation wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
ZPhoto wrote:
Airbus will wait to see what Boeing's NMA looks like and what the Embraer partnership produces before deciding how to respond.

As they actually stated..... :yes: .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ro-455136/

Does anyone care to offer a timeline for when we will see the "more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says" version of the A220 emerge?

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... ement.html says Airbus has call rights and BBD has put rights 7.5 years after closing, which works out to Jan 2026. Is that going to be influential on when the increased investment needed for a stretch happens?


Not sure if that will determine stretch launch. 2024-25 could be a reasonable timeframe. Establishing the second assembly line and ramping up the supply chain to a reasonable output of 10-15 per month will probably delay a -500 launch decision a few years.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ZPhoto
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 10:04 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:39 pm

Devilfish wrote:
ZPhoto wrote:
Airbus will wait to see what Boeing's NMA looks like and what the Embraer partnership produces before deciding how to respond.

As they actually stated..... :yes: .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ro-455136/


Will Boeing and Embraer build two aircraft together? a single isle to one-up the A220 and the mysterious NMA (wide-body?)
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:47 pm

seahawk wrote:
Doing an A220-500 only makes sense if it makes more money for Airbus than an A320NEO.


Not neccesarily true in a supply restricted situation as with the A320 series.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
TW870
Posts: 988
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:01 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:58 pm

VV wrote:

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.


This is such a good point. So often the discussions about the A220 assume that Delta (or any other operator) wants it optimized for RDU-SEA or LAX-BDL. But the overwhelming majority of DL's flying is IND-ATL or BNA-DTW type flying. If you keep weight to an absolute minimum, stretch the tube, and give up range, you are still going to hit the sweet spot for so much of DL's system. This would also be true in European and Southeast Asian contexts. I agree that talk of the -500 is premature, but I also think the potential for this airplane is giant.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:00 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Doing an A220-500 only makes sense if it makes more money for Airbus than an A320NEO.


Not neccesarily true in a supply restricted situation as with the A320 series.


That does not matter, as they would need to built production capability for the A220 as well.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:32 pm

TW870 wrote:
VV wrote:
The reality is that most of narrowbody fly short distances, thus the simple stretch of CS300 is better suited for it.

This is such a good point. So often the discussions about the A220 assume that Delta (or any other operator) wants it optimized for RDU-SEA or LAX-BDL. But the overwhelming majority of DL's flying is IND-ATL or BNA-DTW type flying. If you keep weight to an absolute minimum, stretch the tube, and give up range, you are still going to hit the sweet spot for so much of DL's system. This would also be true in European and Southeast Asian contexts. I agree that talk of the -500 is premature, but I also think the potential for this airplane is giant.

Yes, and in previous discussions here on a.net it was stated that DL bought a lower weight variant (limit implemented via software / plug) of A220 to save money, so you won't see DL fly it on TCON flights, unless DL changes its mind and pays for the higher weight variant.

Basically DL will replace the 717s with A220s as they age out of the fleet.

It's a role that DL has been able to make work, yet other US majors have not, so far.

For instance WN gave DL the deal of a lifetime on the 717s because they could not make them work.

IIRC B6 will fly them on longer routes than DL does, just like their E190s ( ref: viewtopic.php?t=694969 ).

It shows to me that it's hard to just focus on the short routes, the "pay for what you use" model seems to work better.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
TW870 wrote:
VV wrote:
The reality is that most of narrowbody fly short distances, thus the simple stretch of CS300 is better suited for it.

This is such a good point. So often the discussions about the A220 assume that Delta (or any other operator) wants it optimized for RDU-SEA or LAX-BDL. But the overwhelming majority of DL's flying is IND-ATL or BNA-DTW type flying. If you keep weight to an absolute minimum, stretch the tube, and give up range, you are still going to hit the sweet spot for so much of DL's system. This would also be true in European and Southeast Asian contexts. I agree that talk of the -500 is premature, but I also think the potential for this airplane is giant.

Yes, and in previous discussions here on a.net it was stated that DL bought a lower weight variant (limit implemented via software / plug) of A220 to save money, so you won't see DL fly it on TCON flights, unless DL changes its mind and pays for the higher weight variant.

Basically DL will replace the 717s with A220s as they age out of the fleet.

It's a role that DL has been able to make work, yet other US majors have not, so far.

For instance WN gave DL the deal of a lifetime on the 717s because they could not make them work.

IIRC B6 will fly them on longer routes than DL does, just like their E190s ( ref: viewtopic.php?t=694969 ).

It shows to me that it's hard to just focus on the short routes, the "pay for what you use" model seems to work better.


Delta uses mainline on 400-800 miles sectors throughout the eastern seaboard and Midwest. Delta has its hub and network tightly focused in the population centers of the country. Low weight A321s and A220s fit this flying well that used to be done by the T Tails. There is a market for this type of plane, but every other US operator prefers the versatility to operate 500 mile flights followed by 2500 mile flights.

More range is good for some airlines, but efficiently operating shorter flights without excess structure or weight is also important. There aren’t a bunch of airlines clamoring for more range. Most want more efficiency
 
TW870
Posts: 988
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:01 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:51 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Delta uses mainline on 400-800 miles sectors throughout the eastern seaboard and Midwest. Delta has its hub and network tightly focused in the population centers of the country. Low weight A321s and A220s fit this flying well that used to be done by the T Tails. There is a market for this type of plane, but every other US operator prefers the versatility to operate 500 mile flights followed by 2500 mile flights.

More range is good for some airlines, but efficiently operating shorter flights without excess structure or weight is also important. There aren’t a bunch of airlines clamoring for more range. Most want more efficiency


I agree. And I actually think that the other U.S. legacies would consider a shorter range A220-500 in the right context. If you think of how many departures AA has out of DFW and CLT and ORD in the 400-800 range, there is definitely room for a new type if it can do that work at considerably lower unit costs than the 738M or the 321N. And there is even a case at UA for their midcon hubs. AA and UA aren't quite as far along in upgauging as DL, so we'll see if a larger shorthaul case emerges as they do.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:00 pm

VV 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.


Where does the discussion take place? It seems to be a very interesting one.


As he also uses 'V V' I thought it might be you. The site is "Vero Venia" a blog by a former BBD employee. I find it quite interesting, he has a good post about the stretch today.

https://verovenia.wordpress.com/
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1069
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:11 pm

Reading thru the comments above, I had 2 thoughts:

1) Long thin fuselage, surely the DC-8-71, 73 takes the cake. I've heard many stories about sitting in the rear during turbulence and seeing the airplane flex and twist. Also have heard of cases where if the airplane made a sharp turn into a gate, then the L1 door wouldn't open because the fuselage had it pinched. They had to hook up the tug and push the airplane back and then pull it on straight to relieve the stress on the fuselage.

2) Weight of the A220/GTF. The GTF is actually quite a bit heavier than comparably sized (by thrust) engines.This high engine weight makes the shorter A220 versions relatively heavy by comparison to competitors like the 717.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:22 am

seahawk wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Doing an A220-500 only makes sense if it makes more money for Airbus than an A320NEO.


Not neccesarily true in a supply restricted situation as with the A320 series.


That does not matter, as they would need to built production capability for the A220 as well.



It does matter because of several reason:

1 There are other reasons to not endlessly increase production rate on the A320 series and instead have a decent rate on the A220 as well (a mentioned condition by Airbus for the A220-500)

2 An A220-500 does not solely open up a A320 production slot, but any in the A320 series including a potential XLR, which, with a combination of high volume production and high capability, is like to have very healthy margins.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
VV
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:45 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
VV wrote:
Where does the discussion take place? It seems to be a very interesting one.

As he also uses 'V V' I thought it might be you. The site is "Vero Venia" a blog by a former BBD employee. I find it quite interesting, he has a good post about the stretch today.

https://verovenia.wordpress.com/


Okay, yeah that's mine. I thought you were talking about another site because I am still trying to have a clarity on how future engineering works will be done because there is no way Airbus' engineers can work on the C Series in the short-medium-term.
The reason is quite simple. It is because the "infrastructure" for any C Series engineering is still deeply embedded in Bombardier's engineering organization.

If CSALP wants to do something, basically they need to write down the statement of work and the work scope,, negotiate the cost with Bombardier and so on.

Believe me, this is a complicated process. On one side CSALP wants to squeeze costs, on the other side Bombardier has to please it's shareholders. We must now consider Bombardier Aerospace as service and goods supplier to CSALP.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:24 pm

FlightLevel360 wrote:
I have a feeling delta did their Bombardier CS300 order to replace the A319


Your feelings would be wrong.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:37 pm

lightsaber wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
keesje wrote:

I recently had a few flights with the kings of stretches, the DC-MD family, didn't notice..

Would the A220's Al-Li fuselage be more, or less flexible than the fuselage of the DC/MD aircraft?

The MD-90 went beyond the economical limit of 5-across with an aluminum wing box. Yes, the wing box material changes the stretch optimization. But it does show the A220 may be stretched.

And do people fear the A346 or 757-300? :no:

Lightsaber


The 90 went too far. The elevator and stab can't keep up. I never unsat a 757/767/320/717 in an autoland. I unsat 3 MD-90s for being unable to flare. Not to mention it put flipper to shame on the porpoising at altitude.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:46 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
Not neccesarily true in a supply restricted situation as with the A320 series.

That does not matter, as they would need to built production capability for the A220 as well.

It does matter because of several reason:

1 There are other reasons to not endlessly increase production rate on the A320 series and instead have a decent rate on the A220 as well (a mentioned condition by Airbus for the A220-500)

2 An A220-500 does not solely open up a A320 production slot, but any in the A320 series including a potential XLR, which, with a combination of high volume production and high capability, is like to have very healthy margins.

The next question would be how much money do you have to lose on each A220 to free up a profitable A320 slot.

We see right now A220 is losing money and just made 33/year.

We read that YMX was sized to make money at 10/mo or 120/year but I think we have to ask (a) when will that happen and (b) will it make money at that rate.

Also that plan didn't factor in the cost of bringing BFM on line which adds up to 5/mo but also adds more cost.

Given BBD sold the program for $1 I'm going to venture that it won't be strongly profitable at 120/year.

Airbus's buying power should help, but I'm sure the vendor push back will be that A220 still is a relatively low volume niche product that can't command the pricing that A320 at 60/month does.

A220's production at the full planned rate (15/mo) is going to take a while (years?) to become a reality, and when it does, its full production volume will have to double twice to reach where A320 is now planning to hit, and there is no plan for the A220 to be produced on the same scale A320 is.

I think we read that each doubling of production reduces cost 13% so A220 will be at a significant cost disadvantage to A320 for a long time to come.

And it's far from clear that the slots are as fungible as people make them out to be.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
FlightLevel360
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:26 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:23 pm

Babyshark wrote:
FlightLevel360 wrote:
I have a feeling delta did their Bombardier CS300 order to replace the A319


Your feelings would be wrong.


How so? Delta has 57 A319s, and much of the exNW fleet is nearing the end of their service life. The 50 CS300s, plus a few A321s probably, could easily replace all that lost capacity one for one.
To me, it will always be:
- Bombardier CSeries
- Airbus A321neoLR and A321neoXLR
- EMBRACER ERJ-170, ERJ-175, ERJ-190, and ERJ-195
- MITSUBUSHI MRJ

Anti narrowbody-long range-twinjet gang. Long live the A380 and 747!
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1069
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:53 pm

FlightLevel360 wrote:
Babyshark wrote:
FlightLevel360 wrote:
I have a feeling delta did their Bombardier CS300 order to replace the A319


Your feelings would be wrong.


How so? Delta has 57 A319s, and much of the exNW fleet is nearing the end of their service life. The 50 CS300s, plus a few A321s probably, could easily replace all that lost capacity one for one.


I agree and think shark was a snark. :)

Its not hard to see the 300s replacing the 319s, though like the 717, not in the next 2-3 years. After 5-6 years, its a virtual certainty.
 
ZPhoto
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 10:04 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:11 pm

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.


The BBD engineering team who designed and built the CSeries were all transfered to CSALP and no longer have access to BBD's other facilities at Mirabel (and vice versa). Also, the CSeries engineering team was self contained so, for example: the landing gear engineers only worked on the CSeries landing gear and were not used on the CRJs or Q400s... unlike Embraer who use their guys to design landing gear for all their aircrafts, thus making them harder to part with (so Boeing had to buy the company). So I believe the IP was transferred to CSALP along with the engineers. Airbus will buy out Investissement Québec when the debt is repaid and will own a majority of the program with 66%. If they decide to stretch it it will be a CSALP project which will obligate BBD to share development costs.
Last edited by ZPhoto on Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:18 pm

ZPhoto wrote:
Airbus will buy out Investissement Québec when the debt is repaid and will own a majority of the program with 66%. If they decide to stretch it it will be a CSALP project which will obligate BBD to share development costs.

Presumably the "debt is repaid" refers to the loan that BBD took from IQ?

How do you know Airbus plans to buy the IQ share after repayment?

How do you know a stretch will require BBD contributions?

Do we know if BBD could afford such contributions?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
ZPhoto
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 10:04 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
ZPhoto wrote:
Airbus will buy out Investissement Québec when the debt is repaid and will own a majority of the program with 66%. If they decide to stretch it it will be a CSALP project which will obligate BBD to share development costs.

Presumably the "debt is repaid" refers to the loan that BBD took from IQ?

How do you know Airbus plans to buy the IQ share after repayment?

How do you know a stretch will require BBD contributions?

Do we know if BBD could afford such contributions?



Airbus has the option to buy both of them out after 5 years, but they promised to stay partners with BBD, not IQ. If the program is profitable by then it would make sense to get a bigger share. IQ just wants it's money back.

If the IP belongs to CSALP I assume both partners would share the costs... if BBD cannot afford it then Airbus should buy them out (with the IP) and end the partnership.

Assuming there is great demand by airlines for a stretched A220 in the future, I believe Airbus would not want to share the profits with BBD because a successful A220-500 will cannibalise A320 sales.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1369
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:57 pm

The A220 and A320 will "evolve in parallel" and we should expect some light on what that means later this year:

http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... le-expands
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:26 pm

ZPhoto wrote:
Airbus has the option to buy both of them out after 5 years, but they promised to stay partners with BBD, not IQ. If the program is profitable by then it would make sense to get a bigger share. IQ just wants it's money back.

If the IP belongs to CSALP I assume both partners would share the costs... if BBD cannot afford it then Airbus should buy them out (with the IP) and end the partnership.

Assuming there is great demand by airlines for a stretched A220 in the future, I believe Airbus would not want to share the profits with BBD because a successful A220-500 will cannibalise A320 sales.

I think your opinion is well thought out.

It'll be interesting to see if BBD has the finances to stay engaged.

JerseyFlyer wrote:
The A220 and A320 will "evolve in parallel" and we should expect some light on what that means later this year:

http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... le-expands

Thanks for the link to the article.

It's an interesting choice of words.

In parallel implies a time sequence yet not scale.

We are being told the scale up plan for A220 is to eventually reach a production rate 1/4th to 1/6th that of A320.

It'll be interesting to see if that plan holds.

The article ends with:

And while Airbus is under pressure to get its Mobile A220 site up and running for deliveries to U.S. customers, more orders are needed at least in the medium term to fill production capacity in Mirabel. “I am not concerned about filling the backlog,” Knittel said, however.

It'll be interesting to see if his confidence is justified.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
...Airbus's buying power should help, but I'm sure the vendor push back will be that A220 still is a relatively low volume niche product that can't command the pricing that A320 at 60/month does. A220's production at the full planned rate (15/mo)...

You are totally right that the A220 will never achieve the economy of scale of the A320 program (and neither the 737). And no other programs of any sorts will ever come close either, anytime soon. => We all know the A320s/B737s relative low costs indeed always siphonned some sales from the market segment immediately below (100 to 150 seats). And around here, the closer a mainline aircraft is to 76 seats, the less competitive it is to the regional... The current pilot shortage exacerbates the situation even more.

But hey, nobody expects the A220 to steal the whole 737/A320 market either...

After all, acquisition costs represent what, 30% of the toal life cycle costs of an aircraft? (Let's say over 20 yrs)

There is still a sufficient demand for a right sized aircraft having an attractive CASM (for thinner routes, or off peak hours instead of the A320/B737) in the 100-150 seat market. From what I heard internally, Airbus is now even more confident to sufficiently lower manufacturing costs to enable the program to be profitable - even at only 10 to 15 aircrafts per month. (It might have to do with an eventual so called 320.5/321/322 improved neos? Who knows)

With the above knowledge, the big question about the ramp up is now; which investment will bring the most incremental profit? On the A320, on the A220, or on both? I believe Mirabel would incure less costs for a relatively higher increase in production. The current (relatively automated) FAL "part 1" can do 10 -12 / months easily - we just need to complete the "part 2 and 3" facilities, particularly in regard to the current completion bottleneck... Some of this investment is currently ongoing.

---------------------------

I also believe Airbus is not interrested to abandon the 100-150 segment to Boeing/Embraer's E190/195E2s
 
VV
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:13 pm

ZPhoto wrote:
The BBD engineering team who designed and built the CSeries were all transfered to CSALP and no longer have access to BBD's other facilities at Mirabel (and vice versa). Also, the CSeries engineering team was self contained so, for example: the landing gear engineers only worked on the CSeries landing gear and were not used on the CRJs or Q400s... unlike Embraer who use their guys to design landing gear for all their aircrafts, thus making them harder to part with (so Boeing had to buy the company). So I believe the IP was transferred to CSALP along with the engineers. Airbus will buy out Investissement Québec when the debt is repaid and will own a majority of the program with 66%. If they decide to stretch it it will be a CSALP project which will obligate BBD to share development costs.


This is absolutely inaccurate.
 
JMSVS
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 7:56 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:15 pm

Airbus should invest in the A220-500 because the C series is a huge step in technology and materials from the A32x platform. Using the a220 in the 100-200 seat market and focus on a new middle body platform for the 200-250 market with one or two variants would be better than launch a320 plus and continue to upgrade the A321 whose wings are on their limit. When I say they should produce the A220-500 I'm talking about a simple fuselage stretch. Some aerodynamic improvements and engine Pips would bring the range closer to todays A220-300 range and lost due to the increased OEW.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:22 pm

bunumuring wrote:
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


Japan & Korea have both had flights to Darwin over the years. It's a popular spot for them. United even Operated GUM-DRW
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:24 pm

Beatyair wrote:
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.


2-3 layout would be to long to be good replacement for A321. The 160 @ 32" would be around the limit for it.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:34 pm

ZPhoto wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ZPhoto wrote:
Airbus will buy out Investissement Québec when the debt is repaid and will own a majority of the program with 66%. If they decide to stretch it it will be a CSALP project which will obligate BBD to share development costs.

Presumably the "debt is repaid" refers to the loan that BBD took from IQ?

How do you know Airbus plans to buy the IQ share after repayment?

How do you know a stretch will require BBD contributions?

Do we know if BBD could afford such contributions?



Airbus has the option to buy both of them out after 5 years, but they promised to stay partners with BBD, not IQ. If the program is profitable by then it would make sense to get a bigger share. IQ just wants it's money back.

If the IP belongs to CSALP I assume both partners would share the costs... if BBD cannot afford it then Airbus should buy them out (with the IP) and end the partnership.

Assuming there is great demand by airlines for a stretched A220 in the future, I believe Airbus would not want to share the profits with BBD because a successful A220-500 will cannibalise A320 sales.

So for Airbus, incur development and volume building costs for the first five years so zero/low profits, buy out end Y5, reap profits (no sharing) from Y6.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:52 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
The A220 and A320 will "evolve in parallel" and we should expect some light on what that means later this year:

http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... le-expands

http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... -cost-cuts is also interesting:

Airbus is aiming at cutting unit costs by a large double-digit percentage to bring the A220 program, formerly the Bombardier C Series, into profitability. While Balducchi anticipates significant efficiency gains internally as output of the A220 increases, extensive external cost reductions are needed. When Bombardier owned the program, suppliers were able to negotiate contracts that were highly favorable, taking into account perceived program and market risks. With the A220 under its control since mid-2018, Airbus now is trying to leverage the greater negotiating power the company has over its supply chain.

Double digit percentages give us > 10%, large double digit percentages give us ???

Note the article is written in the future tense, so such cuts haven't been achieved yet.

There must be some intense arm twisting going on.

A220 output almost doubled to 33 last year from 17 aircraft in 2017. In the second half of 2018, 20 were delivered. When Bombardier owned the program, 40 aircraft were targeted for 2018, but Balducchi said the lower level of production was “in line with customer commitments and internal targets.” He refused to reveal the production target for this year but said an output of 10 aircraft per month is expected by the middle of the 2020s.

So they will only be at 10/month in ~2025, which seems less aggressive than some here have implied.

Airbus has planned a groundbreaking ceremony for the Mobile final assembly line on Jan. 16, and is investing $30 million to expand the Mirabel facility. Among other plans, a new delivery center is to be opened there by year-end, which will free up two factory positions for preflight and installation work.

I wonder if Airbus will be putting in $30M of its own money, or if CSALP will be funding the delivery center.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
With the above knowledge, the big question about the ramp up is now; which investment will bring the most incremental profit? On the A320, on the A220, or on both? I believe Mirabel would incure less costs for a relatively higher increase in production. The current (relatively automated) FAL "part 1" can do 10 -12 / months easily - we just need to complete the "part 2 and 3" facilities, particularly in regard to the current completion bottleneck... Some of this investment is currently ongoing.

As I said earlier, there's lots of reasons to be optimistic about A220, but one has to keep that in its own scale and be careful when comparing a emerging product (A220) to a mature product (A320).

I can see your point that putting money into A220 can produce more new frames quicker, but each one sells for a lot less than an A320 does (especially given A220 launch pricing done by BBD under duress) and each A320 will make more money (the supply chain scaling effect shows itself yet again, plus there's lots of evidence that A220 doesn't make any money yet) so if Airbus wants the best ROI they'd put it in to increasing A320 production, IMHO.

Clearly everyone involved is making the right noises and money is going in to support the A220 ramp up, but based on the info above it'll take another six years or so to get to the point where one A220 rolls out of the factory for every six A320s.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:07 pm

VV wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
VV wrote:
Where does the discussion take place? It seems to be a very interesting one.

As he also uses 'V V' I thought it might be you. The site is "Vero Venia" a blog by a former BBD employee. I find it quite interesting, he has a good post about the stretch today.

https://verovenia.wordpress.com/


Okay, yeah that's mine. I thought you were talking about another site because I am still trying to have a clarity on how future engineering works will be done because there is no way Airbus' engineers can work on the C Series in the short-medium-term.
The reason is quite simple. It is because the "infrastructure" for any C Series engineering is still deeply embedded in Bombardier's engineering organization.

If CSALP wants to do something, basically they need to write down the statement of work and the work scope,, negotiate the cost with Bombardier and so on.

Believe me, this is a complicated process. On one side CSALP wants to squeeze costs, on the other side Bombardier has to please it's shareholders. We must now consider Bombardier Aerospace as service and goods supplier to CSALP.


A supplier that now has a chance to profit from its work, after years of just being on overhead in a loss position.

I personally think a stretch is a 'Bridge too Far' at the moment, the CS100 and CS300 need to get into normal full production for a couple years before it would be time to consider it. Development costs are a complication while CSALP has IQ that wants out at a profit, and the valuation of the stable JV can be assessed.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
...but each one sells for a lot less than an A320 does (especially given A220 launch pricing done by BBD under duress) and each A320 will make more money (the supply chain scaling effect shows itself yet again, plus there's lots of evidence that A220 doesn't make any money yet) so if Airbus wants the best ROI they'd put it in to increasing A320 production, IMHO.


I'm now curious, using the same logic above, how different are the chances for the E190/195E2 of achieving suficient economy of scale?

We also want Boeing to invest more money into the E2 program. Does it have to be more profitable than ramping up B737 production?

Using some of your wordings: as currently each E2 sells for less than a B737 and each 737 "makes more money - the supply chain scaling effect shows itself yet again" than the E190/195E2...

I don't want to derail the topic tought, I just want to point that it still can make sense to invest into the A220 program, despite not achieving the same (A320) economy of scale by any measure...There will be customers willing to pay some premium if the overall lower CASM and trip costs for a right sized aircraft enable them to recoup the extra capital within a few years
Last edited by ExMilitaryEng on Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:39 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
I'm now curious, using the same logic above, how different are the chances for the E190/195E2 of achieve such economy of scale?

We also want Boeing to invest more money into the E2 program. Does it have to be more profitable than ramping up B737 production?

Using some of your wordings: as currently the B737 "makes more money - the supply chain scaling effect shows itself yet again" than the E190/195E2...

I don't want to derail the topic tought, I just want to point that it still can make sense to invest into the A220 program, despite not achieving the same (A320) economy of scale....

I'm pretty dubious about both E2 and A220 when it comes to contributing meaningful amounts of profits to their partner's bottom lines for another half decade at least.

I view them as strategic gambits rather than sure fire bottom line contributors.

The A220 has gotten a lot of coverage from the aviation media whereas E2 has been relatively invisible.

This forum hasn't slotted the E2 in beneath the 737 in the same way it has slotted the A220 in beneath the A320.

Maybe it's because Boeing hasn't renamed/remarketed the E2 in the same way Airbus has renamed/remarketed the A220.

IIRC Boeing's initial posture was that they were buying EMB's commercial division mainly to get access to its talent base.

Maybe that will change in the future, maybe it will not.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:25 pm

Airbus is in a JV for ATR, also a low volume production. It can work at say less then 10/month for a model but it is a lot tougher to compete against the economics of the 737 / 320
 
Babyshark
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Developments : more of a match for A320neo than Airbus says

Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:42 am

FlightLevel360 wrote:
Babyshark wrote:
FlightLevel360 wrote:
I have a feeling delta did their Bombardier CS300 order to replace the A319


Your feelings would be wrong.


How so? Delta has 57 A319s, and much of the exNW fleet is nearing the end of their service life. The 50 CS300s, plus a few A321s probably, could easily replace all that lost capacity one for one.


The 220s were not acquired to replace the 319s. If we did, finance and network would lose their minds.

Fwiw the 319s are really young by delta standards. And we are talking about doing the ESG on the 319/320 fleet including the enhanced cockpits because it's required and not as expensive as we thought. We are redoing all the sims with the enhanced cockpits as we speak and getting creative on how we will handle sims as all indications are for us to prep for the fleet to get to 450. We are opening a lax pilot base in the next spring AE we have.

So neither are going anywhere. We need them for the big stuff. Best part of the 319 is the flexibility it gives us in performance and range for the size and cost. Also it is so much more efficient to use 319/320/321s into stations where we can have all 3 mix and match then to mix a station with other fleets. That's one thing we will take a step back on with 220s.

And we need the 319s to replace the 220s since they're going to miss the EIS goal again.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

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