Page 1 of 2

A220 question

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 6:15 pm
by Veigar
I am sorry if I sound very ignorant in asking this -- but based on the constant conflicted viewpoints of many threads here on A.net, I cannot seem to find the straightforward answer to this question:

Many are saying that the A220 is one of the best airplanes around right now, super super fuel efficient, and would fit almost every airline's need and yadda yadda. Despite this, it does not seem to be gaining the absurd popularity that people are claiming it has.

Again, I am sorry if this comes across as ignorant of not informed, but I genuinely want to know what's going on with the A220.



Thanks in advance my fellow A.net members

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 6:19 pm
by sagechan
It's a great airplane that fills a market size that many airlines have trouble determining they need to fill at the expense of commonality.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 6:23 pm
by N809FR
The biggest issue in my eyes is the fact that so few are produced right now. I expect once Airbus gets the number produced annually higher that more orders will start to flow in.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 6:28 pm
by AA737-823
Well, it's not a bandage that covers all wounds.
But it IS the ONLY Western-designed mainline narrowbody to be conceived in the past thirty years.
The 737 is an updated design from the early 1960's.
The A320 is an updated design from the early 1980's.
The ERJ and CRJ series are newer designs, but generally smaller.

So... It is a leap in technology over whatever else is on offer.
But it's also trying to break into a market that is overwhelmingly dominated by two VERY WELL established incumbents.
Each of which offers more size variants to meet "needs."

I think that's why Boeing did their best to suffocate it in the crib last year. They know that if the plane gets traction, and then launches the stretched -500 series that various a.net users have basically already completed the design drawings for, it will be a formidable competitor.

So I think the answer to your question is "both."
It's great.
It faces huge challenges.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 6:42 pm
by SteelChair
There is no simple or straightforward answer.

Airlines have been unable to cover the cost of capital for the last 20 or so years, thus the continued rehash of the 737 and the reenigning of the A320 series. Re-doing old tech is easier than designing, building, certifying, and standing up a production line for a new type. Also, there is very little advancement in subsonic aerodynamics left to attain, the state of the art is relatively static.

So, a comparatively small company, from a comparatively small country, developing a relatively small airplane (low profit margins) as an all new product upset the apple cart.

And, it has very fuel efficient engines but built by a company with a history of the worst engine reliability in the industry.

There is also the problem with pilot union scope clauses and high wages at large legacy airlines. Some people think you can't make enough revenue with a small plane to justify the investment. Yet, there is a seemingly perpetual pilot shortage coming, so to secure feed legacy airlines are going to have to get smaller airplanes (THEY have no pilot shortage at all).

So there are many factors. The CS/A220 represents change and risk. Some haven't signed on yet. I'm betting they'll have to at some point.....if the program can achieve critical mass. Airplanes like the Convair 880, Caravelle, Trident, and L1011 never acheived enough sales to justify continued development and production. I find the drama compelling.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 6:52 pm
by Veigar
SteelChair wrote:
There is no simple or straightforward answer.

Airlines have been unable to cover the cost of capital for the last 20 or so years, thus the continued rehash of the 737 and the reenigning of the A320 series. Re-doing old tech is easier than designing, building, certifying, and standing up a production line for a new type. Also, there is very little advancement in subsonic aerodynamics left to attain, the state of the art is relatively static.

So, a comparatively small company, from a comparatively small country, developing a relatively small airplane (low profit margins) as an all new product upset the apple cart.

And, it has very fuel efficient engines but built by a company with a history of the worst engine reliability in the industry.

There is also the problem with pilot union scope clauses and high wages at large legacy airlines. Some people think you can't make enough revenue with a small plane to justify the investment. Yet, there is a seemingly perpetual pilot shortage coming, so to secure feed legacy airlines are going to have to get smaller airplanes (THEY have no pilot shortage at all).

So there are many factors. The CS/A220 represents change and risk. Some haven't signed on yet. I'm betting they'll have to at some point.....if the program can achieve critical mass. Airplanes like the Convair 880, Caravelle, Trident, and L1011 never acheived enough sales to justify continued development and production. I find the drama compelling.



That is very well written and easy to understand. Thank you.

So in short: It's a LOT less riskier to just purchase a newer version of a 737, and cheaper, and would give you what you expect for sure versus an entirely new aircraft type?

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 7:28 pm
by ElroyJetson
I think the economics of the A220 along with the market niche it inhabits will make it ultimately a very successful aircraft. The DL order was huge for the program. I think it would be an outstanding choice for WN to open up new markets and routes.

All the the A220 needs is another tent pole (i.e. A major airline like DL) that places a significant order. Granted, it probably won't be WN, they are too conservative and hidebound.

But it will happen, I feel very confident of that.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 7:41 pm
by jghealey
The A220 is doing extremely well compared to its rivals - primarily the 737 MAX 7 and Airbus A319neo, both of which have sold very poorly compared to the Airbus A220. It has also sold considerably better than what is arguably its nearest rival, the E195-E2. However, the A220 is not doing well compared to its larger rivals, namely the 737 MAX 8 and A320neo, which have sold in huge numbers. There seems to be a general trend of moving towards larger aircraft, hence the popularity of the 7M8-9/A320-1neo families; however, the A220 is doing well compared to its most direct competitors. I'm sure it will begin to gain popularity over time, perhaps helped further by a possible stretch from Airbus.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 1:50 am
by Babyshark
There's compromises in aviation in everything you do. Just are. It just looks like they built a long range e190 when they just should have asked if anyone needed a long range e190 first.

Lucky for them delta was sloppy on neo orders and needed a quick fix... sort of quick. Not really quick at all.

But the E190 really is a stretch 175, which sells because of scope clauses. It's not a driver. The 319 was the high performance member of the 320 family but the 320Neo makes it unnecessary now and airlines figured that out before the cseries.

Heck the old 320s at Delta on lga-bos runs burn almost identical fuel per asm as the a221 that flies an hour later looking at their actual flight data. Cant imagine it up against the 320neo. Keep in mind delta pilots are expensive, I won't apologize for that, but when you got expensive pilots flying a small jet to expensive gates it better be worth it. Because that 320 crew can hop off and go fly a 192 pax next leg or any one of soon to be 350 jets potentially 450 jets in that fleet. That's a lot of versatility there.

But if you use it was a e175/crj900 replacement it has a place, but I doubt the other majors want to give up their regional whipsaw. So the 220 struggles.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 2:01 am
by zeke
Veigar wrote:
Despite this, it does not seem to be gaining the absurd popularity that people are claiming it has.


The low production rate is the biggest issue, current orders have it sold out for a number of years. Hopefully with the new second FAL labout to open up in Mobile they will be able to increase the rate enough to make new delivery slots available.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 5:21 am
by Jouhou
zeke wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Despite this, it does not seem to be gaining the absurd popularity that people are claiming it has.


The low production rate is the biggest issue, current orders have it sold out for a number of years. Hopefully with the new second FAL labout to open up in Mobile they will be able to increase the rate enough to make new delivery slots available.


Yeah I'm pretty sure the production rate is the biggest barrier to sales at this point.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 9:56 am
by SteelChair
They are still successfully ramping up the delivery rate, its just slower than hoped for.

7 deliveries in CY 2016, 17 in 2017 and 33 in 2018.

2 deliveries Q1 2016, 5 Q1 2017, 8 Q1 2018.

11 deliveries this year thru April versus 6 in 2017, almost double.

And PW seems to be keeping up, I'm unaware of any deliveries delayed recently due to engine availability (lack thereof).

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 2:33 pm
by twaconnie
I didn't know PW had the worst reliability engines out there.Will the new GTF series be better?

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 2:53 pm
by lightsaber
SteelChair wrote:
There is no simple or straightforward answer.

Airlines have been unable to cover the cost of capital for the last 20 or so years, thus the continued rehash of the 737 and the reenigning of the A320 series. Re-doing old tech is easier than designing, building, certifying, and standing up a production line for a new type. Also, there is very little advancement in subsonic aerodynamics left to attain, the state of the art is relatively static.

So, a comparatively small company, from a comparatively small country, developing a relatively small airplane (low profit margins) as an all new product upset the apple cart.

And, it has very fuel efficient engines but built by a company with a history of the worst engine reliability in the industry.

There is also the problem with pilot union scope clauses and high wages at large legacy airlines. Some people think you can't make enough revenue with a small plane to justify the investment. Yet, there is a seemingly perpetual pilot shortage coming, so to secure feed legacy airlines are going to have to get smaller airplanes (THEY have no pilot shortage at all).

So there are many factors. The CS/A220 represents change and risk. Some haven't signed on yet. I'm betting they'll have to at some point.....if the program can achieve critical mass. Airplanes like the Convair 880, Caravelle, Trident, and L1011 never acheived enough sales to justify continued development and production. I find the drama compelling.

Nice summary.

It isn't just the engine. The airframe reliability needs PIPs too. That said, the reliability in 2019 seems to be much improved.

So next is numbers. Leasing companies are a huge fraction of orders. Without AERCAP and GECAS signing on big, any airframe struggles. To have them sign up requires more opperators. So production is key.

The type needs 400+ in service and 1000+ orders to buy down risk. Airlines are money burners, so they must be conservative to survive. Recently we lost Avianca and Jet. Their shutdown punctuates the need for liquid assets. Until there are 20+ airlines opperating a sub-model, the aircraft are tough to place. Look at the 717, everyone was giddy when they were placed quickly. Did everyone notice the rock bottom lease rates? There is a reason so many are in Boeing's portfolio and not major leasing companies.

The E2 has it tougher.

Lightsaber

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 3:18 pm
by Erebus
lightsaber wrote:
Without AERCAP and GECAS signing on big, any airframe struggles.


Will GECAS sign up for significant quantities, if any, for an aircraft exclusively powered by a rival engine-maker?

I know they have some sale-leaseback arrangements for some airframes not powered by GE, but I've not heard of them making direct orders for such types.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 3:28 pm
by OA940
According to us it would fit every airline's needs but truth is their management knows better than us. But I'm willing to bet that after they get the production issues sorted out there'll be more orders.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 3:35 pm
by DALMD80
WN is looking at em.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 3:40 pm
by stephanwintner
twaconnie wrote:
I didn't know PW had the worst reliability engines out there.Will the new GTF series be better?


Not so far. But hopefully.

-ex-Pratt guy in SoCal.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 1:00 am
by airlineworker
Babyshark wrote:
There's compromises in aviation in everything you do. Just are. It just looks like they built a long range e190 when they just should have asked if anyone needed a long range e190 first.

Lucky for them delta was sloppy on neo orders and needed a quick fix... sort of quick. Not really quick at all.

But the E190 really is a stretch 175, which sells because of scope clauses. It's not a driver. The 319 was the high performance member of the 320 family but the 320Neo makes it unnecessary now and airlines figured that out before the cseries.

Heck the old 320s at Delta on lga-bos runs burn almost identical fuel per asm as the a221 that flies an hour later looking at their actual flight data. Cant imagine it up against the 320neo. Keep in mind delta pilots are expensive, I won't apologize for that, but when you got expensive pilots flying a small jet to expensive gates it better be worth it. Because that 320 crew can hop off and go fly a 192 pax next leg or any one of soon to be 350 jets potentially 450 jets in that fleet. That's a lot of versatility there.

But if you use it was a e175/crj900 replacement it has a place, but I doubt the other majors want to give up their regional whipsaw. So the 220 struggles.


"But if you use it was a e175/crj900 replacement it has a place." I see the 100 model being the next step up for the 70-90 seat RJ.s The 300 is too close to mainline in size.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 2:45 am
by KlimaBXsst
For any airline that has a mixed narrow-body Boeing Airbus fleet... to me it makes sense to replace Airbus A319 A320s with new build generation A220s until new build 797s can replace the upper range end
of the MAX 8, 9, &10.

A perfect plan for Southwest maybe.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 2:11 pm
by Babyshark
KlimaBXsst wrote:
For any airline that has a mixed narrow-body Boeing Airbus fleet... to me it makes sense to replace Airbus A319 A320s with new build generation A220s until new build 797s can replace the upper range end
of the MAX 8, 9, &10.

A perfect plan for Southwest maybe.


Why replace a 157 seat A320 with a 125 seat A223? And why replace any A320 when you're operating A321s under the same type rating so your pilots can fly both, maintenance is simplified, training costs are the same (as in cheaper than 2 types), crew staffing is cheaper, etc?

That's the A220's issue. Why would American or United need this plane? Or even SWA? For boutique routes?

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 3:31 pm
by SteelChair
twaconnie wrote:
I didn't know PW had the worst reliability engines out there.Will the new GTF series be better?


The CF6-80C IFSD rate is about half that of the PW4000 series. The PW2037 series has a much higher IFSD rate than the RB211 on the 757. I havent seen reliability numbers for CFM56 versus V2500, but CFM sold many more engines.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 3:39 pm
by SteelChair
Babyshark wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
For any airline that has a mixed narrow-body Boeing Airbus fleet... to me it makes sense to replace Airbus A319 A320s with new build generation A220s until new build 797s can replace the upper range end
of the MAX 8, 9, &10.

A perfect plan for Southwest maybe.


Why replace a 157 seat A320 with a 125 seat A223? And why replace any A320 when you're operating A321s under the same type rating so your pilots can fly both, maintenance is simplified, training costs are the same (as in cheaper than 2 types), crew staffing is cheaper, etc?

That's the A220's issue. Why would American or United need this plane? Or even SWA? For boutique routes?


As has been said many times, the A220-100 (at least at Delta) is not a replacement for main line jets, its an upgauge from 76 seat RJ's. Remember, pilot shortage is looming for RJ airlines.

The A220-300 may prove to be a replacement for A319ceo and 737-7 since the 737-Max and 319neo aren't selling. The unresolved issue is if the A220-500 will ever be built, there are those who believe it won't because it is too big and would compete with A320. But at that point you would have a complete A220 series, with parts and pilot commonality And that A220 series is more optimized for thinner city pairs than the larger/wider (6 abreast) A320 series and 737 series.

Remember, in the age of capacity discipline, smaller jets rule.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 3:59 pm
by airnorth
ElroyJetson wrote:
I think the economics of the A220 along with the market niche it inhabits will make it ultimately a very successful aircraft. The DL order was huge for the program. I think it would be an outstanding choice for WN to open up new markets and routes.

All the the A220 needs is another tent pole (i.e. A major airline like DL) that places a significant order. Granted, it probably won't be WN, they are too conservative and hidebound.

But it will happen, I feel very confident of that.


Well there is also the AC order for 45 units, which I would also call a blue chip order, that could be one of the tent poles.
Currently LH has 20 frames, hopefully they will add to this as well.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 4:42 pm
by KlimaBXsst
SteelChair wrote:
As has been said many times, the A220-100 (at least at Delta) is not a replacement for main line jets, its an upgauge from 76 seat RJ's. Remember, pilot shortage is looming for RJ airlines.

The A220-300 may prove to be a replacement for A319ceo and 737-7 since the 737-Max and 319neo aren't selling. The unresolved issue is if the A220-500 will ever be built, there are those who believe it won't because it is too big and would compete with A320. But at that point you would have a complete A220 series, with parts and pilot commonality And that A220 series is more optimized for thinner city pairs than the larger/wider (6 abreast) A320 series and 737 series.

Remember, in the age of capacity discipline, smaller jets rule.


You are correct ONE size does not fit all routes.

Babyshark wrote:
Why replace a 157 seat A320 with a 125 seat A223? And why replace any A320 when you're operating A321s under the same type rating so your pilots can fly both, maintenance is simplified, training costs are the same (as in cheaper than 2 types), crew staffing is cheaper, etc?

That's the A220's issue. Why would American or United need this plane? Or even SWA? For boutique routes?


Sometimes when you get to such a size ... a second fleet type becomes justifiable.

Quite simply a 220 seat 797 is too much airplane to replace a smaller size shorter range smaller capacity 737-200 / 717 / 737-700 route. Should airlines just abandon these smaller market routes for the fleet commonality of a too large NEO.

Airbus 320 A321 NEO series and Boeing 737’s 8/9/10 are now somewhat dated offering compared to the NEW technology 797 proposals along with the A220.

Yes common type ratings are important ... but one cannot let airlines just stagnate and not embrace newer technologies and nicer customer options.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 4:54 pm
by Amiga500
>> build cost
>> build rate
>> scope clauses
>> lack of a -500 in the family for a single-type fleet

These would be the main issues affecting airline/leasor buy in.
If the first two were solved, then it'd be a success.
Either of the latter two (or even both) wouldn't guarantee success (leaving aside that of course in reality, Airbus would never sanction a -500 unless the first two problems were solved).

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 5:08 pm
by SteelChair
Amiga500 wrote:
>> build cost
>> build rate
>> scope clauses
>> lack of a -500 in the family for a single-type fleet

These would be the main issues affecting airline/leasor buy in.
If the first two were solved, then it'd be a success.
Either of the latter two (or even both) wouldn't guarantee success (leaving aside that of course in reality, Airbus would never sanction a -500 unless the first two problems were solved).


Agree. I'll go further and state that the first two will definitely be solved. Airbus/Bombardier are slowly building up the production rate even as the Mobile factory is under construction. 3 years from now 10/month will be easily achieveable. With Airbus muscle and high volume, sub-assembly costs will come down.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 10:38 pm
by rrbsztk
I agree that build rate will be solved. I've been looking a lot into the production ramp up and I'm hoping that it's about to go from a slow three year build up to moving into second gear with Airbus's help. Honestly I think there is a distinct possibility that A220 is going to go from 3 deliveries per month to 5 deliveries per month. I’m going to do my best to walk you through my belief and am curious what others who know more about this think (I’m purely a hobbyist who wants Delta to send the A220 to my teeny tiny local airport).

First, I believe part of why the ramp up is slow comes down in part to the Airbus take over.

September 2017 The Airbus C-Series deal is announced.
At this point Bombardier had delivered 16 C-Series in the last year for a monthly rate of 1.33.
Knowing that they are hopefully merging in a way with Airbus, capital investment into the C-Series assembly line is probably not going to happen. Just keep doing the best you can with what you got.

July 2018 The deal closes.
At this point Bombardier had delivered 22 C-Series in the last year for a monthly rate of 1.83.
Airbus comes in and starts figuring out how do they work with Bombardier and suppliers to really get production going. IIRC Fliegerfaust reported that Airbus went as far as asking every employee to resubmit every idea to improve assembly possible.

December 2018 They break ground on two buildings in Mirabel for test flights/delivery.
At this point Bombardier/Airbus had delivered 33 C-Series/A220 in the last year for a monthly rate of 2.75.
Based on Fligerfaust, they are currently using the last 3 assembly line slots for test flights and delivery. Looking at ABCDList they have rarely had more then 3 aircraft in the test/delivery phase. Based on day of first flight and delivery flight, there have been 4 aircraft in this process for 76 days and 5 aircraft for 2 days in over 3 years of production. Otherwise it is 3 aircraft or less. The vast majority of the days when there were 4 or more aircraft in test/delivery some of those aircraft took over 60 days from first flight to delivery. I haven’t dug into it, but this suggests rework or something was needed. There also were a decent number of days in December 2018 with 4 or more aircraft which was surely part of the 2018 delivery push to get to 800. Then January basically nothing happened in test/delivery.

Spring 2019 The buildings will be in use opening up 2 additional slots for test/delivery and returning 3 of the 20somethign slots in the assembly line to assembly. With the 2 extra slots I am hoping they can quickly get to 5 aircraft per month. Fligerfaust had reported they were able to move aircraft every 5 or 6 days at one point, which would support 5 per month. Airbus has been working with suppliers this whole time so they should have time to get them on board with going to 5 per month.

BIGGEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411871&p=21339059#p21339059
See the production schedule I posted for reference/data, its post 130.
I didn’t always have exact year break down so averaged deliveries to be even each year. Overall my averaging should balance out. I’ve also looked at ABCDList and the production list supports this data. Possible exception is it looks like Egyptair is getting deliveries faster and Air Canada maybe a little slower, cancelling each other out more or less.

Airbus sold 15 A220 to Delta in January 2019. Airbus and Jet Blue also rescheduled airplane deliveries by a bit. Air Vanautu also ordered four planes in 2019.

The net change of this was to increase 2019 deliveries by 11 to 50 total; to increase 2020 deliveries by 7 to 61 total; and to decrease 2021 deliveries by 1 to 59.

If Airbus thought they could only build at a little over 3/month they would probably not sell those 11 slots to delta. 39 aircraft is a monthly rate of 3.25.

Airbus, having started construction on the new test/delivery buildings, likely is confident that they can deliver those 11 planes. Delta probably verified that as part of spending millions of dollars.

Airbus so far is at 11 planes in 4 months, so just under 3 per month. They have 8 months to deliver about 40 planes, which is a rate of 5 per month.
So, as an optimistic fanboy, I’m hoping this new test/delivery facility will enable them to rapidly get to a rate of 5 per month. Add in the mobile line and continued improvements in Mirabel and they can keep this number growing year over year, opening up some slots in the next few years for leasors, options, or new orders.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 11:57 pm
by Babyshark
SteelChair wrote:
As has been said many times, the A220-100 (at least at Delta) is not a replacement for main line jets, its an upgauge from 76 seat RJ's. Remember, pilot shortage is looming for RJ airlines.

The A220-300 may prove to be a replacement for A319ceo and 737-7 since the 737-Max and 319neo aren't selling. The unresolved issue is if the A220-500 will ever be built, there are those who believe it won't because it is too big and would compete with A320. But at that point you would have a complete A220 series, with parts and pilot commonality And that A220 series is more optimized for thinner city pairs than the larger/wider (6 abreast) A320 series and 737 series.

Remember, in the age of capacity discipline, smaller jets rule.


If capacity disciplined ruled you wouldn’t replace RJs with 221s and 223s.

Or 88s with 321s. But I can tell you our operational benefit at Delta has been less gate congestion and better on time performance.

And the 319s are staying.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Wed May 08, 2019 1:49 am
by Babyshark
KlimaBXsst wrote:

Sometimes when you get to such a size ... a second fleet type becomes justifiable.

Quite simply a 220 seat 797 is too much airplane to replace a smaller size shorter range smaller capacity 737-200 / 717 / 737-700 route. Should airlines just abandon these smaller market routes for the fleet commonality of a too large NEO.

Airbus 320 A321 NEO series and Boeing 737’s 8/9/10 are now somewhat dated offering compared to the NEW technology 797 proposals along with the A220.

Yes common type ratings are important ... but one cannot let airlines just stagnate and not embrace newer technologies and nicer customer options.


If training costs weren’t a big deal then the Max would sit taller and have a different type and would have never gone down the road it has.

Pilots are expensive. The combined cost of a Captain and FO on the 320 here at Delta is probably around $450k-$650k, more if including employment costs and benefits. So Initial and recurrent Training on the pilot salaries is massive before you add simulator and facility costs in. And that’s before you get to the cost of staffing the line and staging crews. I mean reducing pilot training times when going from the 320 to 330 or 330 to 350 is an enormous savings. Even 88 to 717 is a big savings over a full 717 course such that delta was beggin 88 pilots to make the jump when the 717 showed up.

The 220 is not much cheaper, but it’s spread over fewer seats. Sure you could make a 225... but why? Why spend any R&D on the 220? Why rehire the engineers for something you’d have to share profits with BBD who is desperately and publicly trying to get out of commercial aviation? Why build a jet with that;2x3 width when it’s not ideal for that capacity? Why cut into your high profit margin product for a lower one? Why tell airlines operating A320s that the future is in a 2005 design that has no commonality with the other 320s they already own operating the same routes? Why tell airlines to bet on a jet where production is sub 3 a month vs one that is 60 a month?

I just don’t get it. It’s areally cool CRJ... with range nobody needed and capabilities that are still lacking from a pilots perspective. Sorry I don’t buy the hype and evidently neither did the industry. 400 orders with some questionable takers in there vs 6000 NEOs, 5000 Max’s, 8000 CEOs and 7000 NGs. That’s 400 vs 26,000 others.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Wed May 08, 2019 11:38 am
by Amiga500
Babyshark wrote:
The 220 is not much cheaper, but it’s spread over fewer seats. Sure you could make a 225... but why?


For airlines which have a need for between 100 and 200 seats, then its a single family solution.

The OEM can price it a big higher knowing that the cost savings for the airline still make the higher purchase price the best option.

Babyshark wrote:
Why spend any R&D on the 220?


There will be CPD going on as a matter of course; it comes with having to support the existing fleet.

Babyshark wrote:
Why rehire the engineers for something you’d have to share profits with BBD who is desperately and publicly trying to get out of commercial aviation?


There is an agreement already in place for Airbus to purchase the remaining shares in CSALP.

Babyshark wrote:
Why build a jet with that;2x3 width when it’s not ideal for that capacity?


Every cabin width has an ideal capacity range. Even 1+1!

2+3 on a slender fuselage A220 would be significantly better in CASM than the 737-8 or A320neo for most missions (which are <1000 nm).

Babyshark wrote:
Why cut into your high profit margin product for a lower one?


That is the question; if build cost doesn't go down and build rate doesn't go up - nothing will happen.

Babyshark wrote:
Why tell airlines operating A320s that the future is in a 2005 design that has no commonality with the other 320s they already own operating the same routes?


The target would not be those airlines. It'd be airlines growing into that market or airlines that need a family dropping down to 100 seats.


Babyshark wrote:
Why tell airlines to bet on a jet where production is sub 3 a month vs one that is 60 a month?


That is irrelevant to the airlines as long as they know they aren't buying an orphan.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Thu May 09, 2019 4:01 am
by rrbsztk
Babyshark wrote:

I just don’t get it. It’s areally cool CRJ... with range nobody needed and capabilities that are still lacking from a pilots perspective. Sorry I don’t buy the hype and evidently neither did the industry. 400 orders with some questionable takers in there vs 6000 NEOs, 5000 Max’s, 8000 CEOs and 7000 NGs. That’s 400 vs 26,000 others.


You are correct that some of the orders are questionable. At this point I would assume SaudiGulf 16, Braathens 10, Gulf Air 10, Odyssey 10, PrivatAir 5, and Republic 40 are not going to happen.
Removing these 91 orders still leaves 450 orders.

Of those 450 orders, you could say the 2 for Falcon Aviation are questionable. I have no idea. Iraqi Airways is still possible, they haven't taken the steps SaudiGulf and Gulf Air have to say they're not taking A220s.
Removing these 7 orders leaves 443.

There are 60 on order for Moxy which I could see considering slightly questionable. There are also 80 on order to lessors. This includes the 6 with STLC that were meant for Red Wings. Likely STLC is going to find someone but maybe they never get delivered.
Removing these 140 orders leaves 303.

So depending on how you define questionable orders they have 300 to 450.
On top of this there are options/purchase rights
Swiss has 30, JetBlue 60, Air Baltic 30, Egyptair 12, Air Canada 30, Delta 50, and Korean 20
This is 232 options. Will they all get taken, probably not, but I have to imagine that at least some of these options will delivered.

So with options we are at call it a but over 500. Which is nothing in comparison to what the A320 and B737 have.

The 150-200 seat market is almost certainly going to be much larger than the 100-150 seat market. 400 versus 26,000 suggests the A220 is 1.5% of narrow bodies. I honestly believe that based on deliveries from 2016 (start of C Series deliveries) onwards, we will see the A220s and E2s get to a 10-15% market share. Now that there are two good choices in the 100-150 range (the 319NEO and 737MAX haven't gotten anywhere near as many orders) there are airlines that are going to buy some planes in this size range.

At a mimimum, I think judgement on the A220 order book and production capability needs to wait until the end of this summer. Airbus has not had a year yet to start improving things. There is construction being worked on in both Mobile and Mirabel to increase production. There are a variety of airlines contemplating the A220 and with the air show coming up this summer the order book could go from 303-443 solid orders to well over 500-750 depending on where you draw the line on questionable. (Personally I hope they get to 1,000 orders and options including Moxy and lessors).

Re: A220 question

Posted: Thu May 09, 2019 5:08 am
by PacificWest
I'm really excited about the A220 and I think over time the orders will catch up with it's capabilities. There's a few things that come to mind when I think about this bird..

1) Holding everything else constant: The extra capacity of an 319/320 or 737-700 is ONLY advantageous if that additional capacity is actually generating revenue beyond the cost of the capacity. My guess is, there's a lot of routes that are only seeing 80-90% of seats filled where the A220 would save these Airlines a lot of money.

2) From all I've read, Bombardier and it's launch customers found that it really starts to separate itself on longer (2-4 hour) routes. I think in the future we will see it being used on longer and longer domestic routes.

3) If it's economics and comfort allow airlines to fly longer P2P routes between mid-size cities and avoid the expensive landing fees and costs at major hubs/airports, that can help offset pilot training costs, and the "taxi-time" paid to pilots for each takeoff/landing involved in a stop.

4) Most importantly, the A220 allows for A LOT of flexibility. It's range, economics, and cabin comfort provides management some extra margin of error and allows them to be nimble in adjusting to changing market and economic conditions.

These are just a few that come to mind for me. Ultimately though, I think the fact the David Neeleman is staking Moxy's success on this aircraft speaks volumes for what a game changer it can be if used correctly.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 3:55 pm
by Veigar
So is the A220 supposed to compete with the 737-7 and A319N ? And would scope clauses be an issue in a place not America?

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 4:17 pm
by wjcandee
twaconnie wrote:
I didn't know PW had the worst reliability engines out there.Will the new GTF series be better?


Horribly unreliable engines like the JT8D. :banghead:

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 4:36 pm
by wjcandee
Babyshark wrote:
I just don’t get it. It’s areally cool CRJ... with range nobody needed and capabilities that are still lacking from a pilots perspective. Sorry I don’t buy the hype and evidently neither did the industry. 400 orders with some questionable takers in there vs 6000 NEOs, 5000 Max’s, 8000 CEOs and 7000 NGs. That’s 400 vs 26,000 others.


Yeah the 757 had "range nobody needed" and look at it now.

Comparing the ability of a little company to get orders for a possibly-orphan aircraft against no-hold-barred price competition and salesmanship from two enormous companies is silly. Bombi had a superior, clean-sheet product, but nothing else. If this were an Airbus product from the get-go (assuming that Airbus's marketing people would let them design such a thing), it would be killing right now, because the risk to an airline of buying it would be seriously-reduced and the order book would look different. What Bombi had was a great airplane and nothing else: sufficient capitalization, supply chain, manufacturing ability, marketing, effective salesforce, etc.

And of course the "400 versus 26,000 others" is an inaccurate comparison made solely for effect and not substance.

There used to be a phrase in the tech business: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Meaning IBM was perceived as the safe choice and even if the product sucked the decisionmaker would be insulated against criticism by going with the "safe" choice. In my company back then, the mantra was "You better have a good reason for buying IBM or you're fired." That's how we were among the first to go from a mainframe timeshare environment to a distributed network of off-brand PCs. Southwest went with IBM buy buying the MAX. And they're paying the price. (That will all get fixed eventually, but it's a cautionary tale.)

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 4:37 pm
by lightsaber
ElroyJetson wrote:
I think the economics of the A220 along with the market niche it inhabits will make it ultimately a very successful aircraft. The DL order was huge for the program. I think it would be an outstanding choice for WN to open up new markets and routes.

All the the A220 needs is another tent pole (i.e. A major airline like DL) that places a significant order. Granted, it probably won't be WN, they are too conservative and hidebound.

But it will happen, I feel very confident of that.

Another tent pole would help, but JetBlue and Moxie we're enough to start accumulating orders.

The prior discussion on airlines having to be conservative to cover cost of capital is true. The plane needs multiple issues fixed, including but not exclusively the engines. Once debugged fully, it will sell. That will take Airbus/Pratt 30 months. I bet it happens.

For this year, Airbus needs another hundred orders and to build confidence in PIPs and production. A tent pole order would ensure success.

Lightsaber

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 4:49 pm
by impilot
lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
I think the economics of the A220 along with the market niche it inhabits will make it ultimately a very successful aircraft. The DL order was huge for the program. I think it would be an outstanding choice for WN to open up new markets and routes.

All the the A220 needs is another tent pole (i.e. A major airline like DL) that places a significant order. Granted, it probably won't be WN, they are too conservative and hidebound.

But it will happen, I feel very confident of that.

Another tent pole would help, but JetBlue and Moxie we're enough to start accumulating orders.

The prior discussion on airlines having to be conservative to cover cost of capital is true. The plane needs multiple issues fixed, including but not exclusively the engines. Once debugged fully, it will sell. That will take Airbus/Pratt 30 months. I bet it happens.

For this year, Airbus needs another hundred orders and to build confidence in PIPs and production. A tent pole order would ensure success.

Lightsaber


Other than Korean engine failure, what engine issues has the A220 been suffering? Haven’t seen much about it lately.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 7:59 pm
by compensateme
I could see the A220 on the following routes:

from CVG:
upgauging regional jets on: BOS, LGA, DCA, ORD, DEN, IAH, SFO
service resumption: STL, PBI, RSW, SAN, SNA, SJC, PDX, XNA

from ATL:
new service: FAI, GEG, BOI, EUG, RDM, IDA, GTF, HLN, BIL, LGB (hopefully soon!), LAN, AZO, MBS, ITH, ELM, SWF

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 8:09 pm
by Babyshark
FF review of 220 including their own comment section

https://onemileatatime.com/delta-a220-first-class/

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 8:22 pm
by Babyshark
wjcandee wrote:

Yeah the 757 had "range nobody needed" and look at it now.


It got 1050 orders and died.

A321 got 3700 orders with more to come.

wjcandee wrote:
Comparing the ability of a little company to get orders for a possibly-orphan aircraft against no-hold-barred price competition and salesmanship from two enormous companies is silly. Bombi had a superior, clean-sheet product, but nothing else. If this were an Airbus product from the get-go (assuming that Airbus's marketing people would let them design such a thing), it would be killing right now, because the risk to an airline of buying it would be seriously-reduced and the order book would look different. What Bombi had was a great airplane and nothing else: sufficient capitalization, supply chain, manufacturing ability, marketing, effective salesforce, etc.

And of course the "400 versus 26,000 others" is an inaccurate comparison made solely for effect and not substance.


It’s not inaccurate. BBD was trying to get operators who already ordered the thousands of other jets to also order their small jet. Why order a A223 when you can just get a 320Neo to go along with your CEO fleet? It costs nothing but buying the jet minus the 20% fuel cost reduction versus standing up and operating a separate fleet.

Embraer balked when BBD decided to try this market and in the end Embraer is still here and BBD wants out of commercial aviation ASAP. They should have realized their only market would be startups outside of the surprise delta order because delta failed to order gtf aircraft and is also trying to QC their RJ type flying.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 8:33 pm
by strfyr51
twaconnie wrote:
I didn't know PW had the worst reliability engines out there.Will the new GTF series be better?

Pratt does NOT have bad reliability!! I've flown on an worked on Pratt engines for 45 years. GE bought their exclusivity with Boeing for the 777 and 747 but we'll see about the newer models as PW develops the GTF technology. If it was all that? Then the USAF didn't think so as their new tanker the KC-46 is equipped with Pratt PW4062's which I KNOW to be a reliable engine and it has been since it replaced the JT9D

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 8:44 pm
by wjcandee
Babyshark wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

Yeah the 757 had "range nobody needed" and look at it now.


It got 1050 orders and died.


And it's completely-fair to compare numerical orders for two aircraft launched at two different times because there are NO cycles in the airline business and NO trends in management/customer thinking. :roll:

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 8:49 pm
by wjcandee
strfyr51 wrote:
twaconnie wrote:
I didn't know PW had the worst reliability engines out there.Will the new GTF series be better?

Pratt does NOT have bad reliability!!


As they say, if you need to do a check on a Pratt engine, be sure to bring a quart of oil.

If you need to do the same on a GE, bring a case of oil.

The fact is that both designs are excellent, reliable engines. Each has its own plusses and minuses, in the sweet spot for performance and in ease of access of certain things that need to be checked and maintained.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 9:23 pm
by Babyshark
wjcandee wrote:
Babyshark wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

Yeah the 757 had "range nobody needed" and look at it now.


It got 1050 orders and died.


And it's completely-fair to compare numerical orders for two aircraft launched at two different times because there are NO cycles in the airline business and NO trends in management/customer thinking. :roll:


But it was over engineered. I flew it. I loved it. Hate riding in the back of it. But the 738 offered cheaper right “sized” performance. The difference is the 738 killed it later, life happens, but it would have been worse if they launched a 757 with the 738 existing. That’d been dumb. But BBD did that. Sure it’s better than the E190 range wise but 3000 mile range is not necessary needed in a 100 seater, that’s an unlikely mission. Sure the 220 is better than the E175 but the E175 can operate under scope clauses, 220 fleet can’t. Sure it’s got a fuel advantage on the 319 but airlines don’t need 319 performance now that the 320 can do the same so the 319 got killed by the 320Neo.

450 orders in 10 years and a manufacturer bailed out by the government but still had to have the program bought out kind of shows bad idea jeans.

Now. if Airbus replaces the cockpit to the point the FAA and friends sign off single pilot type with 320 fleet, it’s got a real chance of a few more orders. But US airlines love the RJ whipsaw against mainline pilot unions so until there is a RJ pilot shortage you can bet they find way more value in the crj900 and e175.

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 1:05 pm
by Veigar
Babyshark wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Babyshark wrote:

It got 1050 orders and died.


And it's completely-fair to compare numerical orders for two aircraft launched at two different times because there are NO cycles in the airline business and NO trends in management/customer thinking. :roll:


But it was over engineered. I flew it. I loved it. Hate riding in the back of it. But the 738 offered cheaper right “sized” performance. The difference is the 738 killed it later, life happens, but it would have been worse if they launched a 757 with the 738 existing. That’d been dumb. But BBD did that. Sure it’s better than the E190 range wise but 3000 mile range is not necessary needed in a 100 seater, that’s an unlikely mission. Sure the 220 is better than the E175 but the E175 can operate under scope clauses, 220 fleet can’t. Sure it’s got a fuel advantage on the 319 but airlines don’t need 319 performance now that the 320 can do the same so the 319 got killed by the 320Neo.

450 orders in 10 years and a manufacturer bailed out by the government but still had to have the program bought out kind of shows bad idea jeans.

Now. if Airbus replaces the cockpit to the point the FAA and friends sign off single pilot type with 320 fleet, it’s got a real chance of a few more orders. But US airlines love the RJ whipsaw against mainline pilot unions so until there is a RJ pilot shortage you can bet they find way more value in the crj900 and e175.



Good way to put it... the 757 had very overpowered engines

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 3:18 pm
by stl07
compensateme wrote:
I could see the A220 on the following routes:

from CVG:
upgauging regional jets on: BOS, LGA, DCA, ORD, DEN, IAH, SFO
service resumption: STL, PBI, RSW, SAN, SNA, SJC, PDX, XNA

from ATL:
new service: FAI, GEG, BOI, EUG, RDM, IDA, GTF, HLN, BIL, LGB (hopefully soon!), LAN, AZO, MBS, ITH, ELM, SWF

Don't they still fly to stl

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 3:38 pm
by Cactusjuba
Babyshark wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Babyshark wrote:

It got 1050 orders and died.


And it's completely-fair to compare numerical orders for two aircraft launched at two different times because there are NO cycles in the airline business and NO trends in management/customer thinking. :roll:


But it was over engineered. I flew it. I loved it. Hate riding in the back of it. But the 738 offered cheaper right “sized” performance. The difference is the 738 killed it later, life happens, but it would have been worse if they launched a 757 with the 738 existing. That’d been dumb. But BBD did that. Sure it’s better than the E190 range wise but 3000 mile range is not necessary needed in a 100 seater, that’s an unlikely mission. Sure the 220 is better than the E175 but the E175 can operate under scope clauses, 220 fleet can’t. Sure it’s got a fuel advantage on the 319 but airlines don’t need 319 performance now that the 320 can do the same so the 319 got killed by the 320Neo.

450 orders in 10 years and a manufacturer bailed out by the government but still had to have the program bought out kind of shows bad idea jeans.

Now. if Airbus replaces the cockpit to the point the FAA and friends sign off single pilot type with 320 fleet, it’s got a real chance of a few more orders. But US airlines love the RJ whipsaw against mainline pilot unions so until there is a RJ pilot shortage you can bet they find way more value in the crj900 and e175.

If Boeing purchased the C-Series first, would it make sense to retrofit to a 737 dungeon?

Please, PLEASE do not screw up the innovation of the 220 avionics and cockpit. Fleet commonality be damned. That Thales avionics is old junk. It'd be like going back to Windows 95 on your laptop. Besides, the cockpit dimensions won't work on the 220. The cockpit escape hatch is above the overhead, and 320 overhead panel is huge in comparison. The flaps/slats, spoilers, brakes, hydraulic, fuel, electrical, fire systems are more automated and have different logic. You literally can't replicate the 320 buttons and switches because the background systems do different things. How on Earth could you common type this thing? You'd have to change the cockpit, and most systems attached to most buttons in the cockpit. Again, going a step backwards in technological advancement. The 320 has a great tray table though, maybe get that in the 220. :yes:

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 4:15 pm
by DiamondFlyer
stl07 wrote:
compensateme wrote:
I could see the A220 on the following routes:

from CVG:
upgauging regional jets on: BOS, LGA, DCA, ORD, DEN, IAH, SFO
service resumption: STL, PBI, RSW, SAN, SNA, SJC, PDX, XNA

from ATL:
new service: FAI, GEG, BOI, EUG, RDM, IDA, GTF, HLN, BIL, LGB (hopefully soon!), LAN, AZO, MBS, ITH, ELM, SWF

Don't they still fly to stl


And RSW. None of those cities are going to happen from ATL, they’re simply overflying a hub to get to ATL in most cases.

CVG-NYC might happen for some flights. Outside of that, I doubt CVG sees many of those cities on the 220, maybe the 717

Re: A220 question

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 4:26 pm
by KlimaBXsst
Actually ... Boeing narrow bodies and the Airbus 320 series offer a far more spacious, comfortable and wider 2x2 product in first.

I guess if the A220 operators went to 1x2 on the Ejets in first class ... the people up front might be a lot more comfortable.