A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

VV · Mon May 27, 2019 8:21 pm

SteelChair wrote:
VV wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
The Mobile factory (hopefully it is just a completion center) makes any new Boeing complaint dead on arrival.

It is however very surprising they talk about a second assembly line when the one in Mirabel is way way way below capacity.

Well to be fair, its not clear whether it will be a completion center or a full production line in Mobile.

And they can't get more sales unless they can get production up.

Its a great airplane.

It is a good airplane, in a crowded segment.

Concerning production rate, is having several final processing sites, be it assembly line or completion center, a good way to improve the production process?

In my opinion, they really need to finish off with design modifications, reduce engineering works, mothball CS100 and focus on improving the production system across the company and suppliers for CS300.

So far they seem to be dispersing their effort on non-essential things.

Focus.

rrbsztk · Mon May 27, 2019 9:00 pm

VV wrote:
rrbsztk wrote:
As you said, Boeing has left open the option of another complaint. I know internationally there are a lot of complicated disputes in aircraft manufacturing and I don't fully understand it. Airbus and Delta know more than I do if they import an A220-300 what might happen. I can see them choosing to avoid the risk and wait for 2020 Mobile A220-300s as currently planned.

And given that no one has definitively shown Delta wants -300s instead of -100s maybe the risk of trade dispute isn't there but they are delivering -100s because that is what Delta wants.

Please help me understand what it is you think Airbus should do with the A220-100s being built, the parts being delivered for new A220-100s to start on the line, and the many employees being paid to build these A220-100s. Logistically what do they do with these resources instead of producing airplanes that will lead to more airplanes being produced?

I repeat there will be no other complaint as long as there is tangible proof the aircraft is not sold below cost or if there is one and there is not solid ground then new complaint will be rejected again. That's not difficult to understand, I guess.

As far as the CS100 that are being built is concerned, they need to finish them. However, they absolutely need to stop starting all new units. When I say stop it means even the manufacturing of all sub assemblies in the WHOLE supply chain. There are not so many units that are already in the production system (including suppliers). If there are so many of them then their production system is way too clumsy and ineffective.

Didn't Bombardier boast there is 95% of commonality between CS100 and CS300? So some sub-assemblies and other CS100 parts can easily be reallocated to CS300.

I do not understand why you do not understand.

By the way, Delta ordered 15 CS300 plus 35 conversion from CS100 to CS300 for a reason. That's a total of 50 CS300.
They need CS300 more than they need CS100.

Delta had 4 deliveries last year and is planning on 24 this year. With just over 7 months left I am assuming these 24 have started at least with suppliers. So let's say that leaves 12 A220-100 they can switch to -300s and then in a few years they come back to finish Deltas A220-100s.

What I don't understand is how switching a dozen 100s to 300s will increase production overall. I don't think a tarriff dispute again is likely...but its possible. When Delta and Airbus think about switching the 12 planes up a size as you propose they will consider what they know about the tarrif risk and what they know about dozens of otherfactors to make a decision based on more info than either of us has.

Let's say they move forward. Now Airbus spends time arranging the conversion for a dozen planes in thenext year or two. That takes time. That takes money and resources. How much time, money, and resources are saved by not building those last 100s? When i think about your proposal I'm stuck trying to see how it improves big picture overall. If they made this a decision a year ago I could see it maybe being beneficial...but at this point it seems like extra work to carry out and with how far they are into this they are not able to gain a benefit.

At this point Airbus has plans rolling to increase production. Increasing the 2019 deliveries for Delta to 24 A220-100 (that 15 top off order was primarily extra deliveries in 2019 and 2020) is a art of their plan. I just dont see how zig zagging on a few months of production makes a difference in the big picture.

rrbsztk · Mon May 27, 2019 9:05 pm

StTim wrote:
Hey VV you remind me of politicians. From their viewpoint everything they want to do is "easy". We in the UK have been sold that things are "easy" in the BREXIT debate. Real life proved much more complicated.

Airbus have actually moved, in my opinion, at considerable speed in this market place. What we see and know about is just the big things. There will be a thousand and one small decisions made, suppliers negotiated with, customers negotiated with, designs modified for simplification etc.

It takes years to bring these things to fruition. Even with narrow bodies long lead time items are produced well over a year ahead of final delivery.

I suspect it will be another 12 to 18 months before we see the changes really feed through.

Totally agree give them 12 to 18 months to see changes really feed through. The test and delivery facilities they are building in Mirabel should open within a couple months (based on initially reported late spring completion). We should see some growth by end of 2019 and see in all of 2020 how that improves Mirabel. Mobile is supposed to start delivering 2020 too so there will be signs of that ramp up in 12 to 18 months.

Airbus in less than 12 months has started their plan to increase production. Give them time for that plan to cone to fruition.

VV · Mon May 27, 2019 9:17 pm

rrbsztk wrote:

...

Delta had 4 deliveries last year and is planning on 24 this year. With just over 7 months left I am assuming these 24 have started at least with suppliers. So let's say that leaves 12 A220-100 they can switch to -300s and then in a few years they come back to finish Deltas A220-100s.

What I don't understand is how switching a dozen 100s to 300s will increase production overall. I don't think a tarriff dispute again is likely...but its possible. When Delta and Airbus think about switching the 12 planes up a size as you propose they will consider what they know about the tarrif risk and what they know about dozens of otherfactors to make a decision based on more info than either of us has.

Let's say they move forward. Now Airbus spends time arranging the conversion for a dozen planes in thenext year or two. That takes time. That takes money and resources. How much time, money, and resources are saved by not building those last 100s? When i think about your proposal I'm stuck trying to see how it improves big picture overall. If they made this a decision a year ago I could see it maybe being beneficial...but at this point it seems like extra work to carry out and with how far they are into this they are not able to gain a benefit.

At this point Airbus has plans rolling to increase production. Increasing the 2019 deliveries for Delta to 24 A220-100 (that 15 top off order was primarily extra deliveries in 2019 and 2020) is a art of their plan. I just dont see how zig zagging on a few months of production makes a difference in the big picture.

I suspect today they still have modifications in the pipeline for BOTH CS100 and CS300. This causes disruption and traveled work in the production system. Two parallel continuous developments is too many for a production system that is not yet fully mature (after more than two years).

Enough is enough. They need to focus on only one product and do it properly instead of having to do all kind of engineering work on two products, including the certification documents and tests.

I know that people do not understand what I say, but when I last looked into the TCDS, there are items that have not been completely certified. For instance, the maximum altitude for take-off and landing is still at 8,000 ft. It proves that there are probably things in the Air Conditioning (ECS) that are not completely done yet. When I left Mirabel in February 2016, there were some things that were not completed in the avionics. Those are not essential stuff, but still needed to be completed. I am not sure if they have the required manpower to do all the remaining stuff, but I know some people critical to those tasks who left to Nagoya and to Washington state with Mitsubishi.

So yes, in my opinion they need to focus on one product first and it will accelerate all the remaining engineering works and also to increase the production by eliminating that pile of unfinished modifications.

I cannot be more specific for obvious reasons.

By the way, I am not convinced they will succeed to achieve the targeted delivery this year, whatever that target is. The production system is still too disorganized.

VV · Mon May 27, 2019 9:23 pm

StTim wrote:
Hey VV you remind me of politicians. From their viewpoint everything they want to do is "easy". We in the UK have been sold that things are "easy" in the BREXIT debate. Real life proved much more complicated.

Airbus have actually moved, in my opinion, at considerable speed in this market place. What we see and know about is just the big things. There will be a thousand and one small decisions made, suppliers negotiated with, customers negotiated with, designs modified for simplification etc.

It takes years to bring these things to fruition. Even with narrow bodies long lead time items are produced well over a year ahead of final delivery.

I suspect it will be another 12 to 18 months before we see the changes really feed through.

The reality is that Bombardier has been working on those things since 2008. The C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership took effect on the 1st July 2018 or ELEVEN months ago. Yes, it is almost ONE year.

It was not meant to be an easy cooperation because there is a huge cultural difference between Airbus and Bombardier.
I even think the friction already started.

aerolimani · Mon May 27, 2019 9:29 pm

VV wrote:
By the way, I am not convinced they will succeed to achieve the targeted delivery this year, whatever that target is. The production system is still too disorganized.

Let me paraphrase that: “I don’t know what they want to do, but whatever it is, they suck too much to do it.”

And with that poor quality analysis, it’s hard to take anything else you write seriously.

rrbsztk · Mon May 27, 2019 9:30 pm

VV wrote:
rrbsztk wrote:

...

Delta had 4 deliveries last year and is planning on 24 this year. With just over 7 months left I am assuming these 24 have started at least with suppliers. So let's say that leaves 12 A220-100 they can switch to -300s and then in a few years they come back to finish Deltas A220-100s.

What I don't understand is how switching a dozen 100s to 300s will increase production overall. I don't think a tarriff dispute again is likely...but its possible. When Delta and Airbus think about switching the 12 planes up a size as you propose they will consider what they know about the tarrif risk and what they know about dozens of otherfactors to make a decision based on more info than either of us has.

Let's say they move forward. Now Airbus spends time arranging the conversion for a dozen planes in thenext year or two. That takes time. That takes money and resources. How much time, money, and resources are saved by not building those last 100s? When i think about your proposal I'm stuck trying to see how it improves big picture overall. If they made this a decision a year ago I could see it maybe being beneficial...but at this point it seems like extra work to carry out and with how far they are into this they are not able to gain a benefit.

At this point Airbus has plans rolling to increase production. Increasing the 2019 deliveries for Delta to 24 A220-100 (that 15 top off order was primarily extra deliveries in 2019 and 2020) is a art of their plan. I just dont see how zig zagging on a few months of production makes a difference in the big picture.

I suspect today they still have modifications in the pipeline for BOTH CS100 and CS300. This causes disruption and traveled work in the production system. Two parallel continuous developments is too many for a production system that is not yet fully mature (after more than two years).

Enough is enough. They need to focus on only one product and do it properly instead of having to do all kind of engineering work on two products, including the certification documents and tests.

I know that people do not understand what I say, but when I last looked into the TCDS, there are items that have not been completely certified. For instance, the maximum altitude for take-off and landing is still at 8,000 ft. It proves that there are probably things in the Air Conditioning (ECS) that are not completely done yet. When I left Mirabel in February 2016, there were some things that were not completed in the avionics. Those are not essential stuff, but still needed to be completed. I am not sure if they have the required manpower to do all the remaining stuff, but I know some people critical to those tasks who left to Nagoya and to Washington state with Mitsubishi.

So yes, in my opinion they need to focus on one product first and it will accelerate all the remaining engineering works and also to increase the production by eliminating that pile of unfinished modifications.

I cannot be more specific for obvious reasons.

By the way, I am not convinced they will succeed to achieve the targeted delivery this year, whatever that target is. The production system is still too disorganized.

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert in aircraft assembly. I don't really comprehend all the certification.

My thought is at this point they are so far into Delta's A220-100s they mightas well complete them. A year ago I could see the switch you propose being helpful.

As you noted there are a lot more orders for the 300s. At this point its the 100s to be built are Delta's, finish the 2 for Swiss and 2 for Air Vanatau. Airbus is trying to sell A220s of either size. Is it possible they see no A220-100 orders coming, so they're planning to get these last few dozen 100s out so they can focus on the 300 as you suggest? Or do they have some major orders for the 100 to announce in Paris so they need to work on both the 100 and 300 to grow the program even though it might be more efficient to focus on the 300?

VV · Mon May 27, 2019 9:54 pm

rrbsztk wrote:
...

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert in aircraft assembly. I don't really comprehend all the certification.
....

I suspect the biggest problem with C Series current production is the presence of multiple modifications in the pipeline.

They need to clear that up. Doing it for two products is too time consuming.
They need to focus on one version (CS300) and ramp the production up properly.

By the way, Braathens has just formally cancelled it's CS100 orders.

9252fly · Mon May 27, 2019 10:17 pm

VV wrote:
rrbsztk wrote:
...

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert in aircraft assembly. I don't really comprehend all the certification.
....

By the way, Braathens has just formally cancelled it's CS100 orders.

Would those be the 3-4 that have been sitting on a taxiway for the last couple of years. I'll assume Braathens had deposits on those frames which they have now lost. What happens to those frames should be interesting.

VV · Mon May 27, 2019 10:17 pm

aerolimani wrote:
VV wrote:
By the way, I am not convinced they will succeed to achieve the targeted delivery this year, whatever that target is. The production system is still too disorganized.

Let me paraphrase that: “I don’t know what they want to do, but whatever it is, they suck too much to do it.”

And with that poor quality analysis, it’s hard to take anything else you write seriously.

Exactly.

rrbsztk · Mon May 27, 2019 10:18 pm

VV wrote:
rrbsztk wrote:
...

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert in aircraft assembly. I don't really comprehend all the certification.
....

I suspect the biggest problem with C Series current production is the presence of multiple modifications in the pipeline.

They need to clear that up. Doing it for two products is too time consuming.
They need to focus on one version (CS300) and ramp the production up properly.

By the way, Braathens has just formally cancelled it's CS100 orders.

No surprise on Braathens at this point.

Thank you for your suggestion on the biggest problem on the A220 production. Although I am not an expert on aircraft assembly nuance I have understood a lot of information out there, and I believe the current employees working on the A220 have a solid plan to increase production of the entire A220 series (gradually in steps) and I believe the sales teams will be able to sell these planes. At this point I will defer to their expertise to execute their plan, and am optimistic it will continue to come to fruition.

VV · Mon May 27, 2019 10:18 pm

9252fly wrote:
VV wrote:
rrbsztk wrote:
...

I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert in aircraft assembly. I don't really comprehend all the certification.
....

By the way, Braathens has just formally cancelled it's CS100 orders.

Would those be the 3-4 that have been sitting on a taxiway for the last couple of years. I'll assume Braathens had deposits on those frames which they have now lost. What happens to those frames should be interesting.

Perhaps they can reallocate them to Delta, they need them badly it seems. LOL.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... a220-order

VV · Mon May 27, 2019 10:29 pm

rrbsztk wrote:
No surprise on Braathens at this point.

Thank you for your suggestion on the biggest problem on the A220 production. Although I am not an expert on aircraft assembly nuance I have understood a lot of information out there, and I believe the current employees working on the A220 have a solid plan to increase production of the entire A220 series (gradually in steps) and I believe the sales teams will be able to sell these planes. At this point I will defer to their expertise to execute their plan, and am optimistic it will continue to come to fruition.

Well, they are the only ones who can do it.

I sincerely hope they succeed, but knowing how the people there have been doing so far, I regret to say that I am not confident they can achieve what they are targeting.

As far as "plans" are concerned, they are only plans, the execution is another story. Unfortunately the issues are not only in Mirabel but all way down to the suppliers. Mirabel is only the tip of the iceberg. It is only the final assembly line.

As far as the sales team is concerned, I sincerely believe Airbus has a lot to do to reshuffle a certain number of A320neo/A321neo orders, on top of their current important priority for the long-range widebody aircraft.
I am pretty sure the A220 is not at the top of their priority list.

SteelChair · Tue May 28, 2019 12:23 am

VV wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
VV wrote:

It is however very surprising they talk about a second assembly line when the one in Mirabel is way way way below capacity.

Well to be fair, its not clear whether it will be a completion center or a full production line in Mobile.

And they can't get more sales unless they can get production up.

Its a great airplane.

It is a good airplane, in a crowded segment.

Concerning production rate, is having several final processing sites, be it assembly line or completion center, a good way to improve the production process?

In my opinion, they really need to finish off with design modifications, reduce engineering works, mothball CS100 and focus on improving the production system across the company and suppliers for CS300.

So far they seem to be dispersing their effort on non-essential things.

Focus.

Imho the CSeries/A220 has a unique market segment due to the 5 abreast.

I get what you are aaying, but has not the problem been completion? FAL1 can crank them out far faster than FAL2 can complete them in Montreal because FAL2 was never fully built. Why not do completion in Montreal and Mobile while cranking up FAL1 in Montreal to a higher rate? Airbus has done this kind of thing before (completion in Hamburg). Airbus has also done the cultural harmonization thing.

Babyshark · Tue May 28, 2019 12:55 am

SteelChair wrote:
VV wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

Well to be fair, its not clear whether it will be a completion center or a full production line in Mobile.

And they can't get more sales unless they can get production up.

Its a great airplane.

It is a good airplane, in a crowded segment.

Concerning production rate, is having several final processing sites, be it assembly line or completion center, a good way to improve the production process?

In my opinion, they really need to finish off with design modifications, reduce engineering works, mothball CS100 and focus on improving the production system across the company and suppliers for CS300.

So far they seem to be dispersing their effort on non-essential things.

Focus.

Imho the CSeries/A220 has a unique market segment due to the 5 abreast.

I get what you are aaying, but has not the problem been completion? FAL1 can crank them out far faster than FAL2 can complete them in Montreal because FAL2 was never fully built. Why not do completion in Montreal and Mobile while cranking up FAL1 in Montreal to a higher rate? Airbus has done this kind of thing before (completion in Hamburg). Airbus has also done the cultural harmonization thing.

I wonder if Airbus is really even that interested in harmonizing with bbd.

I still dont see them that interested in helping the cseries become successful, it really doesnt do them any favors other than controlling a potential competitor's product from growing and being a thorn in the side of Boeing. But they got their own stuff and they love that stuff.

Babyshark · Tue May 28, 2019 1:14 am

SteelChair wrote:
VV wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

Well to be fair, its not clear whether it will be a completion center or a full production line in Mobile.

And they can't get more sales unless they can get production up.

Its a great airplane.

It is a good airplane, in a crowded segment.

Concerning production rate, is having several final processing sites, be it assembly line or completion center, a good way to improve the production process?

In my opinion, they really need to finish off with design modifications, reduce engineering works, mothball CS100 and focus on improving the production system across the company and suppliers for CS300.

So far they seem to be dispersing their effort on non-essential things.

Focus.

Imho the CSeries/A220 has a unique market segment due to the 5 abreast.

I get what you are aaying, but has not the problem been completion? FAL1 can crank them out far faster than FAL2 can complete them in Montreal because FAL2 was never fully built. Why not do completion in Montreal and Mobile while cranking up FAL1 in Montreal to a higher rate? Airbus has done this kind of thing before (completion in Hamburg). Airbus has also done the cultural harmonization thing.

I think the problem is the order book and the debt.

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 6:56 am

Babyshark wrote:
I wonder if Airbus is really even that interested in harmonizing with bbd.

I still dont see them that interested in helping the cseries become successful, it really doesnt do them any favors other than controlling a potential competitor's product from growing and being a thorn in the side of Boeing. But they got their own stuff and they love that stuff.

There have been a lot of questions asked to me about the motivation behind the C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership. One of the recurring question was about Airbus' interest in acquiring the C Series program.

I have no answer to such questions because I failed to understand how the C Series could complement the A320neo family in an effective manner.

The recent MTOW increase resulting a much longer range capability puts it head-to-head in term of capability against the A319neo. As we all know today the second engine on the A319neo is now being flight tested. In other words, Airbus will have three aircraft on offer in the 130-140 seat category and they are all very capable. Let us not forget that the A220 MTOW increase has been decided by the partnership that is under Airbus' control.

The best answer to those questions is probably that the true motivation behind the take-over of the C Series is not the aircraft itself, but something else. That something else is not clear yet. We need to monitor the evolution if we want to have more clarity.

Without knowing what the real motivation behind all this, the only conclusion you can draw is that the C Series (or A220) is just an extra distraction to Airbus' organization when they are already very busy dealing with the huge A320neo backlog. In addition they also have other priorities on the long-haul widebody segment.

Babyshark's comment is legitimate and it should trigger a discussion. Unfortunately in a discussion forum like this one the main objective is NOT finding the truth, but to run an endless and sterile debate.

dampfnudel · Tue May 28, 2019 7:06 am

I guess the A220-500 would be a great addition to Delta’s fleet if it ever gets built.

keesje · Tue May 28, 2019 7:57 am

dampfnudel wrote:
I guess the A220-500 would be a great addition to Delta’s fleet if it ever gets built.

It looks good in terms of specifications. I guess it will come, Airbus even hinted.
https://airlinerwatch.com/airbus-considers-developing-an-extended-version-of-the-a220/

There might be some truth in VV's continious push for standarization & focus though.

Move the fine tuning into SB's for later on to smooth out line production.

Getting out as much -300 as possible drives further sales, and must be the highest priority for the coming years

30 Years ago we saw the same on the F100, lots of customization, fine tuning by the still massive / spirited engineering resources..

chornedsnorkack · Tue May 28, 2019 8:05 am

Devilfish wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
It should be noted that the A220-100 gets a 450nm increase in range

I wonder what maximum range Airbus could squeeze out of a 19-pax, VIP configured A221 at this increased MTOW...taking into account the usual reserves for holding and alternates?

Increased to what?
The present increased MTOW of A220-100, or A220-100 with the increased MTOW of A220-300?

Same wing, engines and landing gear, remember.

Also, exactly what is the takeoff distance increased to?

BrianDromey · Tue May 28, 2019 8:33 am

The A320/738 are now the baseline for most operators. Improved take-off performance, range and payload on both frames have made the hot-rod A319/73G less attractive. That said there is a gap between the 75 seat jets and the 180 seat A320/738. Even “full service” airlines like LH and BA fly them between 177 and 186 seats.

If the A220 can deliver A320 levels of CASM in the 150 seat space, one would imagine there is a good market for the aircraft. Swiss and AirBaltic seem to like them. I would have guessed the wider LH group might have ordered more by now for A319 replacement. I guess 10 months isn’t long in the aircraft sales game. Only beginning to bear fruit, I guess.

InsideMan · Tue May 28, 2019 8:35 am

VV wrote:
rrbsztk wrote:

As far as the sales team is concerned, I sincerely believe Airbus has a lot to do to reshuffle a certain number of A320neo/A321neo orders, on top of their current important priority for the long-range widebody aircraft.
I am pretty sure the A220 is not at the top of their priority list.

It is 1b, after 1a fulfilling customer orders

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 8:46 am

InsideMan wrote:
VV wrote:
rrbsztk wrote:

As far as the sales team is concerned, I sincerely believe Airbus has a lot to do to reshuffle a certain number of A320neo/A321neo orders, on top of their current important priority for the long-range widebody aircraft.
I am pretty sure the A220 is not at the top of their priority list.

It is 1b, after 1a fulfilling customer orders

Do you mean A220 is priority 1b just below 1a "fulfilling customer orders"?
In my opinion, they have higher priority in dealing with long-range widebody aircraft than on marketing and selling A220.

It is also true that both E190-E2 and E195-E2 now have their type certificate. It is possible Embraer (and Boeing?) are also pitching both aircraft aggressively.

Amiga500 · Tue May 28, 2019 9:31 am

VV wrote:
There have been a lot of questions asked to me about the motivation behind the C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership. One of the recurring question was about Airbus' interest in acquiring the C Series program.

That is very easy to answer.

If Airbus turned it down, the next place the Bombardier board were going was China.

They made sure Airbus (and Boeing) were aware of that.

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

With regards focussing on CS300; have you forgotten just how much there is in common? Freezing CS100 will probably not net you much rate improvement. Indeed, the reshuffling is likely going to cause more delays than just letting the limited number of CS100 orders run through the system.

The rate is crap because BBD did not have the money to fit out the assembly lines as originally intended. There is loads of work afoot (certainly over the road from here) on upping rates, with new tools/jigs, new processes and re-arranged lines. That'll continue to see things improve, it just takes time.

[also, any mods I've seen were common to both aircraft and were always intended to go onto both aircraft]

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 10:10 am

Amiga500 wrote:
VV wrote:
There have been a lot of questions asked to me about the motivation behind the C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership. One of the recurring question was about Airbus' interest in acquiring the C Series program.

That is very easy to answer.

If Airbus turned it down, the next place the Bombardier board were going was China.

They made sure Airbus (and Boeing) were aware of that.

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

With regards focussing on CS300; have you forgotten just how much there is in common? Freezing CS100 will probably not net you much rate improvement. Indeed, the reshuffling is likely going to cause more delays than just letting the limited number of CS100 orders run through the system.

The rate is crap because BBD did not have the money to fit out the assembly lines as originally intended. There is loads of work afoot (certainly over the road from here) on upping rates, with new tools/jigs, new processes and re-arranged lines. That'll continue to see things improve, it just takes time.

[also, any mods I've seen were common to both aircraft and were always intended to go onto both aircraft]

Seriously? China would not acquire the C Series program. Don't they have their own C919 program on going with three prototypes currently flying already? Come on.
In addition, it has been a long time airlines in China have not ordered any aircraft smaller than A320. There are some regional jets, but usually they have fewer than 100 seats.

This said, the scaremongering worked well for Bombardier. Airbus bit the bait, although they gave up the program with no cash transaction from Airbus.

China would certainly be more interested by the aerostructures part of Bombardier than a mere aircraft program like the C Series. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about the C Series.

I suspect the production rate is so slow because there are still too many modifications in the pipeline. There may be structural modification for some weight saving program or there may be some stuff that need correction in the air conditioning system, in the fuel system or in avionics.

As I understand it, CSALP (or Airbus Canada Limited Partnership) does not have a big engineering organization and the detailed engineering works must be done by Bombardier engineering organization because Airbus is not up to speed to do so yet.

Since there have been hundreds of engineers and specialist laid-off or left the company voluntarily in 2016 and 2017, I have serious doubts on Bombardier's capability to support much work on the C Series.

For example, the last time I checked the TCDS (click here), the maximum altitude for take-off and landing is still at 8,000 ft.

I insist that they need to focus on the CS300 and mothball CS100. The sooner they do it the better it is.

aerolimani · Tue May 28, 2019 1:08 pm

VV wrote:
I insist that they need to focus on the CS300 and mothball CS100. The sooner they do it the better it is.

Your rant, while not entirely without entertainment value, is veering well off topic. This thread is for discussing the MTOW increase, and not for you to armchair CEO, pontificating ad nauseam about how you think they ought to run the company.

By all means, go start a new topic.

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 1:43 pm

aerolimani wrote:
VV wrote:
I insist that they need to focus on the CS300 and mothball CS100. The sooner they do it the better it is.

Your rant, while not entirely without entertainment value, is veering well off topic. This thread is for discussing the MTOW increase, and not for you to armchair CEO, pontificating ad nauseam about how you think they ought to run the company.

By all means, go start a new topic.

Fair enough.

I agree that this is a thread on the unnecessary MTOW increase of the A220.

lightsaber · Tue May 28, 2019 2:32 pm

BrianDromey wrote:
The A320/738 are now the baseline for most operators. Improved take-off performance, range and payload on both frames have made the hot-rod A319/73G less attractive. That said there is a gap between the 75 seat jets and the 180 seat A320/738. Even “full service” airlines like LH and BA fly them between 177 and 186 seats.

If the A220 can deliver A320 levels of CASM in the 150 seat space, one would imagine there is a good market for the aircraft. Swiss and AirBaltic seem to like them. I would have guessed the wider LH group might have ordered more by now for A319 replacement. I guess 10 months isn’t long in the aircraft sales game. Only beginning to bear fruit, I guess.

Customers are waiting on PIPs. It will take Airbus 24 months in charge to optimize the maintenance costs to meet the potential designed into the c-series/A220.

Leasing companies are hesitant until 20+ airlines fly the type. Now, having DL, AC, LH, B6, and others helps. But I'm not seeing 20 operators yet.

Every EU summer airshow is important for the A220 (and E2, MRJ). They need traction soon.

I think the MTOW will really help seal the NK (Spirit) order. Time will tell if I'm right. If so, that one order could match the 2018 sales of the A220. If the A220 wins just that one order, sales will accelerate.

I also suspect the JetBlue order was conditional on a small range improvement. This is but one of a half dozen PIPs customers expect.

MTOW increases always help sales. The question is, how much does 2.3T matter? Someone will upgrade to the maximum weight.

Lightsaber

ExMilitaryEng · Tue May 28, 2019 2:35 pm

At full passenger/luggage load, André Allard mentioned the A220 was fuel volume restricted. Some existing wing fuel tanks/cells could not be filled to capacity.

So this MTOW increase now allows full load + full tanks, resulting in this range increase - or increase load at full fuel, whatever the mix you pick. (All this is obvious as we all know this increase did not involve any physical changes to the airplane)

FWIW, this MTOW increase would also be 100% useful for an "eventual" A220-500...

I also suspect that all those undone "non-essential" product improvements could rather be applied instead (maybe) on an "eventual" A220-500. May as well use this certification process... And hey, that would also minimise changes to the current A220 ramp up process.

InsideMan · Tue May 28, 2019 2:48 pm

VV wrote:
InsideMan wrote:
VV wrote:

It is 1b, after 1a fulfilling customer orders

Do you mean A220 is priority 1b just below 1a "fulfilling customer orders"?
In my opinion, they have higher priority in dealing with long-range widebody aircraft than on marketing and selling A220.

It is also true that both E190-E2 and E195-E2 now have their type certificate. It is possible Embraer (and Boeing?) are also pitching both aircraft aggressively.

Precisely. Airbus has to and is 100% commited on making this a success.

GmvAfcs · Tue May 28, 2019 3:48 pm

VV wrote:
rrbsztk wrote:

I know that people do not understand what I say, but when I last looked into the TCDS, there are items that have not been completely certified. For instance, the maximum altitude for take-off and landing is still at 8,000 ft. .

This is a tremendous limitation! If true would hold on sales campaigns for some operators.

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 4:04 pm

GmvAfcs wrote:
VV wrote:
rrbsztk wrote:

I know that people do not understand what I say, but when I last looked into the TCDS, there are items that have not been completely certified. For instance, the maximum altitude for take-off and landing is still at 8,000 ft. .

This is a tremendous limitation! If true would hold on sales campaigns for some operators.

There is probably only one major airport that is an issue, above 8,000 ft, it is Bogota. It would probably limit some campaigns in South America.

The issue is that it was supposed to be certified up to 10,000 ft. There's a kind of gap between the objective and the actual certification, denoting again the inability to achieve a target three years after initial type certificate.

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 4:10 pm

InsideMan wrote:
VV wrote:
InsideMan wrote:

It is 1b, after 1a fulfilling customer orders

Do you mean A220 is priority 1b just below 1a "fulfilling customer orders"?
In my opinion, they have higher priority in dealing with long-range widebody aircraft than on marketing and selling A220.

It is also true that both E190-E2 and E195-E2 now have their type certificate. It is possible Embraer (and Boeing?) are also pitching both aircraft aggressively.

Precisely. Airbus has to and is 100% commited on making this a success.

I sincerely hope it is the case because I still hold a lot of Bombardie shares.

However, I am not confident things will go smoothly considering the tremendous cultural difference between Airbus and Bombardier.

I cross my fingers the deliveries will ramp up quickly.

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 4:17 pm

As previously mentioned, I suspect the MTOW increase is to conceal a missed target of a possible weight reduction effort.
I estimated the miss of around 1,000 lb or about 500 kg.

It would not be a big problem if it's landing performance is excellent.

I need to look into the airport planning document if it can land at Florence with maximum passenger load in wet runway conditions.

If CS300 cannot go to Florence it may become an issue because it also means it can't go to Santos Dumont Brazil with meaningful passenger count.

500 kg of overweight can be an issue on those cases.

lightsaber · Tue May 28, 2019 4:30 pm

Finding margin to increase MTOW is normal at this point of production. In particular for CFRP winged aircraft where reinforcements are light and trivial to add.

VV wrote:
GmvAfcs wrote:
VV wrote:

This is a tremendous limitation! If true would hold on sales campaigns for some operators.

There is probably only one major airport that is an issue, above 8,000 ft, it is Bogota. It would probably limit some campaigns in South America.

The issue is that it was supposed to be certified up to 10,000 ft. There's a kind of gap between the objective and the actual certification, denoting again the inability to achieve a target three years after initial type certificate.

The big issue is China which won't certify. In general, high altitude certification waits until a sales campaign.

Lightsaber

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 4:40 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Finding margin to increase MTOW is normal at this point of production. In particular for CFRP winged aircraft where reinforcements are light and trivial to add.
...

Lightsaber

Again, it means they gave up optimizing the structure and thus reducing the weight.

On the other hand, it means they reduced the number of additional modifications that could slow the production process. The priority is probably to accelerate the production.

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 4:48 pm

lightsaber wrote:
...

The big issue is China which won't certify. In general, high altitude certification waits until a sales campaign.

Lightsaber

Is it China that doesn't want to certify or is it Bombardier that didn't pursue the certification effort in China back then?

They talked a lot about Lhasa in relation with CS100.
However, Lhasa is just one airport. The A320 is sold by hundreds in China and it doesn't go to Lhasa.

So this Lhasa thing is pure rubbish.

The richest region is East coast of China. That's where the market is.

lightsaber · Tue May 28, 2019 4:59 pm

Amiga500,
Thanks for the design cycle insider insight. That tells me redesign and then retest. Everything I've heard is a capability far in excess of 60k FC, but it sounds like you know of reasons a redesign is required.

With the wing limiting FH and CFRP, the capability there must be 150k FH+.

VV wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Finding margin to increase MTOW is normal at this point of production. In particular for CFRP winged aircraft where reinforcements are light and trivial to add.
...

Lightsaber

Again, it means they gave up optimizing the structure and thus reducing the weight.

On the other hand, it means they reduced the number of additional modifications that could slow the production process. The priority is probably to accelerate the production.

The amount of weight in a CFRP winged aircraft is trivial. You do realize all aircraft are inherently overweight as design guidelines are used. Is the A321 overweight because they have increased the MTOW?

It is impossible to exactly hit the mark. The A220 seems right on target for weight. You are talking theoretically. I am discussing real world aircraft design.

The short field performance is excellent. What the A220 needs is a hundred plus more orders an then sales momentum takes off. Prior links were of NK's (Spirit) bidding on the A220 vs. E2. In an ULCC, the 37 ton empty weight A220-300 carrying 160 pax at 105kg/pax is at 53.8 tons. Even before crew, in a ULCC configuration the tanks are empty by 1.6 tons. With crew, we are discussing 3 tons of empty fuel volume before. So this MTOW increase isn't enough. Oh, it might be, but we still have, in a Spirit configuration, empty fuel tank volume. Now, removing 7 or so passengers isn't a big deal to fly to Hawaii, but is sub optimal.

You are aware the A220-300 weighs 7.6 tons less than the A319NEO? You are worried about a trivial amount of weight. With the PW1500G thrust bump (clever, maximum thrust only after airspeed high enough for sufficient rudder) that the A220 has better hot/high than the competition? The A220-100 has LCY to itself, MRJ, and E2.

The E2-190 weighs 35 tons. Thus the lower capacity E2-195 almost certainly weighs more than the A220-300.

Efficiency is relative. The A220 focused on achieving efficiency via subsystems. Which competitor are you worried about.

This is a possitive. Possibly mostly for a stretch.

The MD-80 was over designed. Cest la vie, that means durability.

Lightsaber

Aircellist · Tue May 28, 2019 5:08 pm

Talking about the differences between BBD and Airbus… I know or used to know people working in the aviation part of BBD… I've lost sight of some and I know some no longer works for BBD. Their stories had strikingly similar parts, even though they were told years apart.

In short, my understanding is that it implied everything at BBD is divided into silos which are like little personal fiefdoms, with very little information flowing from one part of the company to the other. Really sorry I cannot recount what I was told…

I don't know how is Airbus' corporate culture… But I sincerely hope it is better. I also hope Airbus does buy BBD's share and invests and stays in Quebec.

GmvAfcs · Tue May 28, 2019 6:02 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The E2-190 weighs 35 tons. Thus the lower capacity E2-195 almost certainly weighs more than the A220-300

That's not true, E190-E2 weight is less than this. And E195-E2 is lighter than A220-300. That's all I can tell.

lightsaber · Tue May 28, 2019 6:40 pm

GmvAfcs wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The E2-190 weighs 35 tons. Thus the lower capacity E2-195 almost certainly weighs more than the A220-300

That's not true, E190-E2 weight is less than this. And E195-E2 is lighter than A220-300. That's all I can tell.

Please provide a link. As I noted, I estimated. I prefer to refine estimates.

Lightsaber

GmvAfcs · Tue May 28, 2019 7:02 pm

Unfortunately, I do not have a link.... therefore, you can take it with a grain of salt and threat it as "rumor"

Babyshark · Tue May 28, 2019 7:06 pm

For those who think this just jumps right into the Airbus portfolio, you're being myopic on seating. If you're a A321/320 operator, the 220 doesnt have a place. Anymore than say a business that has 20,000 iPads and iPhones running around saying for the sub 5 inch screens they're now issuing LG phones. That is not the same.

To vv, I think it's Airbus being opportunistic about competition not opportunistic about products.

I'm a pilot not a business wonk even though that's my degree but I was always taught to ask when evaluating a business plan, where is the pain? What pain was the CS100 solving? I sadly think the pain was BBDs ego with the Ejets and they set out to beat the E190. But that wasnt a hot seller either. But they probably thought if you build it they will come... they really didn't.

impilot · Tue May 28, 2019 7:40 pm

Babyshark wrote:
For those who think this just jumps right into the Airbus portfolio, you're being myopic on seating. If you're a A321/320 operator, the 220 doesnt have a place. Anymore than say a business that has 20,000 iPads and iPhones running around saying for the sub 5 inch screens they're now issuing LG phones. That is not the same.

To vv, I think it's Airbus being opportunistic about competition not opportunistic about products.

I'm a pilot not a business wonk even though that's my degree but I was always taught to ask when evaluating a business plan, where is the pain? What pain was the CS100 solving? I sadly think the pain was BBDs ego with the Ejets and they set out to beat the E190. But that wasnt a hot seller either. But they probably thought if you build it they will come... they really didn't.

What pain was the CS100 solving? It was an already developed product that AB didn’t have...
What pain does the CS300 solve? Helps compensate for an empty A319NEO order book and theoretically adds more capacity for AB to produce more 320/321s and empty the backlog if an airline were to buy an A223 over an A319 in the future.

And plenty of 320/321 operators also have a place for the 221/223/225. B6 and delta will both end up getting more than their initial orders. And if the 225 gets built, I’d be willing to bet it will replace B6’s long in the tooth (at that time) 320s, and I’d bet Delta would also get 225s. No idea about UA/AA

IMO, AB should have an A221/223/225 family at roughly 110/130/150 seats and a NEO A320/320.5/321(&XLR)/322 family at roughly 160/180/200/220 seats. Seems like 2 ideal NB families that carry good CASM throughout the product line spectrum. The a225 could in theory open the family up to being more than just a niche small jet that only a few airlines want to dabble with in small numbers. It could become a large part of a lot of fleets if the CASM was a lot better than an A320. BL imo there’s room for both planes at airlines (and room in the AB product portfolio).

WayexTDI · Tue May 28, 2019 7:46 pm

Babyshark wrote:
For those who think this just jumps right into the Airbus portfolio, you're being myopic on seating. If you're a A321/320 operator, the 220 doesnt have a place. Anymore than say a business that has 20,000 iPads and iPhones running around saying for the sub 5 inch screens they're now issuing LG phones. That is not the same.

To vv, I think it's Airbus being opportunistic about competition not opportunistic about products.

I'm a pilot not a business wonk even though that's my degree but I was always taught to ask when evaluating a business plan, where is the pain? What pain was the CS100 solving? I sadly think the pain was BBDs ego with the Ejets and they set out to beat the E190. But that wasnt a hot seller either. But they probably thought if you build it they will come... they really didn't.

Interestingly, a small airline that operates tons of A320 Family, and has many more on order, has ordered the CSeries/A220, and then some more recently.
But then again, what do they know that you don't? :roll:

N212R · Tue May 28, 2019 8:16 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The E2-190 weighs 35 tons. Thus the lower capacity E2-195 almost certainly weighs more than the A220-300

Please provide a link. As I noted, I estimated. I prefer to refine estimates

With all due respect, your statement re the weight of the E2-190 was not an estimation. Call if what you want but it was misleadingly wrong.

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Aircellist wrote:
Talking about the differences between BBD and Airbus… I know or used to know people working in the aviation part of BBD… I've lost sight of some and I know some no longer works for BBD. Their stories had strikingly similar parts, even though they were told years apart.

In short, my understanding is that it implied everything at BBD is divided into silos which are like little personal fiefdoms, with very little information flowing from one part of the company to the other. Really sorry I cannot recount what I was told…

I don't know how is Airbus' corporate culture… But I sincerely hope it is better. I also hope Airbus does buy BBD's share and invests and stays in Quebec.

Can't say more, but I confirm there is a cultural difference between the two.

I worked in both companies. more than eleven years at Airbus and six years in Bombardier.
The difference is just striking.

VV · Tue May 28, 2019 8:51 pm

lightsaber wrote:
...
The E2-190 weighs 35 tons. Thus the lower capacity E2-195 almost certainly weighs more than the A220-300.
...

I think this is not right.

ExMilitaryEng · Tue May 28, 2019 8:57 pm

N212R wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The E2-190 weighs 35 tons. Thus the lower capacity E2-195 almost certainly weighs more than the A220-300

Please provide a link. As I noted, I estimated. I prefer to refine estimates

With all due respect, your statement re the weight of the E2-190 was not an estimation. Call if what you want but it was misleadingly wrong.

FWIW, I personally treated it as an estimate too.

My personal "wild guess" was that the E195E2's OEW was around 36.5 tons. So lower than the CS300 - but obviously with a worst CASM and a less capable range..

Naincompetent · Tue May 28, 2019 9:05 pm

Just go to the Embraer website, E2-190, then max landing weight minus max payload - - > 35 tons
That's as good an estimation as any. If it is not precise, it is at least quite close.
Do the same for the E2-195 you will get about 38 tons.
Airbus provides less info but using what is available, you get to around 36t for the A221 and 39t for the A223.
Again, estimates only, to take with a grain of salt

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net