VV
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Tue May 28, 2019 9:09 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
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..


It is not obvious at all the E195-E2 has worse seat mile cost than CS300. My estimates put the two in the same ball park with a 85% probability 195-E2 to have better seat mile cost.
My model is not accurate enough to say with 100% certainty which one has better seat mile cost.

It is very highly likely the DOC on per seat basis of E195-E2 is better than CS300 for missions up to 2,000 nm.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17666
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Tue May 28, 2019 9:14 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


I did typo. Mean culpa. 33T per Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family

I still do not see an issue with A220 weight. I see capabilities. I see an aircraft 7.6T less than the A319. We are arguing over an aircraft that has already reached sustainable economy of scale for fleet maintenance.

I'm a Pratt fam. :spin: I want the E2 to sell. We have other threads for the E2. I think it should have sold better than it has. E.g , approximately two years ago the profit Hunter campaign went into full swing. At some point only sales matter.

What I see is this MTOW increase selling more A220.

An aircraft needs 400+ sales of the base model. Any variation could be the base (A220-300 or A220-100, it doesn't matter, this is economy of scale). I believe the A220 will continue to sell.

The campaign for Paris is Spirit Airways. That would make the A220 year or almost double the E2-190/195 backlog. I believe this MTOW increase is targeted to that specific sales campaign that is yet undecided.

But we have other threads for Paris.

Bombardier has allowed estimates of the A220 model weights out. If the competition is that much better, sell it! I personally want to fly cheap US TCON, so I'm a fan of the plane certain to give me that opportunity. I'll happily fly DL, B6, or Moxy if the schedule, product, and timing meets my needs.

One thing I've learned being on a.net, if my sources aren't telling me about some secret advantage, I should doubt it.

It believe the Bombardier performance was conservative. Take that as rumor or my opinion. I know their engineering wasn't perfect. I incredibly respect Embraer interface documents. They are incredibly well done.

But everyone jumping on a sales feature? I have worked MTOW increase campaigns. I have modeled aircraft performance, modified on customer inputs, to see what the absolute minimum we could do to sells or see if we could cheaply offer enough more to sell to the next customer.

Proof is always in the sales. I've seen that in numerous Pratt products I had to redefine my estimations based on lost sales campaigns.

I note in other threads producing a hundred per year is now survival in commercial aircraft. The A220 is building up to that, but needs to sell 150+ this year to target that level of production. I think they will achieve it at Paris. Perhaps hope is the better word.

There is only one sales campaign I know of that is large enough to tip the scales for either program planned to be decided: Spirit. I do not know which way it will go. But my sources say it is an active campaign. I have no horse in this race. But I will root on the plane optimized for the lights I want to take.


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
VV
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Tue May 28, 2019 9:14 pm

VV wrote:
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.


Wait! Who cares about the cultural difference now? Bombardier Commercial Aircraft will cease to exist next month.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Tue May 28, 2019 11:26 pm

A quick look (I may be off) is that there have been 20 A221's and 51 A223's delivered so far with 14 this year. At this pace it will be hard to get 50 deliveries this year, or a 4 per month rate. Production needs to get to 10 per month STAT!
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Tue May 28, 2019 11:26 pm

VV wrote:
It is not obvious at all the E195-E2 has worse seat mile cost than CS300. My estimates put the two in the same ball park with a 85% probability 195-E2 to have better seat mile cost.
My model is not accurate enough to say with 100% certainty which one has better seat mile cost.
It is very highly likely the DOC on per seat basis of E195-E2 is better than CS300 for missions up to 2,000 nm.


If the CASM (and DOC) of the E195-E2 is better, then it should have been a no brainer and every airlines should have bought it (instead of the CS300) right? And I'm hearing US trans con is useless.

I need to understand...
 
Babyshark
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 12:07 am

WayexTDI wrote:
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:


What do they know? Or we know? We know our former boss proudly took a stand and say we don't order unproven technology like GTF engines. We are happy with all of these bargain MD90s and 717s we have, we don't need Neos and Maxes, Maxi... Maxes? And in a blink of an eye the world ordered 11000 and we were left holding 100 firm and 100 options for 321Ns. Oh and those MD88s are exiting sooner than expected (maybe) and the 90s and 717s are probably exiting real fast.

Whoops.

A few years ago we made a deal on used E190s because we need to get control over the DCI QC but without letting mainline pilots fly those jets. So the E190 deal was announced and then BBD shows up with a CS100 in ATL on the FBO ramp, soon thereafter we went with the CSeries and dumped the E190s. We got a great deal on another orphan jet (with surprise... GTF engines!) and supposedly greatly encouraged the Airbus-BBD deal to hopefully prevent the orphan purchase. Then shift change at the top, at some point within that timeline.

What we need is 320Ns but we're going to kick that can down the road to the next leadership. Hopefully we get our options on the 100 321Ns exercised because we desperately need those jets.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 12:11 am

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

If the CASM (and DOC) of the E195-E2 is better, then it should have been a no brainer and every airlines should have bought it (instead of the CS300) right? And I'm hearing US trans con is useless.

I need to understand...


The E195, really the 190 and CS100s were not ordered in mass because American operators have scope clauses with the pilot unions that say they must be flown by mainline pilots.

They will not do that. For some of the airlines it's simple math, expensive pilots / 76 seats = CASM they don't want. Divide by 100, somewhat better, but they'd rather go large they're going to look at 130 seat and up and really 150 seats and up.

If you're going to go large, you can have a single pilot rating for 120ish seat A319 to near 200 seat A321. Or 737 somewhat the same. These pilots training costs are a massive deal, see 737MAX for details.

For some airlines it's about a whipsaw. Scope allows them to hold down pilot costs because gains in scope come at a price to the pilots. Theyll never allow the pilots to make such a massive gain in scope, as in flying 100 seaters of B732 sized jets, unless they have a financial gain thats worth it- quality control for instance.
Last edited by Babyshark on Wed May 29, 2019 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17666
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 12:32 am

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
VV wrote:
It is not obvious at all the E195-E2 has worse seat mile cost than CS300. My estimates put the two in the same ball park with a 85% probability 195-E2 to have better seat mile cost.
My model is not accurate enough to say with 100% certainty which one has better seat mile cost.
It is very highly likely the DOC on per seat basis of E195-E2 is better than CS300 for missions up to 2,000 nm.


If the CASM (and DOC) of the E195-E2 is better, then it should have been a no brainer and every airlines should have bought it (instead of the CS300) right? And I'm hearing US trans con is useless.

I need to understand...

VV, please educate me. If a smaller aircraft has the same or better per seat costs, it invariably outsells the larger. So if the E2-195 is cheaper out to 2,000nm (per seat DOC), that would be wonderful for the US3 or EU3. I'm not aware of any exception other than top off orders.

I have modeled both, but I could use more accurate empty weights for both.

I've also modeled this takeoff weight increase and see a market. Airbus/Bombardier would have had to employ at least 15 people years of stress engineering time, so I estimate $3 million to $10 million minimum cost for this MTOW increase. You have argued the downside. Please tell me why Airbus would fund such an effort if it only exposes an overweight configuration.

Please explain the ratio of A220 to E2-190/195 sales. I posted this link in the E2 thread:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/28/e175- ... -year-end/

There are no within scope E2-175 sales. At this time there are no legal firm orders. So at this point manufacturing of E-jets is dependent upon E2-190/195 sales.

I posted in many threads every sales campaign of the A220 must square off versus the E2-19x. The A220 has over 500 sales, most the -300.

The E2 is at 153 firm orders:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family

Why over a 3:1 sales discrepancy?
We know the A220 needs PIPs. So does the E2. All new aircraft need them to garner sales. This MTOW increase is just one more sales tool.

Every project I ever worked had management reserve in MTOW in case empty weight was high. Yet the A220 entered service with range 100nm more than promise. Amir 2.3 tons of reserve seems insane to me.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 12:43 am

lightsaber wrote:

Why over a 3:1 sales discrepancy?
We know the A220 needs PIPs. So does the E2. All new aircraft need them to garner sales. This MTOW increase is just one more sales tool.

Lightsaber


Maybe 3:1 because the 220 was ready before the E2 and it won more of the tiny 100 seat market?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17666
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 1:13 am

Babyshark wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

Why over a 3:1 sales discrepancy?
We know the A220 needs PIPs. So does the E2. All new aircraft need them to garner sales. This MTOW increase is just one more sales tool.

Lightsaber


Maybe 3:1 because the 220 was ready before the E2 and it won more of the tiny 100 seat market?

That doesn't explain last year's sales nor why the E2 entered service with so few sales.

Heck, E-190 customers such as AC (ok, timing and geography explain that one) and B6 ordered the A220.
Economics always drives airline decisions. The two compete every sales campaign.

If the E2 has a lower DOC per seat, it will sell. Airlines happily bought more E-175s. No one buying since the profit shark sales campaign needed risk being a launch customer. JetBlue could have stayed with the E2. An easy transition from their E-190 fleet.

I believe because Airbus has listened to customers and contractually obligated themselves to the PIPs customers demand

The E2-190 had an amazingly smooth EIS. The c-series, errr... A220 debugged the engines.

But why all the debate over a minor PIP that only appeals to a few customers? It isn't availability Aircastle is really trying hard to place their order. I see leasing companies have placed A220s.

I'm a Pratt fan. I want the combined market to be huge with both struggling to meet demand. I honestly believe this is a 6,000+ aircraft market. Both airframes are efficient. The A220 needs production and PIPs to sell. This is one minor PIP.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
rrbsztk
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 1:51 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
A quick look (I may be off) is that there have been 20 A221's and 51 A223's delivered so far with 14 this year. At this pace it will be hard to get 50 deliveries this year, or a 4 per month rate. Production needs to get to 10 per month STAT!


14 so far this year with two currently in test flight. I'm still optimistic they can get to 50. BUT the only way I see it happening is that they open the new test flight and delivery flight facilities sooner than later. Currently this is a bottle neck. The question is once they widen this bottleneck can they quickly go from 3+ a month to 5+ a month...or are there other bottlenecks that emerge. If they can get Mirabel to 5 or 6 a month by the end of the year, and then next year Mobile starts increasing that, they'll be on their way to 10/month before too too long.
 
VV
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 2:06 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
A quick look (I may be off) is that there have been 20 A221's and 51 A223's delivered so far with 14 this year. At this pace it will be hard to get 50 deliveries this year, or a 4 per month rate. Production needs to get to 10 per month STAT!


Sorry, but I didn't know the target was 50 deliveries this year.

Last year the delivered thirty something, so 50 does not seem difficult to reach. I guess.
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 2:11 am

lightsaber wrote:
... and B6 ordered the A220 ...


They were with us, until Airbus came ...

You maybe have no idea with whom we were dealing at that time.
But that will gonna change, since now we are part of Boeing ...

lightsaber wrote:
... the A220 has over 500 sales, most the -300 ...


As per wikipedia: 537.

But some doubts at this moment:
Gulf Air: 16 - not sure it they will take them;
Ilyushin Finance: former order was for 42, reduced to 20, 6 went to Red Wings that will not take them, 14 remain in doubt;
Iraqi Airways: 5 - not sure if they will take them;
Odyssey Airlines: 10 - what happened to Odyssey ?;
Republic Airways: 40 - not sure if they will take them unless they decide to operate by themselves in a new airline venture;
Moxy Airlines: 60 - Mr. Neeleman is still trying to rise money;
Braathens Airlnes: 10 - already cancelled

The 537 maybe now is 376 ...
 
VV
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 2:12 am

lightsaber wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
VV wrote:
It is not obvious at all the E195-E2 has worse seat mile cost than CS300. My estimates put the two in the same ball park with a 85% probability 195-E2 to have better seat mile cost.
My model is not accurate enough to say with 100% certainty which one has better seat mile cost.
It is very highly likely the DOC on per seat basis of E195-E2 is better than CS300 for missions up to 2,000 nm.


If the CASM (and DOC) of the E195-E2 is better, then it should have been a no brainer and every airlines should have bought it (instead of the CS300) right? And I'm hearing US trans con is useless.

I need to understand...

VV, please educate me. If a smaller aircraft has the same or better per seat costs, it invariably outsells the larger. So if the E2-195 is cheaper out to 2,000nm (per seat DOC), that would be wonderful for the US3 or EU3. I'm not aware of any exception other than top off orders.

I have modeled both, but I could use more accurate empty weights for both.

I've also modeled this takeoff weight increase and see a market. Airbus/Bombardier would have had to employ at least 15 people years of stress engineering time, so I estimate $3 million to $10 million minimum cost for this MTOW increase. You have argued the downside. Please tell me why Airbus would fund such an effort if it only exposes an overweight configuration.

Please explain the ratio of A220 to E2-190/195 sales. I posted this link in the E2 thread:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/28/e175- ... -year-end/

There are no within scope E2-175 sales. At this time there are no legal firm orders. So at this point manufacturing of E-jets is dependent upon E2-190/195 sales.

I posted in many threads every sales campaign of the A220 must square off versus the E2-19x. The A220 has over 500 sales, most the -300.

The E2 is at 153 firm orders:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family

Why over a 3:1 sales discrepancy?
We know the A220 needs PIPs. So does the E2. All new aircraft need them to garner sales. This MTOW increase is just one more sales tool.

Every project I ever worked had management reserve in MTOW in case empty weight was high. Yet the A220 entered service with range 100nm more than promise. Amir 2.3 tons of reserve seems insane to me.

Lightsaber


I cannot explain why there are more ordered A220-300 than there are ordered E195-E2, but I can easily explain why there are five years between 2008 and 2013.
 
VV
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 2:19 am

rrbsztk wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
A quick look (I may be off) is that there have been 20 A221's and 51 A223's delivered so far with 14 this year. At this pace it will be hard to get 50 deliveries this year, or a 4 per month rate. Production needs to get to 10 per month STAT!


14 so far this year with two currently in test flight. I'm still optimistic they can get to 50. BUT the only way I see it happening is that they open the new test flight and delivery flight facilities sooner than later. Currently this is a bottle neck. The question is once they widen this bottleneck can they quickly go from 3+ a month to 5+ a month...or are there other bottlenecks that emerge. If they can get Mirabel to 5 or 6 a month by the end of the year, and then next year Mobile starts increasing that, they'll be on their way to 10/month before too too long.


They can go much faster when all the modifications in the pipeline will have been cleared.
 
VV
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 2:37 am

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
VV wrote:
It is not obvious at all the E195-E2 has worse seat mile cost than CS300. My estimates put the two in the same ball park with a 85% probability 195-E2 to have better seat mile cost.
My model is not accurate enough to say with 100% certainty which one has better seat mile cost.
It is very highly likely the DOC on per seat basis of E195-E2 is better than CS300 for missions up to 2,000 nm.


If the CASM (and DOC) of the E195-E2 is better, then it should have been a no brainer and every airlines should have bought it (instead of the CS300) right? And I'm hearing US trans con is useless.

I need to understand...


No, I think you would not understand any explanation anyway.
Or maybe there's no explanation.

So the only thing you can do is to wait another five years.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 3:28 am

As mentionned by Lightsaber; "if a smaller aircraft has the same or better per seat costs, it invariably outsells the larger"... That's why I find the idea of the 195E2 having better CASM (versus the CS300) very intriguing to say the least.

Maybe there are other factors (on why despite worst CASMs, the CSeries surpassed E2 sales, even in the last 18 months) that you can't tell us, but don't say we would not understand the explanations...
Last edited by ExMilitaryEng on Wed May 29, 2019 3:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1535
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 3:30 am

Sales are still a little soft, but this plane is just bad ass. A319/737-7 killer. Flew it last week. Nice plane. Really nice plane.

Souped up DC-9.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1064
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 5:06 am

The larger E2 holds about the same number of passengers as the smaller CS.The E2 cannot compete at 4 abreast with the 5 abreast CS. There are too few seats to spread out the high ML costs on the E2, and yet the E2 is too large to be flown at a US regional due to scope clause limitations. In the USA at least, I don't see much of a future for the E2

The CS really comes into its own when the 500 is built. There is no other plane in the world that will carry 149 people so cost effectively from 300 to 1,800 nm.
 
ewt340
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 5:35 am

So now it's pretty obvious that A318 and A319 are dead. What I would wonder is if Airbus would really stretch A320neo by couple frames to match up B737-800 capacity and give the 180 seat market to A220 in upcoming years.
 
planecane
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 5:53 am

ewt340 wrote:
So now it's pretty obvious that A318 and A319 are dead. What I would wonder is if Airbus would really stretch A320neo by couple frames to match up B737-800 capacity and give the 180 seat market to A220 in upcoming years.


I think the A320 does well enough vs the 737-800/MAX8 that I don't think it would be worth the investment for a small stretch. As for the A220, does 5 abreast seating work well over 150 seats? If you consider Southwest's 737-800 configuration with 175 seats, that's 30 rows. If you remove a seat from each row, you'd need an additional 6 rows or roughly 16 feet to get to A320, 737-800 territory.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17666
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 5:57 am

Wow... A lot of debate an angst over a small PIP. As a Pratt fan, I see a market for 300 per year in this size. I'm not seeing the sales.

I think the MTOW PIP will help sell to ULCCs. There is only one large campaign I know about (Spirit). If there are others, please let me know.

Spirit will buy on the total cost to carry a passenger. I never worried about A320 vs. 738/-8 as I always saw one or the other more favorable to certain route networks. Both have economy of scale.

Neither the A220 nor E2 have enough economy of scale. Spirit will really set the terms. Even if it is to buy neither.

As a Pratt fan, I want both to do well. When one is selling better, when it's head start had the same sales as the competition, I look into why.

Will these threads be the next 717 threads?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
VV
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 6:13 am

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
As mentionned by Lightsaber; "if a smaller aircraft has the same or better per seat costs, it invariably outsells the larger"... That's why I find the idea of the 195E2 having better CASM (versus the CS300) very intriguing to say the least.

Maybe there are other factors (on why despite worst CASMs, the CSeries surpassed E2 sales, even in the last 18 months) that you can't tell us, but don't say we would not understand the explanations...


No, you would not understand because you just ask the question again.

Reality is that one aircraft was launched in 2008 and the other in 2013.

Trying to compare the orders of the two aircraft is just absurd. In reality a total order of 500 eleven years after launch is not phenomenal.

And yes, E195-E2 is lighter than CS300. That's life.

Both aircraft are in a relatively small but crowded market.

The cost on per seat basis of CS300 and E195-E2 is in the same ball park. My estimate is not accurate enough to determine which one is better from cost point of view, but the probability is more favorable for E2..
Maybe my operating cost model is not good enough.
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 6:24 am

lightsaber wrote:
Wow... A lot of debate an angst over a small PIP. As a Pratt fan, I see a market for 300 per year in this size. I'm not seeing the sales.

I think the MTOW PIP will help sell to ULCCs. There is only one large campaign I know about (Spirit). If there are others, please let me know.

Spirit will buy on the total cost to carry a passenger. I never worried about A320 vs. 738/-8 as I always saw one or the other more favorable to certain route networks. Both have economy of scale.

Neither the A220 nor E2 have enough economy of scale. Spirit will really set the terms. Even if it is to buy neither.

As a Pratt fan, I want both to do well. When one is selling better, when it's head start had the same sales as the competition, I look into why.

Will these threads be the next 717 threads?

Lightsaber


Spirit? Kind of like their passengers they are probably purely looking for the lowest cost option. With Boeing now involved, it seems very likely the E2 can be offered at the absolute lowest price point.

I have a feeling Lufthansa is the most likely candidate for a major new customer for the a220. Swiss seems pleased with theirs and Lufthansa appears to be wet-leasing 2 a220s, and I wonder if that's in part to gauge customer satisfaction and how well the aircraft fits their routes.

I think Air Canada is the a220 customer that has the most to gain from this incremental improvement discussed here. Might convince them to exercise their options.
 
ewt340
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 10:19 am

planecane wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
So now it's pretty obvious that A318 and A319 are dead. What I would wonder is if Airbus would really stretch A320neo by couple frames to match up B737-800 capacity and give the 180 seat market to A220 in upcoming years.


I think the A320 does well enough vs the 737-800/MAX8 that I don't think it would be worth the investment for a small stretch. As for the A220, does 5 abreast seating work well over 150 seats? If you consider Southwest's 737-800 configuration with 175 seats, that's 30 rows. If you remove a seat from each row, you'd need an additional 6 rows or roughly 16 feet to get to A320, 737-800 territory.


Current A320 carry 2-3 less row compared to B737-800. So the only they could do is bumped up A320 capacity by 4 frames which resulted in 2-3 extra rows and then stretched A220 by 6-7 frames which allowed for 3-4 extra rows. It would matched up A320 configurations, but not B737-800.

And it probably be a simple stretch as well if possible. Hence the mtow increase would be quite useful.
 
GmvAfcs
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:25 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 10:45 am

lightsaber wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
VV wrote:
Why over a 3:1 sales discrepancy?


Aggressive pricing! A220-300 being sold for less than 195-E2, it carries more passengers, than this is a no brainer.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 10:46 am

At delta we run 157 pax 320s and 160 pax 738s. The MD90s run at 158 as well, but they're leaving sooner than planned.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 10:53 am

As to the 220-500, who is going to pay for it and who is going to profit from it? Does BBD have any money? If not, why not? No sales? Can they get money from the Canadian government?

Okay so if Airbus funds this stretch, do they then shares the profits with BBD?

So pay money to intentionally cut into the 320s massive profits?

To me, add up the sales of 320N and 73M and then add up the sales of CS and E2s. The smaller planes ads up to 4% of the market.

So where is the market? It's in the 150-200 seaters, but for some reason people think Airbus will ditch the 320N, also with GTF engines and a 20% fuel savings, and offer 321N and separate type 225??? So offer 2 types and separate training, staffing, supply chain and lost synergies instead of offer 1 type and all the commonality from pilots to maintenance?

I think airlines will say no, just like they've been saying no for the past decade.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 11:15 am

And why would Lufthansa buy the 220, built in Canada, over the 320 built in Hamburg?

"Hamburg is home to a large number of Airbus sites, from the spares centre to design offices, production sites, final assembly line and even a training centre.

Final assembly takes place at the Hamburg/Finkenwerder site for the four members of the A320 family (A318, A319, A320 and A321)."

Especially as the 380 winds down why not throw more business to... Montreal?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 11:27 am

VV wrote:
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.


The transaction would have been very different from that between BBD and Airbus. Likely it would have involved transferred ownership of the Belfast plant to get access to the CFRP IP.

I believe they were quite interested.

VV wrote:
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.


From what is visible to me (mostly wing), most structural mods were done over 12 months ago. A few still trickle through of course, but these shouldn't be overly affecting production rate as they are dealing with less urgent issues and are very detailed changes.

Obviously I have no insight into systems and structure beyond that.

I don't see modifications as being the reason for the ramp being slow.

I *know* that due to severe cost pressure, the production and assembly lines were not complete as intended, but instead pared back to be cheaper. Which obviously comes at a rate and/or build cost sacrifice.


The Lear85 really, really screwed BBD up.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17666
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 12:00 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
From what is visible to me (mostly wing), most structural mods were done over 12 months ago. A few still trickle through of course, but these shouldn't be overly affecting production rate as they are dealing with less urgent issues and are very detailed changes.

Obviously I have no insight into systems and structure beyond that.

I don't see modifications as being the reason for the ramp being slow.

I *know* that due to severe cost pressure, the production and assembly lines were not complete as intended, but instead pared back to be cheaper. Which obviously comes at a rate and/or build cost sacrifice.


The Lear85 really, really screwed BBD up.

No doubt the Lear85 damaged Bombardier.
I speculate the non-ootimal production tooling helps explain Mobile production.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
ExperimentalFTE
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:59 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 12:11 pm

Looking at what Lear 85 was supposed to be and deliver on the aircraft level and associated technology with it, no doubt that it is actually biggest failure in aviation history from the bang vs buck burned.

2.5B writeoff for 8 pax biz jet with nothing special and distinctive on the market......

Last chance to ditch it was 2012.....

Marketing driven program....and yes, one can say that it actually destroyed BBD...
 
planecane
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 12:59 pm

ewt340 wrote:
planecane wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
So now it's pretty obvious that A318 and A319 are dead. What I would wonder is if Airbus would really stretch A320neo by couple frames to match up B737-800 capacity and give the 180 seat market to A220 in upcoming years.


I think the A320 does well enough vs the 737-800/MAX8 that I don't think it would be worth the investment for a small stretch. As for the A220, does 5 abreast seating work well over 150 seats? If you consider Southwest's 737-800 configuration with 175 seats, that's 30 rows. If you remove a seat from each row, you'd need an additional 6 rows or roughly 16 feet to get to A320, 737-800 territory.


Current A320 carry 2-3 less row compared to B737-800. So the only they could do is bumped up A320 capacity by 4 frames which resulted in 2-3 extra rows and then stretched A220 by 6-7 frames which allowed for 3-4 extra rows. It would matched up A320 configurations, but not B737-800.

And it probably be a simple stretch as well if possible. Hence the mtow increase would be quite useful.


Does it make that much sense for Airbus to sell two models so close to each other? Everyone assumes the 737MAX9 will cease to exist because of the MAX10 being so close in capacity and capability.

It would make more sense to me for them to stretch the A220 to replace the A320 and then do an A322 and have the A321 and A322 as the "middle of market" and just phase out the A320. I'm talking in 8 years or so, not immediately.
 
User avatar
EMBSPBR
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 1:20 pm

GmvAfcs wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
VV wrote:
Why over a 3:1 sales discrepancy?
Aggressive pricing! A220-300 being sold for less than 195-E2, it carries more passengers, than this is a no brainer.


People do not seem to want to glimpse the obvious or have not read my post from number 163 here ...
Where is the 3: 1 ratio ??? What are the real orders that for this proportion to exist ??? By my numbers they are 2: 1.

The amounts paid by Delta to BBD is still an open question.

And for JetBlue, after the heavy hand of Airbus, the answer is: pay a NEO and take an A220 for free ...

Member "VV" is right: they want to compare a program that has dragged on for eleven years with another program that has only five. But wait for news, the game is turning: attention Airbus, Boeing Brasil Commercial has just arrived ...
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 3:32 pm

Babyshark wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
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:


What do they know? Or we know? We know our former boss proudly took a stand and say we don't order unproven technology like GTF engines. We are happy with all of these bargain MD90s and 717s we have, we don't need Neos and Maxes, Maxi... Maxes? And in a blink of an eye the world ordered 11000 and we were left holding 100 firm and 100 options for 321Ns. Oh and those MD88s are exiting sooner than expected (maybe) and the 90s and 717s are probably exiting real fast.

Whoops.

A few years ago we made a deal on used E190s because we need to get control over the DCI QC but without letting mainline pilots fly those jets. So the E190 deal was announced and then BBD shows up with a CS100 in ATL on the FBO ramp, soon thereafter we went with the CSeries and dumped the E190s. We got a great deal on another orphan jet (with surprise... GTF engines!) and supposedly greatly encouraged the Airbus-BBD deal to hopefully prevent the orphan purchase. Then shift change at the top, at some point within that timeline.

What we need is 320Ns but we're going to kick that can down the road to the next leadership. Hopefully we get our options on the 100 321Ns exercised because we desperately need those jets.

Obviously your employer is changing its strategy, and is taking advantage of new technology and good financial deals.
Remember there is more than just ordering and operating an aircraft at Delta: TechOps is a big part of the company's success and those new airplanes & engines are helping DL overall.

I'll say it again: DL knows what they do, most likely much better than you do (even if you work for them). If not, one of the best run airlines would not have ordered those planes.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2187
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 3:45 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Babyshark wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
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:


What do they know? Or we know? We know our former boss proudly took a stand and say we don't order unproven technology like GTF engines. We are happy with all of these bargain MD90s and 717s we have, we don't need Neos and Maxes, Maxi... Maxes? And in a blink of an eye the world ordered 11000 and we were left holding 100 firm and 100 options for 321Ns. Oh and those MD88s are exiting sooner than expected (maybe) and the 90s and 717s are probably exiting real fast.

Whoops.

A few years ago we made a deal on used E190s because we need to get control over the DCI QC but without letting mainline pilots fly those jets. So the E190 deal was announced and then BBD shows up with a CS100 in ATL on the FBO ramp, soon thereafter we went with the CSeries and dumped the E190s. We got a great deal on another orphan jet (with surprise... GTF engines!) and supposedly greatly encouraged the Airbus-BBD deal to hopefully prevent the orphan purchase. Then shift change at the top, at some point within that timeline.

What we need is 320Ns but we're going to kick that can down the road to the next leadership. Hopefully we get our options on the 100 321Ns exercised because we desperately need those jets.

Obviously your employer is changing its strategy, and is taking advantage of new technology and good financial deals.
Remember there is more than just ordering and operating an aircraft at Delta: TechOps is a big part of the company's success and those new airplanes & engines are helping DL overall.

I'll say it again: DL knows what they do, most likely much better than you do (even if you work for them). If not, one of the best run airlines would not have ordered those planes.


The tax rules changed. These changes now make buying new aircraft much more attractive and DL tracks everything including the tax implications of purchases. Also, the used a/c they bought get more expensive to maintain over time. There comes an inflection point where the cost to keep the used a/c is more than the cost to buy a new a/c which will be more fuel efficient and require less maintenance.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 4:08 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Babyshark wrote:

What do they know? Or we know? We know our former boss proudly took a stand and say we don't order unproven technology like GTF engines. We are happy with all of these bargain MD90s and 717s we have, we don't need Neos and Maxes, Maxi... Maxes? And in a blink of an eye the world ordered 11000 and we were left holding 100 firm and 100 options for 321Ns. Oh and those MD88s are exiting sooner than expected (maybe) and the 90s and 717s are probably exiting real fast.

Whoops.

A few years ago we made a deal on used E190s because we need to get control over the DCI QC but without letting mainline pilots fly those jets. So the E190 deal was announced and then BBD shows up with a CS100 in ATL on the FBO ramp, soon thereafter we went with the CSeries and dumped the E190s. We got a great deal on another orphan jet (with surprise... GTF engines!) and supposedly greatly encouraged the Airbus-BBD deal to hopefully prevent the orphan purchase. Then shift change at the top, at some point within that timeline.

What we need is 320Ns but we're going to kick that can down the road to the next leadership. Hopefully we get our options on the 100 321Ns exercised because we desperately need those jets.

Obviously your employer is changing its strategy, and is taking advantage of new technology and good financial deals.
Remember there is more than just ordering and operating an aircraft at Delta: TechOps is a big part of the company's success and those new airplanes & engines are helping DL overall.

I'll say it again: DL knows what they do, most likely much better than you do (even if you work for them). If not, one of the best run airlines would not have ordered those planes.


The tax rules changed. These changes now make buying new aircraft much more attractive and DL tracks everything including the tax implications of purchases. Also, the used a/c they bought get more expensive to maintain over time. There comes an inflection point where the cost to keep the used a/c is more than the cost to buy a new a/c which will be more fuel efficient and require less maintenance.

Hence Babyshark's comment (post #143) that "If you're a A321/320 operator, the 220 doesnt have a place" is irrelevant; if not, DL would have never bought them.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17666
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 4:21 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:

The tax rules changed. These changes now make buying new aircraft much more attractive and DL tracks everything including the tax implications of purchases. Also, the used a/c they bought get more expensive to maintain over time. There comes an inflection point where the cost to keep the used a/c is more than the cost to buy a new a/c which will be more fuel efficient and require less maintenance.

We have a winner. The dramatic change in depreciation made it far more economical for US airlines to replace aircraft earlier. I'm certain this impacted DL and B6's A220 buying decision.

Whom else might be interested in this MTOW increase? IMHO it increases the chance Frontier actually accepts the type; note I said increases the chance, not that I am certain. Every time I look back, every ULCC would want it at least as an option to upgrade to. 2-class carriers less so.

I truly believe many aircraft aren't selling due to long lead times. I also believe the dispatch reliability numbers I've seen on the A220 aren't enough to excite anyone. They aren't enough to scare them away, but sell aircraft requires better.

It looks like Pratt is through the tough period. Once all A220 receive the latest engine PIPs it will be time to start discussing fuel burn reduction PIPs. But that takes selling over two thousand engines with hope of future sales. We are not there yet.

Every PIP helps sell. I very much hope for a hundred plus A220 sales at Paris.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
rrbsztk
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 4:44 pm

lightsaber wrote:

Whom else might be interested in this MTOW increase? IMHO it increases the chance Frontier actually accepts the type; note I said increases the chance, not that I am certain. Every time I look back, every ULCC would want it at least as an option to upgrade to. 2-class carriers less so.

...

Every PIP helps sell. I very much hope for a hundred plus A220 sales at Paris.

Lightsaber


Is Frontier in a position to "accept" the A220. My understanding is the order still is with Republic who is no longer connected to Frontiet. Is there a way for Frontier to accept those from Republic or would it have to be Frontier buys them from Republic in a new transaction (in which case they could also buy from a lessor or direct from Airbus).

I also hope for over 100. Would absolutely love them to sell 220 A220s but that's maybe just a tad bit massively over optimistic.
 
ewt340
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 5:06 pm

planecane wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
planecane wrote:

I think the A320 does well enough vs the 737-800/MAX8 that I don't think it would be worth the investment for a small stretch. As for the A220, does 5 abreast seating work well over 150 seats? If you consider Southwest's 737-800 configuration with 175 seats, that's 30 rows. If you remove a seat from each row, you'd need an additional 6 rows or roughly 16 feet to get to A320, 737-800 territory.


Current A320 carry 2-3 less row compared to B737-800. So the only they could do is bumped up A320 capacity by 4 frames which resulted in 2-3 extra rows and then stretched A220 by 6-7 frames which allowed for 3-4 extra rows. It would matched up A320 configurations, but not B737-800.

And it probably be a simple stretch as well if possible. Hence the mtow increase would be quite useful.


Does it make that much sense for Airbus to sell two models so close to each other? Everyone assumes the 737MAX9 will cease to exist because of the MAX10 being so close in capacity and capability.

It would make more sense to me for them to stretch the A220 to replace the A320 and then do an A322 and have the A321 and A322 as the "middle of market" and just phase out the A320. I'm talking in 8 years or so, not immediately.


Well the fundamental problem lies in the cabin space on A320 for many full service carrier that have 2 classes of service or more. It has the same number of doors and emergency windows as B737-800 which mean that the max pax they could carry would be 189 at max regardless of the different cabin class.

B737-800 allows many airlines to configure their cabin with seating closer to the 189 limit compared to A320. Because they required more pitch for their more premium seats. If we fitted both cabin with 28" seat pitch for LCC, A320 would win, because they could hold 186 seats, while B737-800 would actually have space for 204-210 seats with the same seat pitch. Which is illegal hence they need to add extra door for the MAX200.

But if we configure the business class cabin with 38" pitch and economy class cabin with 30" pitch like many Full Service Carrier do nowadays. A320 could holds 12C 144Y, while B737-800 holds 8C 162Y. Both aircraft still required to have at least 4 FA but B737-800 just carry more passengers with the same configurations within the exit limit. Economically, B737-800 would work better for most airlines compared to A320 with such configurations.

By stretching A320 by couple frames, it would matched up its capacity to B737-800. And it would help many LCCs like JetBlue or Batik Air (significant operator of A320ceo and neo) to match up their capacity closer to 189 exit limit, hence increasing efficiency without cutting of seat pitch on every rows.

It's gonna be more beneficial for Full Service Carriers BUT there's where A220-500 came in.
Majority of LCC that operated A320 configure their aircraft with 28"-29" seat pitch which mean that they carry around 180-186 seats on their cabin. What Airbus could do is to stretch A220-300 by 7 frames which would resulted in 147" extension of the cabin. Which mean that they could add 5 extra rows of seats with 28"-29" seat pitch which resulted in 185 seats in LCC configurations. The current max certified capacity on A220-300 is 160 seats, so presumably they have to do a tweak for the L1/R1 doors and/or increase the capacity of the emergency slides to accommodate faster evacuations. But I'm pretty sure it would be easy for them to obtain such certifications.

The efficiency of A220-500 as a double-stretch would be undeniable for these LCC. Hence solidified A220 and A320neo+ program for many range of customers.

With the MAX8 problems, Airbus could offer A320neo+ to many of these airlines, it would be smoother transitions since they have the exact same capacity. Rather than losing 2-3 rows of seats when they switch to the current A320neo with the same configurations.
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1170
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 5:16 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I truly believe many aircraft aren't selling due to long lead times.


Airbus is blaming tariffs for the lack of sales, from Leeham:

......Tuesday at the Airbus Innovation Days, Chief Commercial Officer Christian Scherer said the threat of tariffs in the US and the lack of certification in China effectively shuts out two thirds of the world market to the A220.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/23/tarif ... more-30169
 
N212R
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 5:29 pm

SteelChair wrote:
In the USA at least, I don't see much of a future for the E2


A little early to be quoting from DL/Airbus Christmas wish list...
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 6:39 pm

fcogafa wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I truly believe many aircraft aren't selling due to long lead times.


Airbus is blaming tariffs for the lack of sales, from Leeham:

......Tuesday at the Airbus Innovation Days, Chief Commercial Officer Christian Scherer said the threat of tariffs in the US and the lack of certification in China effectively shuts out two thirds of the world market to the A220.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/23/tarif ... more-30169


More specifically, Airbus' Mobile AL assembly facility, which would not be building A220s if the threat of tariffs not exist, cannot build airplanes fast enough to meet A220-300 demand from the US. 160 airplanes for Moxy, JetBlue, and Delta alone is more than 3 years at a peak capacity (which won't be reached until at least 2021, more likely later) of 4/month - there is little room for anyone else for some time. Even less room if you count 40 aircraft for Republic which I am not.

Mirabel is supposed to be able to put out 2-3 times as many airplanes as Mobile and has about the same number of "real" (according to my back of the napkin math... see below) customers in the backlog, and although ramp-up has been slow they should pass ~4/month this year and so be able to clear that backlog in a much shorter timeframe.

So if you're a US-based airline wanting -300s, you're probably out of luck, but if not you can probably get ahold of airplanes later next year or early the year following.

45 - Air Canada
4 - Air Vanuatu
32 - airBaltic
28 - Delta
12 - EgyptAir
40 - Macquarie AirFinance
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17666
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 7:01 pm

wrongwayup wrote:
fcogafa wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I truly believe many aircraft aren't selling due to long lead times.


Airbus is blaming tariffs for the lack of sales, from Leeham:

......Tuesday at the Airbus Innovation Days, Chief Commercial Officer Christian Scherer said the threat of tariffs in the US and the lack of certification in China effectively shuts out two thirds of the world market to the A220.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/23/tarif ... more-30169


More specifically, Airbus' Mobile AL assembly facility, which would not be building A220s if the threat of tariffs not exist, cannot build airplanes fast enough to meet A220-300 demand from the US. 160 airplanes for Moxy, JetBlue, and Delta alone is more than 3 years at a peak capacity (which won't be reached until at least 2021, more likely later) of 4/month - there is little room for anyone else for some time. Even less room if you count 40 aircraft for Republic which I am not.

Mirabel is supposed to be able to put out 2-3 times as many airplanes as Mobile and has about the same number of "real" (according to my back of the napkin math... see below) customers in the backlog, and although ramp-up has been slow they should pass ~4/month this year and so be able to clear that backlog in a much shorter timeframe.

So if you're a US-based airline wanting -300s, you're probably out of luck, but if not you can probably get ahold of airplanes later next year or early the year following.

45 - Air Canada
4 - Air Vanuatu
32 - airBaltic
28 - Delta
12 - EgyptAir
40 - Macquarie AirFinance

Duties were rejected and never progressed beyond preliminary:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1FY382

US airlines could accept Canadian built A220.

Note: you should add JetBlue as they are scheduled for 2020 delivery.

The issue is production has been such an issue at Mirabel that Airbus laid out a clean 4/month (40 to 50 per year) line. Once running, production at Mirabel can be halted to re-equip the line. I assume Airbus already had contracts to double Mobile production and just bought the same equipment with A220 jigs.

I'm a big fan of copy exactly production. The A220 line in Mobile will learn Airbus production processes and then copy exactly, with say a 2 year time lag, to Mirabel.

Pratt has the engine assembly line humming. It will take another 18 months to work out casting yield issues, but they are ahead of CFM there. (Due to new materials.)

In the Paris thread the only other large buyer leans CFM... Anyone heard of any potential A220 buyers other than NK?

But more orders are needed for the A220. Hence PIPs like the one this thread is based on.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 8:21 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Duties were rejected and never progressed beyond preliminary:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1FY382

US airlines could accept Canadian built A220.


-100 only. The threat of a follow-up challenge on the -300 is enough to keep airlines from risking it IMHO.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 8:28 pm

wrongwayup wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Duties were rejected and never progressed beyond preliminary:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1FY382

US airlines could accept Canadian built A220.


-100 only. The threat of a follow-up challenge on the -300 is enough to keep airlines from risking it IMHO.


Although that’d be pretty funny if they did it anyway to try to lure Boeing back into the fray...could make for some more interesting press. I can see it now: “We don’t like this new innovative plane competing against our 60 year old POS we threw new motors and MCAS on, which causes a tendency to nosedive into the earth, so we are suing to stifle competition so we can continue to deliver piece of shit 737s for the next 2 decades with no innovation required.”
 
Babyshark
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 11:37 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
SonomaFlyer wrote:
f=3&t=1423035&start=100#p21390229]Babyshark's comment (post #143)[/url] that "If you're a A321/320 operator, the 220 doesnt have a place" is irrelevant; if not, DL would have never bought them.


It doesn't have a place, unless you f up and wait too long and its your only option for new nb lift. But DL does strange things with airplanes, it's not always based on math.

But the 220 is not the same type as the 320 fleet. You're adding a separate... everything.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Wed May 29, 2019 11:41 pm

Babyshark wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
SonomaFlyer wrote:
f=3&t=1423035&start=100#p21390229]Babyshark's comment (post #143)[/url] that "If you're a A321/320 operator, the 220 doesnt have a place" is irrelevant; if not, DL would have never bought them.


It doesn't have a place, unless you f up and wait too long and its your only option for new nb lift. But DL does strange things with airplanes, it's not always based on math.

But the 220 is not the same type as the 320 fleet. You're adding a separate... everything.

Listen: given DL catastrophic financial results, dramatic ratings among employees and customers, they obviously have no flipping clue as to what they're doing and will soon be put out of misery, so it doesn't matter. :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
Babyshark
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Thu May 30, 2019 12:21 am

WayexTDI wrote:
Babyshark wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:


It doesn't have a place, unless you f up and wait too long and its your only option for new nb lift. But DL does strange things with airplanes, it's not always based on math.

But the 220 is not the same type as the 320 fleet. You're adding a separate... everything.

Listen: given DL catastrophic financial results, dramatic ratings among employees and customers, they obviously have no flipping clue as to what they're doing and will soon be put out of misery, so it doesn't matter. :roll: :roll: :roll:


Listen. They f up too. Do it more than you know. Thankfully. But they do. With Delta, having worked here for 13 years and working on and off the 4th floor, they f up. And we can spend a lot of money fixing those issues. A lot.

But whatever Delta does, if its in a press release or a quarterly call, it's the most brilliant thing ever. And a year or so later when its quietly phased out they have no shame with proclaiming the exact opposite is the most brilliant thing ever. They are prone to impulsive decisions driven by personalities and not analysis. Some have been in the news, you just don't realize it. You are not there when the fix it emails land in the emails. We have dismissed people over mistakes too, big people.

We have a mess we need to clean up from years ago, the 220 isn't the fix but we're being forced to do it because we didn't order the A320Ns when we should have. The A220 is no miracle. Its an absolute frustration for many of us.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1064
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: A220 gets 2.3T MTOW increase

Thu May 30, 2019 12:39 am

Babyshark wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Babyshark wrote:

It doesn't have a place, unless you f up and wait too long and its your only option for new nb lift. But DL does strange things with airplanes, it's not always based on math.

But the 220 is not the same type as the 320 fleet. You're adding a separate... everything.

Listen: given DL catastrophic financial results, dramatic ratings among employees and customers, they obviously have no flipping clue as to what they're doing and will soon be put out of misery, so it doesn't matter. :roll: :roll: :roll:


Listen. They f up too. Do it more than you know. Thankfully. But they do. With Delta, having worked here for 13 years and working on and off the 4th floor, they f up. And we can spend a lot of money fixing those issues. A lot.

But whatever Delta does, if its in a press release or a quarterly call, it's the most brilliant thing ever. And a year or so later when its quietly phased out they have no shame with proclaiming the exact opposite is the most brilliant thing ever. They are prone to impulsive decisions driven by personalities and not analysis. Some have been in the news, you just don't realize it. You are not there when the fix it emails land in the emails. We have dismissed people over mistakes too, big people.

We have a mess we need to clean up from years ago, the 220 isn't the fix but we're being forced to do it because we didn't order the A320Ns when we should have. The A220 is no miracle. Its an absolute frustration for many of us.


I personally doubt that A320N's will ever be ordered by your employer.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos