Page 3 of 12

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:29 am
by kimimm19
LAX772LR wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
The operate out of one of the largest and popular cities in the world so given their model, their largest aircraft being an a359 is ridiculous.

You don't seem to understand the nature of the question.

I'm well aware of what and how AF operates, just as I'm also aware that neither you, nor any other amateur here, have any idea what constitutes optimal capacity for them; quite simply because you don't have access to anywhere near sufficient quantities (and arguably: quality) of data, to effectively make that conclusion.

I'm not making the case that they'll justify the A359 as their highest capacity airframe, but then again, it's a plausible possibility.
To simply repeat that it's "ridiculous," based on no tangible parameters, is ...well... ridiculous.


Please illuminate all of us 'amateurs' with your wonderful expertise and massive amounts of data. We can then bow down to you since just because you may have a job in aviation, you think that entitles you to dump on 97% of people on this forum who don't and are just enthusiasts. :roll:

My main point is: if you are an airline like AF, have a monopoly at one of the largest airports and cities in the world, and your largest aircraft is the a359, you are doing something wrong.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:55 am
by LAX772LR
kimimm19 wrote:
My main point is: if you are an airline like AF, have a monopoly at one of the largest airports and cities in the world, and your largest aircraft is the a359, you are doing something wrong.

And, I'll remind you... for the third time... that that's a statement of emotion, not fact.

You don't know what capacity per unit (read that: "aircraft size") produces optimal yield at cost for them.
Nor would anyone else here, as we're not privy to the numbers that would confirm nor dispute that.

Not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp; I can however assure you that repeating it for a fourth time, won't make it any less speculative than the first time you blabbered it.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:51 am
by kimimm19
LAX772LR wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
My main point is: if you are an airline like AF, have a monopoly at one of the largest airports and cities in the world, and your largest aircraft is the a359, you are doing something wrong.

And, I'll remind you... for the third time... that that's a statement of emotion, not fact.

You don't know what capacity per unit (read that: "aircraft size") produces optimal yield at cost for them.
Nor would anyone else here, as we're not privy to the numbers that would confirm nor dispute that.

Not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp; I can however assure you that repeating it for a fourth time, won't make it any less speculative than the first time you blabbered it.



You say all this, but you haven't produced any facts yourself. Therefore you are also speculating like everyone else. But of course you give your opinion more value than others, as you are a self-proclaimed expert.

As many have said on here, AF's problems are a lot more than unit size... That in turn affects lots of things.

Even though I agree that at some point they will have to order the 77X or the a35k, the fact they are not able to make their operations at this point in time (and the past years) work, is in my opinon ridiculous.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:17 pm
by mig17
Some of the places AF is able to send the A380 are also places where there is a strong competition.

If we take Singapore for instance. Singapore is an AF strong destination since the fusion with UTA. They have tried the A380 on the route and abandonned the idea because 77E and 77W worked better for them.
Singapore airline is also flying one of the less densly configured A380 on the route.
CDG is a big airport connected to the entire world but there is not enough daily demand on each route for a A380 plus competition except JFK. CDG is not LHR.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:26 pm
by MrBren
mig17 wrote:
CDG is not LHR.


Well from January to June 2019:
- LHR 38,750,839 (+1.8%)
- CDG 36,339,412 (+7.1%)

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:29 pm
by par13del
kimimm19 wrote:
My main point is: if you are an airline like AF, have a monopoly at one of the largest airports and cities in the world, and your largest aircraft is the a359, you are doing something wrong.

Is this not already a fact that we can see? AF has the A380, they are reducing the amount deployed and are rumored to be looking to eliminate the frame.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:38 pm
by TObound
mig17 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
What is the limits on HOP!
Lightsaber

Mainline is above 136 seats.


Perfect for the A221!

Swiss puts in 125 seats and it looks like a great layout.

Alternatively, I guess the E2-195 can probably do 130.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:51 pm
by TObound
aemoreira1981 wrote:
A220-100 should be for HOP!. The A220-300 should be for mainline...in a CY150 configuration (such would work both in France and especially on the Caribbean island-hopper network, where I see the A320 as too much plane).....


Above 145 seats, you need another exit door. It's why Swiss stuck to CY145. 150 would be rather dense. V is what Air Baltic does.

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Keep in mind that while the A220-300 has less range than the A319, it is 7 metric tons lighter.


Yep. The dividends are huge. As many seats as an A319. Trip costs lower than any A318. CASM lower than an A320 (or A321 if the article is to be believed). Range to cover all of Europe, the Mediterranean and North Africa from CDG.

Would complement the 321NEO/XLR nicely.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:47 pm
by Pellegrine
These people proposing A220s and A321XLRs for African destinations are totally forgetting about why widebodies rule these routes...cargo.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:30 pm
by SteelChair
VV wrote:
Antarius wrote:
VV wrote:
Do you think there has been a kind of interference of the French government?


Is there any indication of it?


No, but I have just realized that the new management at AFR/KLM came from Air Canada. These guys are the same who sealed the deal for C Series back then.

I think this is what I would call the "Canadian connection".

In addition, Delta is Air France's partner, ost probably AFR people already contacted DAL to get some information.


I have wondered why airlines within alliances haven't pooled their resources for making larger airplane orders and getting better deals from all suppliers, not just airframers. Buying similar airplanes with similar interiors would also provide a more common product across the alliance, "a more seamless experience."

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:34 pm
by SteelChair
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:

At this point it makes more sense for AF to choose the E195-E2 iso the A220.
...
Ah but wait, a Canadian CEO, a Canadian aircraft...coincidence you think?


FWIW, AF Industries thinks there are not enough A220s sold yet to make money with it in offering heavy maintenance services to third parties.

What would be the business case to offer such services for the E2 then? ;-)

From the article:

"Même si chez Air France Industrie, on n'est pas très chaud pour l'A220 en raison du nombre de clients de cet avion (plus de 600), beaucoup plus limité évidemment que celui de l'A320 NEO (plus de 6.000)."


Imho this is a classic example of whats wrong with AF. An airline shouldn't buy airplanes based upon MRO business. The MRO should support the operational needs of the airline imho. MRO shouldn't drive the bus, they should adjust their business plan to the airline.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:53 pm
by WayexTDI
SteelChair wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:

At this point it makes more sense for AF to choose the E195-E2 iso the A220.
...
Ah but wait, a Canadian CEO, a Canadian aircraft...coincidence you think?


FWIW, AF Industries thinks there are not enough A220s sold yet to make money with it in offering heavy maintenance services to third parties.

What would be the business case to offer such services for the E2 then? ;-)

From the article:

"Même si chez Air France Industrie, on n'est pas très chaud pour l'A220 en raison du nombre de clients de cet avion (plus de 600), beaucoup plus limité évidemment que celui de l'A320 NEO (plus de 6.000)."


Imho this is a classic example of whats wrong with AF. An airline shouldn't buy airplanes based upon MRO business. The MRO should support the operational needs of the airline imho. MRO shouldn't drive the bus, they should adjust their business plan to the airline.

Go tell that to DL; aircraft/engine purchase and MRO activity is intertwined, look at what happened with the A350 and RR.
It's actually a very smart way of operating when you have an MRO business.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:58 pm
by flyyul
Waterbomber2 wrote:
At this point it makes more sense for AF to choose the E195-E2 iso the A220.
Commonality with KLM and HOP! and simplicity, isn't that what the CEO is looking for?

Boeing would be very aggressive on pricing too, they can use the E2 orders.

Ah but wait, a Canadian CEO, a Canadian aircraft...coincidence you think?
The CS300 having the CASM of the A321? The A321CEO maybe, but that's apples to oranges.

Where is EMBSPBR when you need him? Is it not day yet in Sao Jose dos Campos?



No it doesn't make sense to order the E190 or E195 E2. Having personally studied both airplanes and their economics, I can assure you the CS300/A223 has a CASM and a profit potential that the E2 family simply can't match. I can also tell you that the person within AF that's pushing the A220 case is not Ben, and not even a Canadian. Your comments are simply out of line.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:00 pm
by flyingcello
petertenthije wrote:
zkojq wrote:
DL747400 wrote:

If this comes to pass, it will be a wasted opportunity. This should have been a single large order for A220s to be shared between AF and KL, which would have helped rationalize a portion of the short/medium haul fleet and would have improved efficiency.


Yeah this seems silly. To have AFKL ordering CSeries + E2 + MAX (for KL + HV) and NEOs (for AF) doesn't make a lot of sense. OTOH each of the business units (AF, Hop, KL, CityHopper and Transavia) is probably large enough to get decent economies of scale, but you'd think at least that they'd manage to narrow it down to three families of Short Haul jetliners.

Actually, it might make a bit of sense because:
  • This give AF/KL a better negotiating position with the OEMs, because the OEMs know the order can truly go both ways.
  • It keeps AF and KLM personnel on seperate contracts. If KLM were to fly A320s, then the AF crew will go on strike until both AF and KLM get paid the same. Otherwise that might set a presedent that could cause issues to the unions credibility and negotiating position. And you can bet that AF personnel won’t agree to the wages and workload that are acceptable to KLM crew.
  • It creates technical knowledge on pretty much every airframe available. That might be very usefull for KL/AF engineering and maintenance. Remember, hey do a lot of work for third parties.
  • It does not put all your eggs in one basket. In case one OEM is unable to deliver in a timely manner (insert MAX cough here)

The individual subfleets will be large enough to be sustainable. It’s not like they have subfleeets in the single digits (except perhaps the A380). KLM always said that in their eyes any subfleet of 14 or so can be operated profitably.


Absolutely correct...diversity could be a benefit!!

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:00 pm
by SteelChair
WayexTDI wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:

FWIW, AF Industries thinks there are not enough A220s sold yet to make money with it in offering heavy maintenance services to third parties.

What would be the business case to offer such services for the E2 then? ;-)

From the article:

"Même si chez Air France Industrie, on n'est pas très chaud pour l'A220 en raison du nombre de clients de cet avion (plus de 600), beaucoup plus limité évidemment que celui de l'A320 NEO (plus de 6.000)."


Imho this is a classic example of whats wrong with AF. An airline shouldn't buy airplanes based upon MRO business. The MRO should support the operational needs of the airline imho. MRO shouldn't drive the bus, they should adjust their business plan to the airline.

Go tell that to DL; aircraft/engine purchase and MRO activity is intertwined, look at what happened with the A350 and RR.
It's actually a very smart way of operating when you have an MRO business.


If you can bundle stuff, thats great. But the technical piece doesn't make enough profit to drive the deal. Airlines do not exist to provide MRO business. The MRO should adjust to support the needs of the airline.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:11 pm
by TObound
flyyul wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
At this point it makes more sense for AF to choose the E195-E2 iso the A220.
Commonality with KLM and HOP! and simplicity, isn't that what the CEO is looking for?

Boeing would be very aggressive on pricing too, they can use the E2 orders.

Ah but wait, a Canadian CEO, a Canadian aircraft...coincidence you think?
The CS300 having the CASM of the A321? The A321CEO maybe, but that's apples to oranges.

Where is EMBSPBR when you need him? Is it not day yet in Sao Jose dos Campos?



No it doesn't make sense to order the E190 or E195 E2. Having personally studied both airplanes and their economics, I can assure you the CS300/A223 has a CASM and a profit potential that the E2 family simply can't match. I can also tell you that the person within AF that's pushing the A220 case is not Ben, and not even a Canadian. Your comments are simply out of line.


How does the E2-195 and A221 line up in your opinion? Because that's what I think the debate is for Hop! And probably was due Cityhopper as well. And they chose the E2-195.

I agree that the 223 is a no-brainer for mainline. Massive boost over the 318. And a nice replacement for the 319.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:14 pm
by TObound
SteelChair wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

Imho this is a classic example of whats wrong with AF. An airline shouldn't buy airplanes based upon MRO business. The MRO should support the operational needs of the airline imho. MRO shouldn't drive the bus, they should adjust their business plan to the airline.

Go tell that to DL; aircraft/engine purchase and MRO activity is intertwined, look at what happened with the A350 and RR.
It's actually a very smart way of operating when you have an MRO business.


If you can bundle stuff, thats great. But the technical piece doesn't make enough profit to drive the deal. Airlines do not exist to provide MRO business. The MRO should adjust to support the needs of the airline.


Really, really depends on the numbers. You'd have to know how close the A220 and E2 are on their network to know if MRO business does our does not outweigh the difference.

We have airlines that don't have an MRO business and put in large orders for the A220/CSeries. Air Baltic and JetBlue come to mind. So I doubt the difference from the E2 is substantial at all.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:15 pm
by WayexTDI
SteelChair wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

Imho this is a classic example of whats wrong with AF. An airline shouldn't buy airplanes based upon MRO business. The MRO should support the operational needs of the airline imho. MRO shouldn't drive the bus, they should adjust their business plan to the airline.

Go tell that to DL; aircraft/engine purchase and MRO activity is intertwined, look at what happened with the A350 and RR.
It's actually a very smart way of operating when you have an MRO business.


If you can bundle stuff, thats great. But the technical piece doesn't make enough profit to drive the deal. Airlines do not exist to provide MRO business. The MRO should adjust to support the needs of the airline.

AF/KLM has a sizeable MRO operation; obviously, the group has studied the overall package and decided it might not be worth the investment.
As an armchair CEO, I think they are wrong and it's a shame; but they know better than I do.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:19 pm
by SteelChair
TObound wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Go tell that to DL; aircraft/engine purchase and MRO activity is intertwined, look at what happened with the A350 and RR.
It's actually a very smart way of operating when you have an MRO business.


If you can bundle stuff, thats great. But the technical piece doesn't make enough profit to drive the deal. Airlines do not exist to provide MRO business. The MRO should adjust to support the needs of the airline.


Really, really depends on the numbers. You'd have to know how close the A220 and E2 are on their network to know if MRO business does our does not outweigh the difference.

We have airlines that don't have an MRO business and put in large orders for the A220/CSeries. Air Baltic and JetBlue come to mind. So I doubt the difference from the E2 is substantial at all.


What is the definition of an airline?

1) a business that carries passengers for money.
2) a maintenance and repair organizatuon.

I think its number 1. They buy (and maintain) airplanes soley to carry people (and a little cargo). They don't carry people so that they can work on airplanes.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:34 pm
by WayexTDI
SteelChair wrote:
TObound wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

If you can bundle stuff, thats great. But the technical piece doesn't make enough profit to drive the deal. Airlines do not exist to provide MRO business. The MRO should adjust to support the needs of the airline.


Really, really depends on the numbers. You'd have to know how close the A220 and E2 are on their network to know if MRO business does our does not outweigh the difference.

We have airlines that don't have an MRO business and put in large orders for the A220/CSeries. Air Baltic and JetBlue come to mind. So I doubt the difference from the E2 is substantial at all.


What is the definition of an airline?

1) a business that carries passengers for money.
2) a maintenance and repair organizatuon.

I think its number 1. They buy (and maintain) airplanes soley to carry people (and a little cargo). They don't carry people so that they can work on airplanes.

Why can't it be both? Very successful carriers (regardless whether they are airlines, bus or trucking companies) with a fleet big enough do their own maintenance. There must be a reason: better cost control, better schedule control, and side activity with smaller companies.

Being a people/cargo carrier and being an MRO do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:54 pm
by Jetty
MrBren wrote:
mig17 wrote:
CDG is not LHR.


Well from January to June 2019:
- LHR 38,750,839 (+1.8%)
- CDG 36,339,412 (+7.1%)

It's still not LHR.

- LHR: 213 destinations
- CDG: 321 destinations

That average destination from LHR has ~50% more passengers.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:03 pm
by inkjet7
SteelChair wrote:

1) a business that carries passengers for money.
2) a maintenance and repair organisation.


Suppose an airline operates a number planes of a certain type and it costs them x per plane to maintain them. Then they find if they also maintain several of the same type for other airlines it only costs them 90% of x per plane. They may decide that's an attractive proposition.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:02 pm
by lightsaber
inkjet7 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

1) a business that carries passengers for money.
2) a maintenance and repair organisation.


Suppose an airline operates a number planes of a certain type and it costs them x per plane to maintain them. Then they find if they also maintain several of the same type for other airlines it only costs them 90% of x per plane. They may decide that's an attractive proposition.

AF, LH, DL and others maintain aircraft and engines for profit.

For an airline, maintaining more aircraft (or engines) cuts the maintenance cost per aircraft. Commonality pays. For example, spare parts in batches of 25 cost a third as much per unit compared to buying qty 1. Maintaining more aircraft or engines allows buying equipment to more efficiently work on the item.

For example, Pratt has gone to moving assembly lines that cut assembly labor per engine. Even for overhauls. Only with enough overhauls does economy of scale kick in.

The A380 has no scale.

Pratt has been agresive offering MRO opportunities. Too many for quantity of engines in service: LH (group), DL, and I assume AF.

I'm sure I missed one or two.

Pratt and MTU also have shops

Lightsaber

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:17 pm
by frmrCapCadet
Having an airline also involves

selling tickets reservations
handling boarding and deboarding
handling luggage and cargo
customer service
handling human resources
pilot training and policies
route planning
maintenance
airplane leasing and purchasing
advertising
recovery after bad weather or such
fuel purchasing/hedging
ice removal
innumerable things I have forgotten

No airline does all of the above single handed (except for small airlines), but all of them have to manage all of the above.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:20 am
by TObound
SteelChair wrote:
TObound wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

If you can bundle stuff, thats great. But the technical piece doesn't make enough profit to drive the deal. Airlines do not exist to provide MRO business. The MRO should adjust to support the needs of the airline.


Really, really depends on the numbers. You'd have to know how close the A220 and E2 are on their network to know if MRO business does our does not outweigh the difference.

We have airlines that don't have an MRO business and put in large orders for the A220/CSeries. Air Baltic and JetBlue come to mind. So I doubt the difference from the E2 is substantial at all.


What is the definition of an airline?

1) a business that carries passengers for money.
2) a maintenance and repair organizatuon.

I think its number 1. They buy (and maintain) airplanes soley to carry people (and a little cargo). They don't carry people so that they can work on airplanes.


Your first mistake is assuming that businesses care about definitions and not profits. Your second mistake is assuming that the parent company (AFKL) only cares about its airlines and not its other lines of revenue.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:33 am
by VV
SteelChair wrote:
VV wrote:
Antarius wrote:

Is there any indication of it?


No, but I have just realized that the new management at AFR/KLM came from Air Canada. These guys are the same who sealed the deal for C Series back then.

I think this is what I would call the "Canadian connection".

In addition, Delta is Air France's partner, ost probably AFR people already contacted DAL to get some information.


I have wondered why airlines within alliances haven't pooled their resources for making larger airplane orders and getting better deals from all suppliers, not just airframers. Buying similar airplanes with similar interiors would also provide a more common product across the alliance, "a more seamless experience."


Or maybe they are using their alliance differently, by putting suppliers in head-to-head competition and obtain the best deal possible from all aspects including services.

It is then reasonable to have multiple sources, after all their combined fleet is big enough to have several suppliers.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:38 am
by speedbird52
You know, if France REALLY cared about the environment they would be punishing airlines by forcing them to have less flights rather than consumers by forcing us to pay more.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:53 am
by LAX772LR
kimimm19 wrote:
You say all this, but you haven't produced any facts yourself.

Oh, but I have. The fact that you, nor anyone else here, has the numbers to make the claims that you're making. That's a fact. Why do you not understand something so basic?


kimimm19 wrote:
as you are a self-proclaimed expert.

Copy-paste the post where I've claimed to be an "expert" in anything. I'll wait.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:37 am
by chiad
speedbird52 wrote:
You know, if France REALLY cared about the environment they would be punishing airlines by forcing them to have less flights rather than consumers by forcing us to pay more.


This is so spot on.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:01 am
by Jomar777
TWA772LR wrote:
Big blow to Embraer, IMO; with AF being an existing Emb customer.

I agree that A330neo or 787 is too small for the A380. AF loves the 77W so maybe they'll come around and sniff around Boeing for the 779.


Not at all! Not even losing the HOP order would be because Cityhopper is already a future E2 customer. AF ordering other than an Airbus Product here would be a surprise given they are replacing A318s, 319s and older 320s. The (mild) surprise would be they ordering A320Neos instead of the A220. In the past Airbus could not offer an aircraft on the bracket where the A220 sit in but it can now.
I feel HOP might go the same way when replacing their E-Jets and Embraer will continue supplying KLM.
As for the A380s, if AF does not place an order for the B77x, then it is obvious it may select the A330neo. The B789 would be great but they will certainly go to KLM. It is a shame (probably for AF too) that it cannot see a case for the A35k but, if they ever manage, it is the one that will be selected.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:06 am
by Jomar777
DL747400 wrote:
VV wrote:
So KLM signed an LoI for E2 and AFR would order A220.

That's interesting.


If this comes to pass, it will be a wasted opportunity. This should have been a single large order for A220s to be shared between AF and KL, which would have helped rationalize a portion of the short/medium haul fleet and would have improved efficiency.

The fact that AF and KL seem to be going in different directions on this fleet decision is further evidence that there is no common vision when it comes to decision making within AF/KL. KL now seems to be doing pretty much whatever it wants regardless of whether it makes sense for AF. And well, AF has pretty much always been that way, so at least their are consistent.

AF/KL is the merger that never was and likely never will be.


Not really.

1) KLM and AF historically operate separate fleets due to their own strategies and markets. It makes business sense;
2) Keeps AF Unions at bay from striking for pay/benefits parity as well as risk that they might lose their jobs/perks in exchange for KLM package (silly but, you know... unions...);
3) The volume of their orders is high enough to warrant efficient fleet management and profitability;
4) Airbus would not be able to shift so many A220s in time to meet their demands;
5) Why on earth would KLM ditch a great plane for them only to go with Air France?

Or...maybe we could argue that it would be a wasted opportunity for for both KL and AF to order the E2 instead although we know that this aircraft is not marketed as an A320/A319 replacement?

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:10 am
by Jomar777
jghealey wrote:
VV wrote:
Do you think there has been a kind of interference of the French government?

Why would there be? A220 is Canadian made after all.


Actualy ighealey makes a serious good point and it is one more reason why the A220 will probably get it and also why the A330 is being considered as a A380 replacement (probably on the back of a major fleet shift to see their existing B77Ws going that way and the A330s replacing them (B77Ws) on other routes).

Remember - the A220 is no longer Canadian - it is an Airbus Product (you may argue about the JV but, if Airbus can shift those birds well enough, BBD will see this one gone very quickly - in fatc I think that this will happen in 2020).

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:30 am
by Jomar777
Pellegrine wrote:
These people proposing A220s and A321XLRs for African destinations are totally forgetting about why widebodies rule these routes...cargo.


High volumes of cargo and containerization.

But hey! They might argue that this may make the case stronger for an A225 (or even A227 - if I am allowed to dread...)

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:41 am
by Jomar777
flyyul wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
At this point it makes more sense for AF to choose the E195-E2 iso the A220.
Commonality with KLM and HOP! and simplicity, isn't that what the CEO is looking for?

Boeing would be very aggressive on pricing too, they can use the E2 orders.

Ah but wait, a Canadian CEO, a Canadian aircraft...coincidence you think?
The CS300 having the CASM of the A321? The A321CEO maybe, but that's apples to oranges.

Where is EMBSPBR when you need him? Is it not day yet in Sao Jose dos Campos?



No it doesn't make sense to order the E190 or E195 E2. Having personally studied both airplanes and their economics, I can assure you the CS300/A223 has a CASM and a profit potential that the E2 family simply can't match. I can also tell you that the person within AF that's pushing the A220 case is not Ben, and not even a Canadian. Your comments are simply out of line.


Not really. The Face of the "pusher" does not show the strings on his back - that's why big corporates are this way.

Having said this, I do not believe that the E2 is the right aricraft here - the proposal is to replace aircrafts which the E2 is not designed to compete in first place. Like for like (with the usual adv and disadvs) the E2 is a direct competitor to the A221 at the most. Because we are speaking of mainline orders, the A223 will have it in the bag - it has the lobby but, most of all, the business case.

For Hop too but it is much more delicate if, for any reason, their pay packages and benefits differ from the Mainline since a fleet commonality there would open a Pandora Box (if they go for it, they shold make the decision in the winter to avoid massive straikes this Summer). I still think the A223 (an dmaybe A221) would be chosen.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:50 am
by Jomar777
SteelChair wrote:
TObound wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

If you can bundle stuff, thats great. But the technical piece doesn't make enough profit to drive the deal. Airlines do not exist to provide MRO business. The MRO should adjust to support the needs of the airline.


Really, really depends on the numbers. You'd have to know how close the A220 and E2 are on their network to know if MRO business does our does not outweigh the difference.

We have airlines that don't have an MRO business and put in large orders for the A220/CSeries. Air Baltic and JetBlue come to mind. So I doubt the difference from the E2 is substantial at all.


What is the definition of an airline?

1) a business that carries passengers for money.
2) a maintenance and repair organizatuon.

I think its number 1. They buy (and maintain) airplanes soley to carry people (and a little cargo). They don't carry people so that they can work on airplanes.


Actually, you might be surprised. As already stated here, Air France, for example, fly loads of WB Aircraft to Africa because of Cargo. KLM also, to keep in the same group, had and still has a a number of B747 Combis for a reason.

Cargo is big.

Now - repair - have yoursself wondered why, with all the turmoil in Brazil, has AA decided to build up a maintenance facility at GRU?

If airlines keep on exclusively looking to move passengers from Airbus to Boeing (A to B - sorry for the pun... could not resist), they will go bankrupt very quickly on a cut throat environment we are in at the moment.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:59 am
by Jomar777
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Having an airline also involves

selling tickets reservations
handling boarding and deboarding
handling luggage and cargo
customer service
handling human resources
pilot training and policies
route planning
maintenance
airplane leasing and purchasing
advertising
recovery after bad weather or such
fuel purchasing/hedging
ice removal
innumerable things I have forgotten

No airline does all of the above single handed (except for small airlines), but all of them have to manage all of the above.


Financially, these are overheads direclty related to the main business.

Extras (what we are talking about here) are:

1) Aircraft Painting and Maintenance;
2) Ground Handling Services at AIRPORTS
3) Other ancilliaries business (concierge for premier passengers, taxi/limoisine services, mileage programs sales (not actually earning the mileage but spending them on other non-airlines benefits)
4) Cargo Services
5) etc.

1, 2 & 4 are usually done directly by airlines at a profit and there's quite a lot of profit to be had.
3 is usually outsourced when it is a small part but several airlines (mainly the ME ones) run their own services. Emirates ios so proud of theirs that, in the last Pension Congress I attended in Dubai (this last NOV2018 - next will be end of 2019) they spent about 15 minutes on the qualities and performance of that service alone (note - it was a Works & Pension Congress...)

But I get your point and you are right.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:35 am
by frigatebird
Jomar777 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Big blow to Embraer, IMO; with AF being an existing Emb customer.

I agree that A330neo or 787 is too small for the A380. AF loves the 77W so maybe they'll come around and sniff around Boeing for the 779.


Not at all! Not even losing the HOP order would be because Cityhopper is already a future E2 customer. AF ordering other than an Airbus Product here would be a surprise given they are replacing A318s, 319s and older 320s. The (mild) surprise would be they ordering A320Neos instead of the A220. In the past Airbus could not offer an aircraft on the bracket where the A220 sit in but it can now.
I feel HOP might go the same way when replacing their E-Jets and Embraer will continue supplying KLM.
As for the A380s, if AF does not place an order for the B77x, then it is obvious it may select the A330neo. The B789 would be great but they will certainly go to KLM. It is a shame (probably for AF too) that it cannot see a case for the A35k but, if they ever manage, it is the one that will be selected.


Agreed re E2 for KL and A220 for AF. Both are large enough to have their own fleets of small NB aircraft. As AF will probably shrink their NB fleet, keeping their their youngest A320ceo fleet and replacing just the older A318/A319/A321 with A220-300 and A321neo makes a lot of sense. When AF needs to replace their remaining A320s, the A220-500 may have become reality.

I think AF doesn't want to order a small batch of 777X yet to replace their A380s. Therefore I think they're looking at what they have now, A350s and 787s. I think the A35K is the best option IMO, but if Airbus really is asking too much for it, I wouldn't be surprised to AF doubling their 787 fleet from 10 to 20, quite possibly ordering 787-10s. Don't think the A330neo really is in the running, it's the same size as their current 787-9s. AF will keep the ones they have, they just exchanged 6 future deliveries with the 7 A359s originally destined for KL.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:39 am
by Jomar777
SteelChair wrote:

I have wondered why airlines within alliances haven't pooled their resources for making larger airplane orders and getting better deals from all suppliers, not just airframers. Buying similar airplanes with similar interiors would also provide a more common product across the alliance, "a more seamless experience."


Then you would have wondered why the products offered between airlines from the same group is quite different (compare Qatar Airways to BA to LATAM, for example, or United to Lufthansa...).

Why do they paint their aircrafts differently? Uniforms? Marketing?

It is because they are different airlines colaborating to each other rather than being owned solely by one person/group of shareholders/entity. They still have their independence and individuality. They might belong (or be part owned) by a country.

Even Lufthansa has kept their brands separated.

You need to see Airlines Alliances broadly like Credit Card Flags (Mastercard, VISA, Discovery, Amex...). You benefit from network, support, etc, but you are still an indiviual entity on your own.

As your Bank can occasionally change the offering on Credit Card "Flags", so Airlines can virtually leave one alliance for another. TAM (when merged to LAN did exactly that - left Star Alliance to One World - China Sourthern left Star Alliance in 2018)

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:09 am
by SteelChair
TObound wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
TObound wrote:

Really, really depends on the numbers. You'd have to know how close the A220 and E2 are on their network to know if MRO business does our does not outweigh the difference.

We have airlines that don't have an MRO business and put in large orders for the A220/CSeries. Air Baltic and JetBlue come to mind. So I doubt the difference from the E2 is substantial at all.


What is the definition of an airline?

1) a business that carries passengers for money.
2) a maintenance and repair organizatuon.

I think its number 1. They buy (and maintain) airplanes soley to carry people (and a little cargo). They don't carry people so that they can work on airplanes.


Your first mistake is assuming that businesses care about definitions and not profits. Your second mistake is assuming that the parent company (AFKL) only cares about its airlines and not its other lines of revenue.


Because AF is so profitable.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:32 am
by Waterbomber2
mig17 wrote:
Some of the places AF is able to send the A380 are also places where there is a strong competition.

If we take Singapore for instance. Singapore is an AF strong destination since the fusion with UTA. They have tried the A380 on the route and abandonned the idea because 77E and 77W worked better for them.
Singapore airline is also flying one of the less densly configured A380 on the route.
CDG is a big airport connected to the entire world but there is not enough daily demand on each route for a A380 plus competition except JFK. CDG is not LHR.


The market has and still misunderstands the A380 just as we can see from the reactions on airliners.net
When it was introduced into the fleets, it came to replace smaller aircraft which had about half the premium capacity.
The decision to double the premium capacity was irrational and probably a copy-paste move of the SQ configurations as launch operator. Singapore is a wealthy country so there such a move can be sustained but how did they expect to do that at BKK, KUL, or even CDG and LHR?

The premium configurations chosen are equivalent to A330's to B777 in an all-premium configuration. Now remind me which airlines are operating 100-seat B77W's with only F and C?
And yet this is exactly what those 500 seat A380's are.

I will show you how irrational this is:

On a given day, the demand for the route A to B has a demand for 1000 economy class seats at 300USD, but it has a demand for 1200 economy class seats at 240 USD. So, if you decrease your fares enough, you can fill your Y seats. Less unit margin, but you become an attractive option.
If economy class is fully booked, pax won't buy a seat in business class but rather change their travel dates or itinerary, or if inable to, give up on taking that trip.

On a given day, the demand for the route A to B has a demand for 100 business class seats at 1000 USD.
Decreasing the fare to 800 USD will not affect the market demand or barely, business class travel is not opportunistic.

If I were AF CEO, I would have 30 to 50 of those, configured 40C, 80W, 600Y and my low-cost LCC would be fused into my flagship.

It's shocking how incompetence is allowed to run businesses at such a high level.
It reminds me of Kaiser, the professional soccer player who couldn't play soccer.

Re: AF to order A220

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:28 pm
by DL717
kimimm19 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
The operate out of one of the largest and popular cities in the world so given their model, their largest aircraft being an a359 is ridiculous.

You don't seem to understand the nature of the question.

I'm well aware of what and how AF operates, just as I'm also aware that neither you, nor any other amateur here, have any idea what constitutes optimal capacity for them; quite simply because you don't have access to anywhere near sufficient quantities (and arguably: quality) of data, to effectively make that conclusion.

I'm not making the case that they'll justify the A359 as their highest capacity airframe, but then again, it's a plausible possibility.
To simply repeat that it's "ridiculous," based on no tangible parameters, is ...well... ridiculous.


Please illuminate all of us 'amateurs' with your wonderful expertise and massive amounts of data. We can then bow down to you since just because you may have a job in aviation, you think that entitles you to dump on 97% of people on this forum who don't and are just enthusiasts. :roll:

My main point is: if you are an airline like AF, have a monopoly at one of the largest airports and cities in the world, and your largest aircraft is the a359, you are doing something wrong.


Nope. Having a mobile asset like the A350 in a cyclical operating environment that can be heavily impacted by economic shifts is the correct choice.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:42 pm
by MIflyer12
chiad wrote:
speedbird52 wrote:
You know, if France REALLY cared about the environment they would be punishing airlines by forcing them to have less flights rather than consumers by forcing us to pay more.


This is so spot on.


Did you guys get your education in economics in the 1950s Soviet Union? Apart from chronically underserved areas (for which it can provide subsidies) the government has no reason to tell AF where and how often it should fly. Did you miss the wave(s) of deregulation of the last 40 years?

A tax which increases ticket price will decrease demand. If you haven't taken Econ 101 at the university level maybe you should.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:07 pm
by Polot
MIflyer12 wrote:
chiad wrote:
speedbird52 wrote:
You know, if France REALLY cared about the environment they would be punishing airlines by forcing them to have less flights rather than consumers by forcing us to pay more.


This is so spot on.


Did you guys get your education in economics in the 1950s Soviet Union? Apart from chronically underserved areas (for which it can provide subsidies) the government has no reason to tell AF where and how often it should fly. Did you miss the wave(s) of deregulation of the last 40 years?

A tax which increases ticket price will decrease demand. If you haven't taken Econ 101 at the university level maybe you should.

Aside from that, it is quite a leap in logic to assume that forcing airlines to have less flights= no effect on price for consumers. If you try to restrict flights in the end it is the consumer that pays, no matter who you are trying to “punish.” There is a reason flights are cheaper after deregulation. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to target aviation to reduce emissions to combat climate change sure go ahead, it is a noble cause. But you can’t have the current cheap tickets that results in people opting to fly for a quick vacation or whatever as well. You are going to have to accept more expensive flights, so people are less motivated to fly.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:55 pm
by lightsaber
MIflyer12 wrote:
chiad wrote:
speedbird52 wrote:
You know, if France REALLY cared about the environment they would be punishing airlines by forcing them to have less flights rather than consumers by forcing us to pay more.


This is so spot on.


Did you guys get your education in economics in the 1950s Soviet Union? Apart from chronically underserved areas (for which it can provide subsidies) the government has no reason to tell AF where and how often it should fly. Did you miss the wave(s) of deregulation of the last 40 years?

A tax which increases ticket price will decrease demand. If you haven't taken Econ 101 at the university level maybe you should.

Let us discuss econ 251. By making business more expensive, growth slows as it is tougher to make the business case. For example, one of my friends has outsourced software management to France. If the costs go up to much, he doesn't care where he moves that business, he just will. I've seen him move business that results in thousands of jobs gained and lost just so he can keep paying the mortgage on his home on an unusually huge plot of land for Los Angeles.

The Soviet planning destroys jobs.

AF needs to get costs in control. I believe these aircraft choices are a good step.

Lightsaber

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:37 pm
by MIflyer12
lightsaber wrote:
Let us discuss econ 251. By making business more expensive, growth slows as it is tougher to make the business case. For example, one of my friends has outsourced software management to France. If the costs go up to much, he doesn't care where he moves that business, he just will. I've seen him move business that results in thousands of jobs gained and lost just so he can keep paying the mortgage on his home on an unusually huge plot of land for Los Angeles.

The Soviet planning destroys jobs.

AF needs to get costs in control. I believe these aircraft choices are a good step.

Lightsaber


Nope, AF's cost control is not the lesson here, as the tax applies to all carriers not just AF. This is a simple revenue grab/demand management action with a thin eco veneer on the part of the French government. As for the public finance discussion (price elasticity of demand, tax rate inequities, why not tax fossil fuels directly if you want discourage their use?), a comprehensive review is too geeky for this forum.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:28 pm
by TObound
SteelChair wrote:
TObound wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

What is the definition of an airline?

1) a business that carries passengers for money.
2) a maintenance and repair organizatuon.

I think its number 1. They buy (and maintain) airplanes soley to carry people (and a little cargo). They don't carry people so that they can work on airplanes.


Your first mistake is assuming that businesses care about definitions and not profits. Your second mistake is assuming that the parent company (AFKL) only cares about its airlines and not its other lines of revenue.


Because AF is so profitable.


Could you explain how dropping profitable ancillary lines of business would help the situation?

Also, you clearly know how to run airlines. I'm sure AFKL would love the help. Have you sent them your resumé?

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:29 pm
by TObound
MIflyer12 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Let us discuss econ 251. By making business more expensive, growth slows as it is tougher to make the business case. For example, one of my friends has outsourced software management to France. If the costs go up to much, he doesn't care where he moves that business, he just will. I've seen him move business that results in thousands of jobs gained and lost just so he can keep paying the mortgage on his home on an unusually huge plot of land for Los Angeles.

The Soviet planning destroys jobs.

AF needs to get costs in control. I believe these aircraft choices are a good step.

Lightsaber


Nope, AF's cost control is not the lesson here, as the tax applies to all carriers not just AF. This is a simple revenue grab/demand management action with a thin eco veneer on the part of the French government. As for the public finance discussion (price elasticity of demand, tax rate inequities, why not tax fossil fuels directly if you want discourage their use?), a comprehensive review is too geeky for this forum.


Fossil fuels are taxed. Aviation fuels were exempted. This is evening the playing field.

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:02 pm
by lightsaber
TObound wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Let us discuss econ 251. By making business more expensive, growth slows as it is tougher to make the business case. For example, one of my friends has outsourced software management to France. If the costs go up to much, he doesn't care where he moves that business, he just will. I've seen him move business that results in thousands of jobs gained and lost just so he can keep paying the mortgage on his home on an unusually huge plot of land for Los Angeles.

The Soviet planning destroys jobs.

AF needs to get costs in control. I believe these aircraft choices are a good step.

Lightsaber


Nope, AF's cost control is not the lesson here, as the tax applies to all carriers not just AF. This is a simple revenue grab/demand management action with a thin eco veneer on the part of the French government. As for the public finance discussion (price elasticity of demand, tax rate inequities, why not tax fossil fuels directly if you want discourage their use?), a comprehensive review is too geeky for this forum.


Fossil fuels are taxed. Aviation fuels were exempted. This is evening the playing field.

It doesn't level the field for AF. Operators flying in will tanker in fuel if economical.

As to taxing fossil fuels, every nation will argue they set their rates. Low tax nation's will have a huge advantage.

Look at India and their 30% tax (collected by the states who will not give up the revenue). I believe a bit part of the rise of the ME3 is not considering the effects of those taxes.

Lightsaber

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:36 am
by VV
If the news is correct then Air France would take A321neo and A220-300 instead of A321neo, A320neo and A319neo. What happens to the "family concept"?

We can then legitimately ask the question on the fate of the A319neo, although we know the A319neo with CFM Leap-1A engines already obtained its type certificate and the A319neo with PW1100G-JM engines is currently in flight test.

Would other airlines follow Air France's example?

Re: AF to order A220, replace A380 with 787 or A350?

Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:33 am
by keesje
VV wrote:
If the news is correct then Air France would take A321neo and A220-300 instead of A321neo, A320neo and A319neo. What happens to the "family concept"?

We can then legitimately ask the question on the fate of the A319neo, although we know the A319neo with CFM Leap-1A engines already obtained its type certificate and the A319neo with PW1100G-JM engines is currently in flight test.

Would other airlines follow Air France's example?


I guess it depends on the specific airline. If you have a large A320, A321 fleet and the need for lower capacity flights is relatively small, it could make sense to standardize on the A320 family. If, like AF, there is a substantial requirement and a large A318, A319, 737-700 fleet to be replaced, the more efficient A220-300 might be a better idea. Especially if there a is requirement around 100-120 seats too. I see few airlines using AKH's on their A319s, so that wouldn't be a big factor.

Image

If there's no / only a few customers for the A319NEO, Airbus might indeed review if it is worth taking into production. The ACJ319 has also been slow (3). Like on the A350-800, they might try to move A319 customers over to either A320 or A220-300 and accept if 1 or 2 cancel. Avianca is the biggest customer, 22. 33 airframes are undiclosed. But that's it, after 8 yrs of sales, less than 1% of the NEO backlog..

The OEW for the A319 is 42.6 t (93,900 lb). For the A220-300 OEW is 37,1t ( 81,750 lb). Flying around 5t for 80k hrs on 50 aircraft is a huge amount of fuel / costs compensation a lot of de-standardization.