A220 vs E-195E2, market battle already won by Airbus ?

Amiga500 · Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:45 pm

VV wrote:
No, I did not give any argument at all for "my case". Seriously, it is not at all my case.
Just think about it as I suggested. You are good enough to find out what I meant.

As expected, no argument.

You have no argument because there is no argument. I have to confess I'm getting a bit fed up with your "I used to work in Montreal* and therefore know stuff don't question me" attitude, particularly when it appears you don't know an awful lot when put to the test.

If the two conditions I outlined above line up, there is not reason Airbus will not launch a CS500. Furthermore, it would take a helluva lot of pressure off the ramp of the A320 replacement whenever that comes down the line.

*the opinion of many here in Belfast wouldn't hold Montreal** in particularly high regard - so for me personally - nailing your colours to that mast isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of your competence.

**although some are exceptionally good - they are surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.

TObound · Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:56 pm

So much focus on operating costs (COC/DOC), as though this is all airlines care about.

Let's just ignore:

-revenue potential (seat differentials)
-operational fit (223 could replace 319/73G at 1:1 or replace 320/738 on your schedule at ~1.25:1)
-scope relief (especially with the 221)
-growth potential (120 pdews will always stay the same for a given route over the life of the aircraft right?)

Ignore these among many factors and you will be puzzled why the 221 is outselling the E2. From the perspective of many a mainline carrier, I can't see why the E2 would be preferred over the 221, even with the small (if it exists) operating cost advantage.

The E2 will sell. Especially now that wait times for the 220 is starting to really run up. Won't reach parity with the 220 though. And that's because regional jets don't normally outsell mainline jets.

tphuang · Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:14 pm

VV wrote:
tphuang wrote:
lol, C series has great CASM and per trip cost according to an actual airline that will operate it, total cost said to be 30% lower than E90 (so E90 cost is 40% higher than A220-300). And you keep repeating embraer managements line that it's cost are not superior to E2

Well, again I repeat that deep in me I wish it was the case, but it simply is not realistic.

The main advantage of the C Series is not it's cost on per seat or per trip basis, but it's payload-range capability.
This payload-range capability is exactly the reason why on a benchmark route of 500-800 nmi it's costs are not better than E195-E2.

That's life.

A simple stretch of the CS300 would have excellent per seat cost. It's max range would be around 2400-2500 nmi. This version would be the right size for the C Series.

So an airline whose future depends on this aircraft and did full evaluation of it's economics knows less than you. That's quite amazing.

TObound · Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:27 pm

tphuang wrote:
VV wrote:
tphuang wrote:
lol, C series has great CASM and per trip cost according to an actual airline that will operate it, total cost said to be 30% lower than E90 (so E90 cost is 40% higher than A220-300). And you keep repeating embraer managements line that it's cost are not superior to E2

Well, again I repeat that deep in me I wish it was the case, but it simply is not realistic.

The main advantage of the C Series is not it's cost on per seat or per trip basis, but it's payload-range capability.
This payload-range capability is exactly the reason why on a benchmark route of 500-800 nmi it's costs are not better than E195-E2.

That's life.

A simple stretch of the CS300 would have excellent per seat cost. It's max range would be around 2400-2500 nmi. This version would be the right size for the C Series.

So an airline whose future depends on this aircraft and did full evaluation of it's economics knows less than you. That's quite amazing.

You're seeing the difference of opinion between someone who worked at an OEM and the fleet planners who have to convert airplanes into profits, for a living. Engineers spend a good chunk of their time (at least beyond the conceptual stage of aircraft design) focusing on making an airplane more efficient. Ergo, it's very challenging to think from a profit perspective, consider opportunity costs, etc. It's just not a natural perspective. And honestly, probably for the better that engineers think more about safety and efficiency than business cases.....

Also, VV just seems bitter about his time at BBD. I think it colours his perception to the point that he can't seem to properly account for the fact that Airbus is running the show now. With each passing day, the A220 becomes more of what Airbus envisions the family should be. Think of it from that perspective, and the picture looks very different.

ExMilitaryEng · Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:32 pm

VV wrote:
I believe they should do something about the C Series landing performance.
Just saying.

That would remove one obstacle to get the A223 LCY certified.

And that would allow LCY bound A221s to carry its full passenger load - even when LCY is wet...

TObound · Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:40 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
VV wrote:
I believe they should do something about the C Series landing performance.
Just saying.

That would remove one obstacle to get the A223 LCY certified.

And that would allow LCY bound A221s to carry its full passenger load - even when LCY is wet...

Sure. But that's a ridiculously niche case. What's the business case for spending on that, over all the other things Airbus has to do to get this program profitable and selling more (realistically their current order book is closer to 450 than the ~525 on paper)? Beyond a handful of airlines flying 220s into LCY, where else is landing performance such an issues that sales are hurting?

It's probably on the list for Airbus to address. But probably not close to even top 10 for them I imagine.....

ExMilitaryEng · Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:59 pm

I agree with the probable lack of demand for A223 at LCY; it was more of a technical observation. (And there is not enough parking space anyways).

It's more of a concern for LCY bound A221s though. If LCY is expected to be wet, LX has to lower the load (about 15 passengers less??) before heading to LCY.

lightsaber · Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:27 am

I totally forgot TAP is placing an order soon replacing 13 E1:

https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/tap-ta ... embraer-e2

I'd bet on the E2 sweeping this order, 100% E2-195 (zero E2-190, read the link on how TAP wants larger aircraft but is allied with Azul). Also, first delivery in 2021 favors Embraer.

Lightsaber

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:53 am

Babyshark wrote:
VV wrote:
...

So why would you carry more weight when you do not need the range capability?

Because there was a focus on American carriers buying them for long thin routes?

Honest guess.

Problem is long thin routes require big fat gates at the hubs and those are at a premium. And even if you wanted to do it, it was cheaper to use a E175 or CRJ900.

This is the fantasy of so many people. It won't be long before those routes would need bigger airplanes or the routes would be closed because they are not profitable.

There are very few "thin long" routes that are profitable. The adjectives long, thin and profitable do not usually go together.

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:19 am

TObound wrote:
...
Also, VV just seems bitter about his time at BBD. I think it colours his perception to the point that he can't seem to properly account for the fact that Airbus is running the show now. With each passing day, the A220 becomes more of what Airbus envisions the family should be. Think of it from that perspective, and the picture looks very different.

You can think as you like but the physics is what it is.

Obviously there are a lot of things in aircraft sales beyond cost on per trip and cost per seat. There are people behind with their personal interests and there are financial arrangements for the purchase and so on.
There are other factors like political stuff, for example about aircraft maintenance lawsuit in Canada.
https://business.financialpost.com/tran ... snt-passed

The reality is that there are not so many routes that require 130-150 seats that are longer than 1500 nm. The extra capability in term of payload range is just extra weight to carry for each and every flight.

I still believe people are underestimating the E190-E2 and E195-E2 too much.

Let us never forget the E2 was launched only in 2013 whereas the C Series was launched in 2008.

100-140 seater market is a difficult one. Some people also called it a "no man's land" for a reason.
Let us put it this way, since its (second) launch in 2008 or ELEVEN years ago the total orders for the C Series is about 500 units. On average, it is not event 50 orders per year since eleven years.

Airbus has an infinitely better marketing and sales organization than Bombardier had or has, but nothing will change the reality of the demand or the market.

It is also out of question to continue selling aircraft at depressed value.
Obviously, we need to be patient before we know how things will evolve, but my opinion is already set.

So far, I do not see any trend 100-150 seater market is growing fast.

TObound · Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:24 am

lightsaber wrote:
I totally forgot TAP is placing an order soon replacing 13 E1:

https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/tap-ta ... embraer-e2

I'd bet on the E2 sweeping this order, 100% E2-195 (zero E2-190, read the link on how TAP wants larger aircraft but is allied with Azul). Also, first delivery in 2021 favors Embraer.

Lightsaber

I'll take the bet on TAP. Entirely because of David Neeleman. Also, Mirabel may have delivery slots available in 2021.

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:28 am

tphuang wrote:
....
So an airline whose future depends on this aircraft and did full evaluation of it's economics knows less than you. That's quite amazing.

Yes, it is amazing and yet it is true.

I would even add that it is possible some airlines will have to adjust their decision.

For instance I would expect Delta to convert even more CS100 into CS300.
At one point they might not even exercise the options because the "thin long" routes become fatter thus needing A320 sized aircraft or have to be closed because some are not profitable.

It is not about the aircraft but about the demand.

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:41 am

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
VV wrote:
I believe they should do something about the C Series landing performance.
Just saying.

That would remove one obstacle to get the A223 LCY certified.

And that would allow LCY bound A221s to carry its full passenger load - even when LCY is wet...

Oh my. Please forget CS300 at LCY.

The obsession on LCY in BBD's personel's mind drove me nut back then in Montreal and now people are still obsessed by it.
No CS300 at LCY that's it that's all.

tphuang · Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:33 am

VV wrote:
tphuang wrote:
....
So an airline whose future depends on this aircraft and did full evaluation of it's economics knows less than you. That's quite amazing.

Yes, it is amazing and yet it is true.

I would even add that it is possible some airlines will have to adjust their decision.

For instance I would expect Delta to convert even more CS100 into CS300.
At one point they might not even exercise the options because the "thin long" routes become fatter thus needing A320 sized aircraft or have to be closed because some are not profitable.

It is not about the aircraft but about the demand.

Yet JetBlue has already converted 10 of the A220-300 to firm orders before it has even received an aircraft and have converted all of its A320NEO orders to A321NEOs.

If E2 actually has better CASM than A220-300, B6 would have to be run by the dumbest management alive, because E2-195 has fewer seat to fill and would require lower startup and conversion cost from B6.

Maybe Delta is also run by a bunch of morons, because it has added to its A220 order book.

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:00 am

tphuang wrote:
VV wrote:
tphuang wrote:
....
So an airline whose future depends on this aircraft and did full evaluation of it's economics knows less than you. That's quite amazing.

Yes, it is amazing and yet it is true.

I would even add that it is possible some airlines will have to adjust their decision.

For instance I would expect Delta to convert even more CS100 into CS300.
At one point they might not even exercise the options because the "thin long" routes become fatter thus needing A320 sized aircraft or have to be closed because some are not profitable.

It is not about the aircraft but about the demand.

Yet JetBlue has already converted 10 of the A220-300 to firm orders before it has even received an aircraft and have converted all of its A320NEO orders to A321NEOs.

If E2 actually has better CASM than A220-300, B6 would have to be run by the dumbest management alive, because E2-195 has fewer seat to fill and would require lower startup and conversion cost from B6.

Maybe Delta is also run by a bunch of morons, because it has added to its A220 order book.

Maybe so.

The fact is that we do not know what exactly the terms and conditions of the purchase agreement.

Despite all, the theoretical COC and DOC of the E195-E2 are better than the C Series on per trip and per seat basis.

Obviously the ownership cost can tweak the DOC in real life.

I repeat, too many people underestimate the E2 too much.

Babyshark · Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:55 am

I think the U.S. market was very clear, it wanted a very efficient E175 or E190s operated at the regional level and not mainline. What the market was given was a E175 E2, E190s and 220s they have to operate at mainline. The market responded with a very low order book and adding range to the 220 did nothing to entice them.

Except Delta, the legacy carriers are content with outsourced E175s and larger and lower overhead 737/320s with greater total prasm. Long thin routes are not a thing, BBD made a mistake there.

As for Delta, they made a bad bet on MD90s and saying no to the GTF engines before the NEO order book went ballistic. But they’re making a bet now that they can get a higher prasm by bringing regional flying back in. That's their bet but using the 220 with 320 crew costs and lower reliability means it is squeezed hard here between outsourced E175s and larger prasm 319/320/88s. The 223 will help but it brings engine issues.

The 225 is the solution but only for those who wish the A220 was still called a CSeries. It’s not a solution for anyone especially Airbus who saw an opportunity to take control of a competitor product before someone else did, profit a bit and then probably choke off the program without ever hurting the 320s profits.

Jomar777 · Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:07 am

Overall, the E2 is still on a good place. It did not break Embraer like the C-Series/A220 broke BBD. Given that JetBlue's order was a loss making one and the Delta order was extremelly under priced, we potentially ended up with two massive A220 orders which did not accrue much profit (if any). I am happy to be corrected here.
This means that, even though the E2 is selling less so far, it is not a loss making project.
Added to the fact that a significant number of A220 orders - except the LH Group and Air Baltic ones, for example - were pos-Airbus acquisition, you can consider clearly that Airbus - quite rightly so - is throwing their weight behind the program heavily which Boeing cannot do since it has a much bigger fish to fry (namely the MAX issues).
I believe that, once the MAX issues are cleared out and Boeing can concentrate on the E2, it will sell more.
As many stated, the one issue Embraer got it wrong was with the E2-175 which, in its present weight and configuration, went out of scope in US making Embraer having to still produce and sell the E175 (not the E2) and become vulnerable to whoever other players in the market throw at them.

Amiga500 · Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:20 am

TObound wrote:
Also, VV just seems bitter about his time at BBD.

Don't overegg the pudding.

I don't believe VV did much technical work in Montreal.

Sweeping the corridors would technically make someone ex-BBD Montreal. Doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

[and Montreal had more than its fair share of people who weren't sweeping the floors and still didn't know what they were talking about!]

Babyshark · Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:23 am

Amiga500 wrote:
TObound wrote:
Also, VV just seems bitter about his time at BBD.

Don't overegg the pudding.

I don't believe VV did much technical work in Montreal.

Sweeping the corridors would technically make someone ex-BBD Montreal. Doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

Given what I see with our 220s, I don't think a whole lot of people did much technical work in Montreal.

Amiga500 · Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:32 am

Babyshark wrote:
Given what I see with our 220s, I don't think a whole lot of people did much technical work in Montreal.

That'd be the opinion of many other folks in Belfast too.

Babyshark · Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:39 am

If you're really into fuel burns, here's how it's really viewed...

If one of our routes needs 200 seats from 5am to noon, most all of it on the first flight, the answer is not 2 A221s with 100 seats because it has lower fuel burns. But rather it's a single 30-year-old A320 with 157 seats at 6am. The fuel burn per ASM for the 320 and 221 is the same, but the 320 vs 2 221s means way lower fuel. Way lower CASM. Fewer seats means higher premium and PRASM. More margin.

Against a 223? Now you're probably losing margin.

But what if it's only a 100 seat or 130 seat market? Is their a high yield? 320. Lower? 223 or 221. Very low? RJ it out and get the PRASM back up. The key for the 223 here is getting control of the product and hopefully keeping the PRASM up.

Babyshark · Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:46 am

I do enjoy VVs posts. I learn a lot.

For 220 fans, imho, rip out the cockpit and go 100% Airbus... things could get interesting then with a common type. It would be more important than a A225.

Amiga500 · Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:50 am

Babyshark wrote:
If one of our routes needs 200 seats from 5am to noon, most all of it on the first flight, the answer is not 2 A221s with 100 seats because it has lower fuel burns. But rather it's a single 30-year-old A320 with 157 seats at 6am. The fuel burn per ASM for the 320 and 221 is the same, but the 320 vs 2 221s means way lower fuel. Way lower CASM. Fewer seats means higher premium and PRASM. More margin.

Against a 223? Now you're probably losing margin.

AirBaltic & Swiss has the CS300 at 145 seats, I'd assume Delta would go with something similar?

I'd also assume that Delta have run the numbers on yield and are happy to go with the CSeries based on that. Otherwise they would have ordered A320.

juliuswong · Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:56 am

Hi all, the moderators have received some feedback regarding this thread. This thread will be temporarily locked and re-open for further comment once clean up is done. Thank you.

TObound · Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:51 pm

VV wrote:
tphuang wrote:
....
So an airline whose future depends on this aircraft and did full evaluation of it's economics knows less than you. That's quite amazing.

Yes, it is amazing and yet it is true.

I would even add that it is possible some airlines will have to adjust their decision.

For instance I would expect Delta to convert even more CS100 into CS300.
At one point they might not even exercise the options because the "thin long" routes become fatter thus needing A320 sized aircraft or have to be closed because some are not profitable.

It is not about the aircraft but about the demand.

Are we talking about the same Delta Airlines that actually added more CS100s over their initial order?

TObound · Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:04 pm

Babyshark wrote:
I think the U.S. market was very clear, it wanted a very efficient E175 or E190s operated at the regional level and not mainline. What the market was given was a E175 E2, E190s and 220s they have to operate at mainline. The market responded with a very low order book and adding range to the 220 did nothing to entice them.

Except Delta, the legacy carriers are content with outsourced E175s and larger and lower overhead 737/320s with greater total prasm. Long thin routes are not a thing, BBD made a mistake there.

As for Delta, they made a bad bet on MD90s and saying no to the GTF engines before the NEO order book went ballistic. But they’re making a bet now that they can get a higher prasm by bringing regional flying back in. That's their bet but using the 220 with 320 crew costs and lower reliability means it is squeezed hard here between outsourced E175s and larger prasm 319/320/88s. The 223 will help but it brings engine issues.

Good analysis. I'd argue that you're ignoring the pilot shortage and collapse of regionals. And Delta's toe dipping in the 110 seater pond with the 717 and 221s is at least an attempt at addressing this.

Babyshark wrote:
For 220 fans, imho, rip out the cockpit and go 100% Airbus... things could get interesting then with a common type. It would be more important than a A225.

Cockpit commonality is vastly overrated. It's not stopped airlines from completely changing over fleets. See Air Canada, for example, going from A320s and E-Jets to 737 MAX and A220s. If you operate enough of a given type, it's far less of an issue.

And cockpit commonality doesn't make the airplane "100% airbus", at least in the manner you intend. There's still no maintenance commonality with the 320 family. I can see from bus driver point of view why you think the steering wheel should be the same on each bus you drive. But that doesn't make every bus in the fleet equivalent.

Babyshark wrote:
The 225 is the solution but only for those who wish the A220 was still called a CSeries. It’s not a solution for anyone especially Airbus who saw an opportunity to take control of a competitor product before someone else did, profit a bit and then probably choke off the program without ever hurting the 320s profits.

You seem awfully certain for someone who doesn't work at Airbus Corporate. I'm not saying they will definitely pursue a -500, but I don't see any evidence to support definitively ruling out that development either.

Jomar777 wrote:
Given that JetBlue's order was a loss making one.....

Do you have a source on this?

Babyshark wrote:
I do enjoy VVs posts. I learn a lot.

I actually do enjoy his posts a lot. And think they add some flavour. But I think he deserves to have the slant called out. You can't order you know more because you worked somewhere and then argue you have zero bias.

TObound · Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:13 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
AirBaltic & Swiss has the CS300 at 145 seats, I'd assume Delta would go with something similar?

AirBaltic = LCC
Swiss = European Carrier with Eurobusiness.

145 in a 223 is not tenable for a North American mainline. Air Canada has 137 seats in their coming 223s. I'd argue that DL will be closer to 130.

Amiga500 wrote:
I'd also assume that Delta have run the numbers on yield and are happy to go with the CSeries based on that. Otherwise they would have ordered A320.

DL got one hell of a deal from Bombardier. Recall this as the genesis of Boeing's dumping petition.

Babyshark wrote:
If you're really into fuel burns, here's how it's really viewed...

If one of our routes needs 200 seats from 5am to noon, most all of it on the first flight, the answer is not 2 A221s with 100 seats because it has lower fuel burns. But rather it's a single 30-year-old A320 with 157 seats at 6am. The fuel burn per ASM for the 320 and 221 is the same, but the 320 vs 2 221s means way lower fuel. Way lower CASM. Fewer seats means higher premium and PRASM. More margin.

Against a 223? Now you're probably losing margin.

But what if it's only a 100 seat or 130 seat market? Is their a high yield? 320. Lower? 223 or 221. Very low? RJ it out and get the PRASM back up. The key for the 223 here is getting control of the product and hopefully keeping the PRASM up.

This assumes that 157 of 200 seats want to leave at 6am. Is your airline going to fly a 50-seater RJ out for the other 43 pax?

Alternatively, you fly out a 130 seat 223 at 6am and then a 70 seat RJ a few hours later. Or if you don't need the frequency, a single 321 at 6am. I'd bet money my alternatives are more profitable. And that 30 year old 320 has to be replaced at some point....

This is where the 220 family and E2-195 shine. Allows for upgauging of some RJ rotations to small mainline. It's the equivalent of sending out a 73G or 319. Your argument is akin to saying there's no business case for anything with less than 150 seats. True for the paycheques of mainline pilots. Not true for airline's network planners.

Amiga500 · Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:30 pm

TObound wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
I'd also assume that Delta have run the numbers on yield and are happy to go with the CSeries based on that. Otherwise they would have ordered A320.

DL got one hell of a deal from Bombardier. Recall this as the genesis of Boeing's dumping petition.

Ach sure didn't the first 500 787 buyers get a helluva deal from Boeing.

Amiga500 · Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:30 pm

TObound wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
AirBaltic & Swiss has the CS300 at 145 seats, I'd assume Delta would go with something similar?

AirBaltic = LCC
Swiss = European Carrier with Eurobusiness.

145 in a 223 is not tenable for a North American mainline. Air Canada has 137 seats in their coming 223s. I'd argue that DL will be closer to 130.

Fair nuff.

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:19 pm

Babyshark wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
TObound wrote:
Also, VV just seems bitter about his time at BBD.

Don't overegg the pudding.

I don't believe VV did much technical work in Montreal.

Sweeping the corridors would technically make someone ex-BBD Montreal. Doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

Given what I see with our 220s, I don't think a whole lot of people did much technical work in Montreal.

Well, if only you know how hard it was to change their way of working. Unfortunately I cannot go into specifics, but yes, I understand your pain.

JayinKitsap · Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:29 pm

VV wrote:
Babyshark wrote:
VV wrote:
...

So why would you carry more weight when you do not need the range capability?

Because there was a focus on American carriers buying them for long thin routes?

Honest guess.

Problem is long thin routes require big fat gates at the hubs and those are at a premium. And even if you wanted to do it, it was cheaper to use a E175 or CRJ900.

This is the fantasy of so many people. It won't be long before those routes would need bigger airplanes or the routes would be closed because they are not profitable.

There are very few "thin long" routes that are profitable. The adjectives long, thin and profitable do not usually go together.

Yes, only thin routes that can charge sufficient premium to offset the extra cost. The market will only bear a modest premium over the 1 stop routing thru a hub. Long, thin, and loss do come together often.

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:35 pm

TObound wrote:
...

And economics is what it is. A physicist commenting on economics would be out of his/her depth. This is why your experience in the CSeries program is not translating into a matching interpretation of the program's sales. Selling airplanes is not the same thing as building them. Even if the fields are related.

If only you know what I know.

TObound wrote:
VV wrote:
Obviously there are a lot of things in aircraft sales beyond cost on per trip and cost per seat. There are people behind with their personal interests and there are financial arrangements for the purchase and so on.
There are other factors like political stuff, for example about aircraft maintenance lawsuit in Canada.
https://business.financialpost.com/tran ... snt-passed

This kind of petty complaint about a sale to AC speaks to your personal bitterness over this program. If the airplane was that much of a dog, it wouldn't be flyng in JetBlue or Air France colours eventually either. Explain those orders.

What? I did not write the article issued by Financial Post about the trade between C Series order by Air Canada and the lawsuit concerning the maintenance. And it was Alain Bellemarre who said he would pull out of the deal if the lawsuit was not dropped.
Come on ....

I think the best way to it for the government is to leave Air Canada alone until some of the aircraft are delivered and then come back with the lawsuit.

TObound wrote:
VV wrote:
The reality is that there are not so many routes that require 130-150 seats that are longer than 1500 nm. The extra capability in term of payload range is just extra weight to carry for each and every flight.

Sure. But there's plenty of routes <1500nm where a carrier may want to fly 130-150 passengers at given times of day. And then turn around and send that aircraft on another trip 1500+ nm away. There could be airlines modelling RASM and thinking that they can get premiums for more overhead cabin space, etc. There are plenty of reasons for an airline to pick this particular aircraft. That you can't think of any says a lot more about you than the A220.

VV wrote:
I still believe people are underestimating the E190-E2 and E195-E2 too much.

Meh. Nobody is underestimating anything. They are going by the numbers. And for what it's worth, I've said above that I expect sales to increase.

VV wrote:
Let us never forget the E2 was launched only in 2013 whereas the C Series was launched in 2008.

Ever seen the movie, "The Rock"?

"Losers always whine about their best." as the line goes.

If you have to make excuses for your product isn't selling, that says a lot about your product.

VV wrote:
100-140 seater market is a difficult one. Some people also called it a "no man's land" for a reason.
Let us put it this way, since its (second) launch in 2008 or ELEVEN years ago the total orders for the C Series is about 500 units. On average, it is not event 50 orders per year since eleven years.

Airbus has an infinitely better marketing and sales organization than Bombardier had or has, but nothing will change the reality of the demand or the market.

It is also out of question to continue selling aircraft at depressed value.
Obviously, we need to be patient before we know how things will evolve, but my opinion is already set.

So far, I do not see any trend 100-150 seater market is growing fast.

And now we're at the sour grapes argument......

Well, You know that the C Series was launched for the second time in 2008 or eleven years ago. The total order is still around 500 after launch, including more than one year marketing and sales under Airbus.
I am afraid it reflects the reality os the market and it also applies to Embraer's aircraft.

This said, I am pretty sure Embraer (or is it Boeing Brasil) will focus on one or two big orders and focus to the deliver those orders with only one or two configurations such that the learning curve is steep enough. It is very important to freeze the configuration quickly otherwise yy can end up with multiple configurations with many different "mods" implemented.

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:40 pm

Babyshark wrote:
I do enjoy VVs posts. I learn a lot.

What posts?

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:42 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
TObound wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
I'd also assume that Delta have run the numbers on yield and are happy to go with the CSeries based on that. Otherwise they would have ordered A320.

DL got one hell of a deal from Bombardier. Recall this as the genesis of Boeing's dumping petition.

Ach sure didn't the first 500 787 buyers get a helluva deal from Boeing.

I do not think so. If they had dumped their 787, they would have got a lawsuit from the EU for dumping.

Veigar · Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:42 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
docmtl wrote:
Hi, folks

I'm wondering whether the market battle between Airbus A220 vs Boeing E-195 E2 is already won by Airbus...

A220: More than 500 units already ordered, major airlines in NA, Europe and Asia on board with this plane.

E-195E2: Just launched with Azul (Brazilian company, very close to Embraer), and a few more companies, no NA customer, no major order as yet.

With Boeing struggling to cope with the B737 Max grounding, B737 NG structural cracks, can the new Boeing Brasil stand up to the challenge and turn this commercial battle around ?

Your thoughts are most welcome

docmtl

The 737NG picklefork cracks issue seems to be under control. Perhaps in the future Boeing will design an improved part to replace the original. The real issue for Boeing is that they did not have a plane optimized for the below 160 seat market. The 737-7 does not really cut it for thin routes to and from smaller cities. The 737 started out as a 100 seat regional jet. Each generation of 737 has seen the size of the base model and size of the too model increase. Some on Airliners.net say the minimum size plane Boeing should build is in the 170 to 200 passenger. I think this is wrong headed. There are lots of small and medium size cities that can't justify 737-8 and above sized planes. I know my city needs something smaller to connect multiple flights per day on WN. Lots of people are just driving to SAT, AUS, and HOU to catch flights on WN that are are available multiple times per day from those airports but not available even if connecting through HOU.

As a destination I wouldn't bother flying to Houston due to the fact I can drive there in a little over 3 hours. The only reason I would normally fly there is if I wanted to make a connection at HOU or IAH.

Southwest could fill lots of holes in its network if they had more planes the capacity of the 737-200. Not every city can support multiple 175 seat planes per day.

Something something insert "717X" post.

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:00 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
...

Yes, only thin routes that can charge sufficient premium to offset the extra cost. The market will only bear a modest premium over the 1 stop routing thru a hub. Long, thin, and loss do come together often.

[/quote]

Yes.
SO the idea about long-thin routes with a 100-150 seater is entertaining, but it rarely goes beyond entertainment.

lightsaber · Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:15 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
VV wrote:
Babyshark wrote:

Because there was a focus on American carriers buying them for long thin routes?

Honest guess.

Problem is long thin routes require big fat gates at the hubs and those are at a premium. And even if you wanted to do it, it was cheaper to use a E175 or CRJ900.

This is the fantasy of so many people. It won't be long before those routes would need bigger airplanes or the routes would be closed because they are not profitable.

There are very few "thin long" routes that are profitable. The adjectives long, thin and profitable do not usually go together.

Yes, only thin routes that can charge sufficient premium to offset the extra cost. The market will only bear a modest premium over the 1 stop routing thru a hub. Long, thin, and loss do come together often.

I personally pay a premium to avoid hubs. Since the starr of narrowbody TCON flights, I have usually flown them as the convenience is wonderful. But there is a price premium.

The E190 didn't work out tremendously well for JetBlue as too few destinations supported the cost per seat that aircraft imposed. From what I've read, the E2-195 has the same cost per flight, but 30 more seats or a discount of 20%+ per seat. That radically changes the business case.

The A220-100/-300 also bring to the table great costs. Everything I've read about the A220-300 is the cost per passenger matches the larger A320NEO. That implies a huge number of routes to open! Now, I personally fly unserved direct TCON routes I think the A221 would be viable.

I agree there is only a modest premium for long thin. I think these aircraft reduce cost enough to be viable.

The prior generation had too high of cost versus payload. Much of that due to the CF34 engine, all that was available. Pratt offered an upgraded engine for the E190/195, they were shocked when Embraer chose the CG-34-10, a thirsty and not great maintenance cost of an engine.

Lightsaber

VV · Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:31 pm

lightsaber wrote:
...
I personally pay a premium to avoid hubs. Since the starr of narrowbody TCON flights, I have usually flown them as the convenience is wonderful. But there is a price premium.

Because you can afford it and IF (big if) the timing is convenient. Reality is that "thin" means low frequency too.

lightsaber wrote:
...
The E190 didn't work out tremendously well for JetBlue as too few destinations supported the cost per seat that aircraft imposed. From what I've read, the E2-195 has the same cost per flight, but 30 more seats or a discount of 20%+ per seat. That radically changes the business case.

The aspects of timing convenience still stands.

lightsaber wrote:
...
The A220-100/-300 also bring to the table great costs. Everything I've read about the A220-300 is the cost per passenger matches the larger A320NEO. That implies a huge number of routes to open! Now, I personally fly unserved direct TCON routes I think the A221 would be viable.

Not so true. The Us market is a very mature one. The biggest evolution in the next ten years is bigger aircraft to deal with the growth even if it is a small growth. In addition there will be some route consolidation. It is inevitable.

lightsaber wrote:
...
I agree there is only a modest premium for long thin. I think these aircraft reduce cost enough to be viable.

The prior generation had too high of cost versus payload. Much of that due to the CF34 engine, all that was available. Pratt offered an upgraded engine for the E190/195, they were shocked when Embraer chose the CG-34-10, a thirsty and not great maintenance cost of an engine.

Lightsaber

There is a reason why there are only 500 orders for the C Series eleven years after its launch. There is a reason why there are only 36 orders for the A319neo and there is a reason why there are not so many orders for the E195-E2 so far.
And finally there is a reason why the 737-7 grew by 12 seats.

I think it reflects the fact 100-150 seater market is not so big, although Embraer could potentially reach about 1000 sales for the E195-E2, if they are disciplined enough in the future to obtain only sizeable orders from a small number of airlines such that the production cost is low. At least during the first five years of production.

flyingclrs727 · Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:32 pm

Veigar wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
docmtl wrote:
Hi, folks

I'm wondering whether the market battle between Airbus A220 vs Boeing E-195 E2 is already won by Airbus...

A220: More than 500 units already ordered, major airlines in NA, Europe and Asia on board with this plane.

E-195E2: Just launched with Azul (Brazilian company, very close to Embraer), and a few more companies, no NA customer, no major order as yet.

With Boeing struggling to cope with the B737 Max grounding, B737 NG structural cracks, can the new Boeing Brasil stand up to the challenge and turn this commercial battle around ?

Your thoughts are most welcome

docmtl

The 737NG picklefork cracks issue seems to be under control. Perhaps in the future Boeing will design an improved part to replace the original. The real issue for Boeing is that they did not have a plane optimized for the below 160 seat market. The 737-7 does not really cut it for thin routes to and from smaller cities. The 737 started out as a 100 seat regional jet. Each generation of 737 has seen the size of the base model and size of the too model increase. Some on Airliners.net say the minimum size plane Boeing should build is in the 170 to 200 passenger. I think this is wrong headed. There are lots of small and medium size cities that can't justify 737-8 and above sized planes. I know my city needs something smaller to connect multiple flights per day on WN. Lots of people are just driving to SAT, AUS, and HOU to catch flights on WN that are are available multiple times per day from those airports but not available even if connecting through HOU.

As a destination I wouldn't bother flying to Houston due to the fact I can drive there in a little over 3 hours. The only reason I would normally fly there is if I wanted to make a connection at HOU or IAH.

Southwest could fill lots of holes in its network if they had more planes the capacity of the 737-200. Not every city can support multiple 175 seat planes per day.

Something something insert "717X" post.

No. The DC-9/MD-80/717 is a heavy 1960's platform. There's a reason it failed. The C Series is a modern optimized aircraft that scared Boeing into offering United a large batch of 737-700's at fire sale prices. Neither Boeing nor Airbus had anything to counter it. Airbus eventually decided to make an alliance with Bombardier to eventually take over the program and also build it in Alabama.

tphuang · Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:41 pm

lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
VV wrote:

This is the fantasy of so many people. It won't be long before those routes would need bigger airplanes or the routes would be closed because they are not profitable.

There are very few "thin long" routes that are profitable. The adjectives long, thin and profitable do not usually go together.

Yes, only thin routes that can charge sufficient premium to offset the extra cost. The market will only bear a modest premium over the 1 stop routing thru a hub. Long, thin, and loss do come together often.

I personally pay a premium to avoid hubs. Since the starr of narrowbody TCON flights, I have usually flown them as the convenience is wonderful. But there is a price premium.

The E190 didn't work out tremendously well for JetBlue as too few destinations supported the cost per seat that aircraft imposed. From what I've read, the E2-195 has the same cost per flight, but 30 more seats or a discount of 20%+ per seat. That radically changes the business case.

The A220-100/-300 also bring to the table great costs. Everything I've read about the A220-300 is the cost per passenger matches the larger A320NEO. That implies a huge number of routes to open! Now, I personally fly unserved direct TCON routes I think the A221 would be viable.

I agree there is only a modest premium for long thin. I think these aircraft reduce cost enough to be viable.

The prior generation had too high of cost versus payload. Much of that due to the CF34 engine, all that was available. Pratt offered an upgraded engine for the E190/195, they were shocked when Embraer chose the CG-34-10, a thirsty and not great maintenance cost of an engine.

Lightsaber

A220 is not for long thin routes. It's to allow replacement of some routes that use a mix of a320 and e90 right now. It would have much lower cost while retaining the same seat per departure. That's huge gain in margin.

It also allows for increasing frequency on routes currently served by a320s. E90 simply has too high costs for these midcon routes.

Also, JetBlue had horrible time with e90 availability especially for red-eye.

JayinKitsap · Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:25 pm

lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
VV wrote:

This is the fantasy of so many people. It won't be long before those routes would need bigger airplanes or the routes would be closed because they are not profitable.

There are very few "thin long" routes that are profitable. The adjectives long, thin and profitable do not usually go together.

Yes, only thin routes that can charge sufficient premium to offset the extra cost. The market will only bear a modest premium over the 1 stop routing thru a hub. Long, thin, and loss do come together often.

I personally pay a premium to avoid hubs. Since the starr of narrowbody TCON flights, I have usually flown them as the convenience is wonderful. But there is a price premium.

The E190 didn't work out tremendously well for JetBlue as too few destinations supported the cost per seat that aircraft imposed. From what I've read, the E2-195 has the same cost per flight, but 30 more seats or a discount of 20%+ per seat. That radically changes the business case.

The A220-100/-300 also bring to the table great costs. Everything I've read about the A220-300 is the cost per passenger matches the larger A320NEO. That implies a huge number of routes to open! Now, I personally fly unserved direct TCON routes I think the A221 would be viable.

I agree there is only a modest premium for long thin. I think these aircraft reduce cost enough to be viable.

The prior generation had too high of cost versus payload. Much of that due to the CF34 engine, all that was available. Pratt offered an upgraded engine for the E190/195, they were shocked when Embraer chose the CG-34-10, a thirsty and not great maintenance cost of an engine.

Lightsaber

I also am willing to pay a premium for direct, but that is easy for me as I fly from SEA, something like 100 direct destinations now. I think you do the same from BOS. But for those in Reno, Boise, Spokane sized and located cities there may be an RJ or Q400 to 3 or 4 destinations that are hubs (SEA, PDX, Salt Lake, Vegas etc), possibly a NB to one or two of those. I hit this last spring, had to fly to JAX, choices between hubbing at DEN, DFW, Dulles, or ATL. Then it is the study of what is best for total time but also possible connections etc. AS gets nearly $200 extra RT to Boston as nearly all the other alternates hit hubs.

To me 'thin' is when the plane needs to be smaller than standard with standard being a 737 or 320 series. Only when a NB is flying exceptionally long (think 757 TATL) do I think long and thin.

The US market continues to evolve to more point to point and away from hub & spoke. For smaller locations a thin plane is needed that works with 75 or so pax 1, 2, or 3 flights a day. If a NB replaces it is 150 pax each, double the supply on that city pair, adding pairs requires more planes and back to the 75 each plane. So there is a big need for new version RJ's but at the same time the RJ market is shrinking overall as more city pairs can support a 737 or 320.

The A220 is the modern mad dog. A great option for routes that run at the 100 to 130 pax demand, as it has trip costs lower than the NB. But it is a mainline plane, possibly supporting flights direct from Boston to the Bahamas, rather than hubbing into Miami.

GmvAfcs · Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:28 pm

VV wrote:

There is a reason why there are only 500 orders for the C Series eleven years after its launch. There is a reason why there are only 36 orders for the A319neo and there is a reason why there are not so many orders for the E195-E2 so far.
And finally there is a reason why the 737-7 grew by 12 seats.

I think it reflects the fact 100-150 seater market is not so big, although Embraer could potentially reach about 1000 sales for the E195-E2, if they are disciplined enough in the future to obtain only sizeable orders from a small number of airlines such that the production cost is low. At least during the first five years of production.

That’s the odd truth of this market. And for this reason, there is no way that a program in this market to cost more than US$ 2 bi and be profitable. It is a small niche. The CSeries imposed a threat due to the A225 potential. And for that, to tackle the big two, you have to have deep pockets. You will be fighting companies ten times bigger, capable of producing 60 frames a month. If you consider both, it is 120 total per month. That’s an insane number compared to Embraer and BBD sizes.

Veigar · Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:35 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Veigar wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

The 737NG picklefork cracks issue seems to be under control. Perhaps in the future Boeing will design an improved part to replace the original. The real issue for Boeing is that they did not have a plane optimized for the below 160 seat market. The 737-7 does not really cut it for thin routes to and from smaller cities. The 737 started out as a 100 seat regional jet. Each generation of 737 has seen the size of the base model and size of the too model increase. Some on Airliners.net say the minimum size plane Boeing should build is in the 170 to 200 passenger. I think this is wrong headed. There are lots of small and medium size cities that can't justify 737-8 and above sized planes. I know my city needs something smaller to connect multiple flights per day on WN. Lots of people are just driving to SAT, AUS, and HOU to catch flights on WN that are are available multiple times per day from those airports but not available even if connecting through HOU.

As a destination I wouldn't bother flying to Houston due to the fact I can drive there in a little over 3 hours. The only reason I would normally fly there is if I wanted to make a connection at HOU or IAH.

Southwest could fill lots of holes in its network if they had more planes the capacity of the 737-200. Not every city can support multiple 175 seat planes per day.

Something something insert "717X" post.

No. The DC-9/MD-80/717 is a heavy 1960's platform. There's a reason it failed. The C Series is a modern optimized aircraft that scared Boeing into offering United a large batch of 737-700's at fire sale prices. Neither Boeing nor Airbus had anything to counter it. Airbus eventually decided to make an alliance with Bombardier to eventually take over the program and also build it in Alabama.

I know, I was being sarcastic. But an aircraft that has similar seating/weight to the 717 (not the douglas t-tail design, a new one) would be good for Boeing.. which probably will never happen.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:12 pm

There is a reason why there are only 500 orders for the C Series eleven years after its launch. There is a reason why there are only 36 orders for the A319neo and there is a reason why there are not so many orders for the E195-E2 so far. And finally there is a reason why the 737-7 grew by 12 seats.

I’d tend to agree with VV here—no 100-seat design has sold well, only a thousand frames of all designs, Fokker 100, MD-95/717, RJ85, CRJ 1000, Boeing 737-500/600. It’s just not a very profitable segment—mainline costs but RJ revenue streams. Scope is only part of it.

That said, the A220 design does give a great passenger experience, gives DL a chance to replace the Mad Dogs with a modern design with great economic. No matter what, the EMB 195 feels like a regional jet—2-2 seating, small windows. And it can be used for lots of routes that can generate premiums—East Coast to the ski airports, NE to smaller Florida cities non-stop in the winter, even some Caribbean or Mexico destinations.

Delta profits are made by matching aircraft size very closely to the demand by the hour. They don’t fly a 757 unless it can be filled, they’ll use a MD or a regional. This fleet size flexibility has been key to their profits.

GF

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:16 pm

Babyshark wrote:
I do enjoy VVs posts. I learn a lot.

For 220 fans, imho, rip out the cockpit and go 100% Airbus... things could get interesting then with a common type. It would be more important than a A225.

You don’t know much about FBW design—it’s not just a few screens. In any case, commonality isn’t important.

lightsaber · Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:15 am

tphuang wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:

Yes, only thin routes that can charge sufficient premium to offset the extra cost. The market will only bear a modest premium over the 1 stop routing thru a hub. Long, thin, and loss do come together often.

I personally pay a premium to avoid hubs. Since the starr of narrowbody TCON flights, I have usually flown them as the convenience is wonderful. But there is a price premium.

The E190 didn't work out tremendously well for JetBlue as too few destinations supported the cost per seat that aircraft imposed. From what I've read, the E2-195 has the same cost per flight, but 30 more seats or a discount of 20%+ per seat. That radically changes the business case.

The A220-100/-300 also bring to the table great costs. Everything I've read about the A220-300 is the cost per passenger matches the larger A320NEO. That implies a huge number of routes to open! Now, I personally fly unserved direct TCON routes I think the A221 would be viable.

I agree there is only a modest premium for long thin. I think these aircraft reduce cost enough to be viable.

The prior generation had too high of cost versus payload. Much of that due to the CF34 engine, all that was available. Pratt offered an upgraded engine for the E190/195, they were shocked when Embraer chose the CG-34-10, a thirsty and not great maintenance cost of an engine.

Lightsaber

A220 is not for long thin routes. It's to allow replacement of some routes that use a mix of a320 and e90 right now. It would have much lower cost while retaining the same seat per departure. That's huge gain in margin.

It also allows for increasing frequency on routes currently served by a320s. E90 simply has too high costs for these midcon routes.

Also, JetBlue had horrible time with e90 availability especially for red-eye.

Which airline? JetBlue is buying more A220 than the quantity of E-190 to be replaced. Why wouldn't they fly TCON? I agree the availability will be better, that will enable more red-eyes.

DL is starting to stretch the legs of the A220 in 2020, but only a little:
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... nce-494791

AirBaltic flies long thin with a 145 seat A220-300, rix-auh, 2359nm:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=rix-auh&MS=wls&DU=nm

Considering say LAX-FLL is 2,036, that open many US or EU long thin:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lax-fll&DU=nm

Lightsaber

ghost77 · Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:50 am

Anytime I confident Aeromexico will soon anounced it's fleet renewal of E190 being the E2 again, more E190, same great plane with more range and more economic to fly!

Wait for it in December! Hopefully they go up for 60.

g77

lightsaber · Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:14 am

ghost77 wrote:
Anytime I confident Aeromexico will soon anounced it's fleet renewal of E190 being the E2 again, more E190, same great plane with more range and more economic to fly!

Wait for it in December! Hopefully they go up for 60.

g77

If AeroMexico and TAM go with the E2, that would be a great sales spike.

Lightsaber

tphuang · Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:17 am

lightsaber wrote:
tphuang wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I personally pay a premium to avoid hubs. Since the starr of narrowbody TCON flights, I have usually flown them as the convenience is wonderful. But there is a price premium.

The E190 didn't work out tremendously well for JetBlue as too few destinations supported the cost per seat that aircraft imposed. From what I've read, the E2-195 has the same cost per flight, but 30 more seats or a discount of 20%+ per seat. That radically changes the business case.

The A220-100/-300 also bring to the table great costs. Everything I've read about the A220-300 is the cost per passenger matches the larger A320NEO. That implies a huge number of routes to open! Now, I personally fly unserved direct TCON routes I think the A221 would be viable.

I agree there is only a modest premium for long thin. I think these aircraft reduce cost enough to be viable.

The prior generation had too high of cost versus payload. Much of that due to the CF34 engine, all that was available. Pratt offered an upgraded engine for the E190/195, they were shocked when Embraer chose the CG-34-10, a thirsty and not great maintenance cost of an engine.

Lightsaber

A220 is not for long thin routes. It's to allow replacement of some routes that use a mix of a320 and e90 right now. It would have much lower cost while retaining the same seat per departure. That's huge gain in margin.

It also allows for increasing frequency on routes currently served by a320s. E90 simply has too high costs for these midcon routes.

Also, JetBlue had horrible time with e90 availability especially for red-eye.

Which airline? JetBlue is buying more A220 than the quantity of E-190 to be replaced. Why wouldn't they fly TCON? I agree the availability will be better, that will enable more red-eyes.

DL is starting to stretch the legs of the A220 in 2020, but only a little:
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... nce-494791

AirBaltic flies long thin with a 145 seat A220-300, rix-auh, 2359nm:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=rix-auh&MS=wls&DU=nm

Considering say LAX-FLL is 2,036, that open many US or EU long thin:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lax-fll&DU=nm

Lightsaber

Sorry, I don't think I was too clear there. I am talking about B6 here. I wanted to dispel the notion that it's bought for long thin route. It will certainly be used for that role since it's more economical than A320 (similar CASM much fewer seats), but it should be very eonomical in midcon routes too. It's the lowest capacity aircraft to fly 1200 to 3000 mile routes relatively economically. Sure, airlines do use regional jet for routes greater than 1000 miles, but CRJ and E-Jets really get uneconomical at longer range. B6 had in the past said that it costs almost as much to fly E90 as it does with A320 on routes like BOS-AUS. Therefore, it's the best aircraft to use to increase frequency on these midcon to transcon routes (that don't have premium demand). Also, it's the only sub-150 seat aircraft an airline can run that would have competitive CASM to larger mainline aircraft operated by other airlines.

For example, DL was horribly noncompetitive cost wise with RJ on routes like LGA-DFW/IAH against AA/UA's mainline aircraft. But with A220-100, it becomes a lot more competitive while maintaining schedule without having to dramatically increase capacity.

For B6, right now it runs 2x A320 on BOS-DFW and 1xA320 on BOS-IAH against 5 to 7 daily flights by AA and UA on those routes. Having A220 could allow them to add a flight to each route to achieve a better schedule. They could add an E90 to increase capacity, but that's terribly high cost.

I'd be interested to see what happens on BOS-BNA. Right now, WN runs 4x 738, B6 runs 2x A320 + 1x E90 and DL runs 4x RJ. But DL plans to upguage 2 of the flights to A220-100 to be more competitive cost wise. I see this as a pretty early contender for B6 to switch to all A220-300. For me, it seems like B6 A220-300 would kill DL A220-100 in cost, since they would same number of pilots and same number of FAs and DL has higher pay route for both. So even if A220-100 burns 3 to 4% fuel blocks than A220-300, it seems the total cost would be about the same per trip when you account for the pilot/FA cost. That's without even accounting for legacy costs. With an extra 31 seats, same number of FAs and pilots, how does A220-100 win out against A220-300? And then if A220-500 becomes available, wouldn't it be a CASM monster?

tommy1808 · Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:29 am

VV wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
TObound wrote:

DL got one hell of a deal from Bombardier. Recall this as the genesis of Boeing's dumping petition.

Ach sure didn't the first 500 787 buyers get a helluva deal from Boeing.

I do not think so. If they had dumped their 787, they would have got a lawsuit from the EU for dumping.

Hoch much deferred production costs did the first couple of hundred 787 rake in? We know they where sold below production costs. Dumping rules are a bit more complicated that you seem to think. Not sinking a products after having sunk lots of costs because you run into expensive trouble is not considered dumping, as long as there is the reasonable assumption this is not done to unfairly compete.

Airbus had essentially the same problem with the A380, other developments may run into the same problem.

Same reason why the EU didn´t take any action on the CS Series, same reason it won´t take action if Embraer starts giving amazing discounts to get a foot in the door and boost the Program to sell on merit instead of limited sales due to market outlook. Generally dumping, or government subsidies, are not considered an issue if they increases competition.

best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net