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

JonesNL · Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:19 pm

VV wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
VV wrote:
After eleven years of marketing, there are only about 500 orders..

and yet they sold about as many A223 in 2018 alone as Embraer sold E-195E2 in 6 years....

Yes, in 2018 when Airbus needed to show off with big deals just after the partnership was announced.

It is a good thing for the C Series, but from now on the sales will be a little bit more complicated due to the fact the E195-E2 obtained its type certificate in April 2019.
I expect tougher sales campaigns from 2020 onward. In my opinion the C Series missed the opportunity to capitalize on the five year head start.

About 100 C Series have been delivered so far.
Only a few E190-E2 and E195-E2 have been delivered so far.

The numbers 500 in 11 years is not logical. They sold half of that in the last 1,5 years. By this logic i can say Airbus will sell 200 every year, which would also not be logical. It would be using factual numbers to create a skewed prospect.

Just the Air France order was 60 firm and 60 options, which would mean a serious break from the trend-line you keep using as a fact.

VV · Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:14 pm

JonesNL wrote:
VV wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

and yet they sold about as many A223 in 2018 alone as Embraer sold E-195E2 in 6 years....

Yes, in 2018 when Airbus needed to show off with big deals just after the partnership was announced.

It is a good thing for the C Series, but from now on the sales will be a little bit more complicated due to the fact the E195-E2 obtained its type certificate in April 2019.
I expect tougher sales campaigns from 2020 onward. In my opinion the C Series missed the opportunity to capitalize on the five year head start.

About 100 C Series have been delivered so far.
Only a few E190-E2 and E195-E2 have been delivered so far.

The numbers 500 in 11 years is not logical. They sold half of that in the last 1,5 years. By this logic i can say Airbus will sell 200 every year, which would also not be logical. It would be using factual numbers to create a skewed prospect.

Just the Air France order was 60 firm and 60 options, which would mean a serious break from the trend-line you keep using as a fact.

The same applies to E19x-E2.
KLM intends to order up to 35 E195-E2, but it does not mean they will continue to sell so many in the future year after year.
https://news.klm.com/klm-intends-to-pur ... 95-e2-jets

I believe Embraer prudent a^^roach will pay in the long term.

As far as the recent C Series orders, you need to factor in the fact Airbus needs to show that their role in the partnership is useful. I expect this enthusiasm will fade away slowly.

As far as Embraer is concerned, the uncertainty on the joint venture Boeing Brasil weighs into airlines' decision making process.
I think things will get better once the deal is closed.

It is very strange the European Union plays hardball on this deal. The outcome of this game is absolutely unpredictable.

tommy1808 · Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:19 pm

VV wrote:
I believe Embraer prudent a^^roach will pay in the long term.

in a 1000 Unit Market with 700 Units already sold there is no "long term".

best regards
Thomas

VV · Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:25 pm

Naincompetent wrote:
...

Thank you for your answer, though it leaves me a bit unsatisfied.
You make good points as to the relatively low production costs of the E2 due to the low development cost and the reuse of the E1 infrastructure.
However, my concern is more focus on the entire life of the aircraft after it leaves the plant and I understand that you focus more on what happens before the plane is delivered. (please tell me if I misunderstood)

When an airline evaluates future aircraft, they obviously look at the acquisition cost but also to all the maintenance, potential resale value, PIPs and so on. All of those depend a lot on the fleet size. My point being that in many cases those maintenance cost will grow to be more expansive than the original cost of the aircraft.
As we also all know, such costs tend to decrease when there are large fleets. The question is then two-fold. How many aircraft do you need to sale in this market to achieve such a scale that enables such a cost reduction? And also, what kind of commonality is there between the E2 and the E1, although such a commonality is unavoidably limited and is of no use for future PIPs ?

PS: I would be grateful if you could send me the link to your blog by MP

Yes, acquisition cost is only a part of the equation. Operating cost is also part of the equation.

There is a slight advantage on the E2 compared to the C Series. The E2 has some kind of operational similarities with its predecessor E1. There a hundreds of them flying out there. The c Series is a new aircraft without any pedigree. It is almost a stand alone product. This is one of the points that intrigues me a lot when Airbus decided to acquire a majority stake in the C Series program. Knowing the the aircraft in its intimate details and also knowing the A320neo in a much less detail, I know there are significant differences in many aspects. Saying that A320neo and A220 are in the same family would not asse the straight face test.

I guess Boeing will try hard to push E1 operators to go for E2, but this endeavor is not necessary very easy.

It has been discussed earlier that the E2's engines are basically identical to those of the A220. However, the thrust usage on the E2 is slightly lower than that of the A220, meaning that the engines run cooler on the E2 and as a consequence the maintenance cost and also the performance retention is better.

VV · Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:30 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
VV wrote:
I believe Embraer prudent a^^roach will pay in the long term.

in a 1000 Unit Market with 700 Units already sold there is no "long term".

I think I said about 3,000 addressable market for that category in the next 20 years. Where did you get your 1000 number?

I think I said it would be reasonable to think E2 to sell at least 1000 units in the next 20 years.

As previously said, from now on the A220 sales will be a little bit complicated due to the fact the competition is now ready. In addition Airbus needs to think about its investment in the A319neo.
There is clearly an overlap there.

dtremit · Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:48 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
46% of all E1 orders where 175, out of scope for the E2, and another 11% where the 170, that doesn´t exist as E2.... seems like Embraer killed a whole lot of the E1 market with the update.

Really not sure what Embraer was thinking here. If Mitsubishi can get the scope compliant MRJ to market, the E175-E2 is going to end up completely shut out of the US. I think any hope of the unions budging on scope disappear when there's a competitive, compliant aircraft available.

(The only curveball -- could Boeing sweet talk WN into a mainline E2 fleet?)

tommy1808 wrote:
On the plus side, few customers where E17x and E19x customers at the same time, so it is far from bleak, but considering ~900 Units was the total volume of E19x space sales in the last iteration with more ore less no competition in that size bracket the A220 may have already taken most of the market.

In the last generation the lack of fleet overlap between E17x and E19x didn't really matter, because the CRJ didn't have an E19x equivalent. If you wanted a (non-Russian) 100 seat jet, you bought the Embraer.

Up against the A220, it does matter -- particularly if a stretched, shorter range A220-500 hits the market. And the possibility of that was serious enough for AF to put it in their investor presentation this week.

scbriml · Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:49 pm

VV wrote:
In addition Airbus needs to think about its investment in the A319neo.

A319neo investment is already spent and only represents a small proportion of overall neo program cost. That investment has already been recouped multiple times even if Airbus never sold a single A319neo. I don't see what relevance that has to ongoing or future A220 sales campaigns.

dtremit · Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:51 pm

scbriml wrote:
A319neo investment is already spent and only represents a small proportion of overall neo program cost. That investment has already been recouped multiple times even if Airbus never sold a single A319neo. I don't see what relevance that has to ongoing or future A220 sales campaigns.

At this point Airbus would probably rather write off the cost and free up the line to deliver A321neo faster.

lightsaber · Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:12 pm

Embraer needs a Moxie or JetBlue sized order.
JetBlue is at 70 orders.
Moxie for 60

These orders boosted economy of scale that allowed contract negotiations.

AeroMexico is going to be that contentious order. Both want the economy of scale offered by another 60 sales. For Embraer, this order is critical. For Airbus, it could be a nice long term order with profit.

Our own gut feelings mean nothing. I was certain Spirit would buy E2 or A220. Cest la vie.

Both must get production over a hundred per year. While Embraerbhas E1 production to keep the lights on, that doesn't help nacelle, wing actuator, new electric subsystems, cockpit, or Embraer specific engine subsystems (anti-ice) economics of scale.

As noted, the AF order helps the A220, so does ALC. Selling must never stop.

The A220 has done much better post Airbus acquisition: Moxie, JetBlue, Air France, ALC. Hopefully Embraer will do as well post Boeing.

Between now and then TAP and AeroMexico will be decided.

Great aircraft, such as the 717, faded into obscurity because of timing, concerns about the financial health of Douglas, reputation of previous product (MD-90), and market conditions.

As noted, the just about 100 seat market is a small market. Most A220 sales are the -300. However, the -100 is still being actively sold.

Just as most E2 sales are the -195.

Both have remarkably improving in service data, except for the rash of IFSD/limit on N1 at altitude.

Both need PiPs. Airbus certainly has leverage on Pratt to make that happen and the E2 will benefit. However, the A220 dispatch reliability is more impacted by the airframe.

The E2 has done well, but not well enough in dispatch reliability. The 737NG and A320CEO set incredibly high expectations.

So we debate here, but what matters is market acceptance. It takes 300+ examples to keep the part rebuild network minimally occupied. Anything less requires buying extra spares as overhauls of components happen less than annually. Easy for Delta buying and scrapping 717s or MD-90s. Not easy or cheap for the A220/E2. More is better. e.g., the CFM-56 requires part rebuilds twice a year or whenever 800+ of a part are ready for rebuild. It costs about the same to rebuild 25 as a lesser number due to the time to order seals/bearings/soft goods.

So the debate over economy of scale is important.

Lightsaber

EMBSPBR · Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:16 pm

Skywatcher wrote:
The best way to be efficient is keeping as many people working flat out as possible with the best low cost inputs. Given the lack of volume I would suspect that EMB does not fulfill that objective at all. How much spare capacity do they have with excess staff at this point? Is it getting worse?

We do not have excess staff because the assembly line is hybrid, and produces E1 and E2, as well the Lineage 1000.
And, since as we have E1 in portfolio, we produce both models with the same workforce.
Just to remember: for E1 we still have 185 firm orders plus 326 options.
Source: https://daflwcl3bnxyt.cloudfront.net/m/ ... g-3Q19.pdf
And as for engineering, today the same team that takes care of E2, takes care too of E1, and the development of E175-E2.
And part of the staff has already been moved to new projects in defense, executive and mobility (Embraer X).

Skywatcher wrote:
thing that I feel is missing is that nobody indicated that Embraer might have the same issues (rework, relatively high parts cost, lack of optimum production volume etc).

We didn´t have any "rework" for the E2.

For the parts, the same plant in Embraer that produces for commercial line (E1 and E2), produces for defense (Super Tucano, KC-390), as well for the executive (Phenom, Legacy, Praetor, Lineage) and agricultural aviation (Ipanema line).

One thing many are unaware of here is that the current Embraer operates integrally "under one roof": from its engineering, manufacturing and administration sectors to its test pilots.

We also have the Embraer Equipment Division (ELEB), which develops and produces a diverse range of products for aviation applications, such as landing gear, hydraulic actuators, electro hydraulic valves, hydraulic reservoirs, and pylons, among others.
These products are used for both Embraer products as well for third party where the division acts as a subcontractor.

Strato2 · Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:26 pm

VV wrote:
There is a slight advantage on the E2 compared to the C Series.

Source? (And your opinion does not count as one)

Saying that A320neo and A220 are in the same family would not asse the straight face test.

I don't think anyone is making that assertion so what is your point?

It has been discussed earlier that the E2's engines are basically identical to those of the A220. However, the thrust usage on the E2 is slightly lower than that of the A220, meaning that the engines run cooler on the E2 and as a consequence the maintenance cost and also the performance retention is better.

It has been discussed on other programs that modern clean sheet designs such as the A350XWB and the 787 have lower maintenance bills compared to the older frames. The E2 at it's core is such a frame.

TObound · Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:07 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Embraer needs a Moxie or JetBlue sized order.
JetBlue is at 70 orders.
Moxie for 60

I'm a huge fan of David Neeleman, but I'd still be cautious adding Moxie to the firm column. Embraer does need more blue chip sales. Azul and KLM are good starts. But Azul, like Air Canada is a home team sale. And AFKL put in a larger order for 220s than they did E2, and will be flying those 220s at mainline. The E2 risks getting typecast as an RJ for regional carriers and not seen as a mainline bird. They need the kind of play that Embraer pulled with Air Canada when the EJets were bought for mainline operations. An order or two like that will peak lessor interest.

lightsaber wrote:
AeroMexico is going to be that contentious order. Both want the economy of scale offered by another 60 sales. For Embraer, this order is critical. For Airbus, it could be a nice long term order with profit.

No idea how hard Airbus fights, but eating profit on this sale would do some serious damage to the E2. And Airbus would get tons of lobbying assistance from DL in this case.

lightsaber wrote:
Our own gut feelings mean nothing. I was certain Spirit would buy E2 or A220. Cest la vie.

The Big Two were willing to blow billions to kill these programs. They were willing to give away airplanes. Any potential partner saw that. There is no business case in the 100-150 seat category for OEMs not named Boeing it Airbus. That's clear now. The duopoly is going to be there for a long time because airlines weren't willing to roll the dice on Bombardier and Embraer as independent companies.

lightsaber wrote:
As noted, the just about 100 seat market is a small market. Most A220 sales are the -300. However, the -100 is still being actively sold.

Whether they build it or not, I think we all know the real potential of the 220 is in the mythical 225. I can't see sales really taking off until that model comes to being. Whether Airbus can make a solid business case, to build that airplane remains to be seen. But we're only a few years away from Airbus owning the 220 program. We'll know then.

lightsaber wrote:
So we debate here, but what matters is market acceptance. It takes 300+ examples to keep the part rebuild network minimally occupied. Anything less requires buying extra spares as overhauls of components happen less than annually. Easy for Delta buying and scrapping 717s or MD-90s. Not easy or cheap for the A220/E2. More is better. e.g., the CFM-56 requires part rebuilds twice a year or whenever 800+ of a part are ready for rebuild. It costs about the same to rebuild 25 as a lesser number due to the time to order seals/bearings/soft goods.

And this is where you really see the difference between the programs. Discount the squishy orders from the 220 sales book and you can still be sure the 220 will have 300 deliveries. Possibly by the end of 2021. With the E2, no idea when that happens once you discount the SkyWest order.

I still argue they should make an E2-170 and push for scope relaxation entirely on weight. If they don't do that the M100 is going to eat their lunch. Entirely possible that US regionals also start considering turboprops too. I wouldn't entirely rule that out either.

Andy33 · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:14 pm

dtremit wrote:
scbriml wrote:
A319neo investment is already spent and only represents a small proportion of overall neo program cost. That investment has already been recouped multiple times even if Airbus never sold a single A319neo. I don't see what relevance that has to ongoing or future A220 sales campaigns.

At this point Airbus would probably rather write off the cost and free up the line to deliver A321neo faster.

That would probably be the case if A319neos were built on a separate line to A320neos, but they aren't. There are production lines for A320neo series at four locations round the world, but those at Toulouse can currently only build A319 and A320 planes, not A321s. Not surprisingly no A319neo orders (such as they are) are allocated to be built anywhere but Toulouse.

lightsaber · Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:29 pm

Folks discuss the topic, not other posters. Keep the discussion fact based, if you know something, provide a link. It is ok to have an opinion, just state it as such.

Do not mock other users, this is your warning.

I come here because the topic is interesting, not to moderate. Then again, a long time ago I was involved in A318 vs. 717 threads, we all know how well those sales went.

Both programs have made sales commitments in 2019.

Feel free to discuss PiPs, mods, and economics. But keep discussion civil.

Lightsaber

VV · Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:21 pm

scbriml wrote:
VV wrote:
In addition Airbus needs to think about its investment in the A319neo.

A319neo investment is already spent and only represents a small proportion of overall neo program cost. That investment has already been recouped multiple times even if Airbus never sold a single A319neo. I don't see what relevance that has to ongoing or future A220 sales campaigns.

Obviously it is already spent. There is no doubt about it, but wouldn't it be extremely stupid to spend several tens or hindreds million dollars for a product that is not returning anything?

But hey, they can spend their money as they like it's not mine, but if I were the head of A320 program I would make a huge blame to the commercial guys who pushed me to spend so much time and money for nothing when there are other very important things to do. After all the head of program is responsible for the P&L of the program

Before anyone protests and say that the A319neo is a "cheap" project, let me say the following.

One hour of a normal flight test costs about 100,000 to 200,000 US dollars, depending on the test it can go much higher. When you says "one hour" of flight test it includes the engineering work, the preparation, the cost of the crew and the support. Don't you dare thinking that flight test is just flying the aircraft with pilots. It is a very expensive endeavor.

Considering the number of flight test hours required for each A319neo, the numbers are in the millions.

And it does not include the hours for data analysis and the generation of documents like flight manuals and other certification reports

Don't ask me how I know it. If you do not want to believe me it is absolutely your right.

Amiga500 · Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:40 pm

VV wrote:
There is no doubt about it, but wouldn't it be extremely stupid to spend several tens or hindreds million dollars for a product that is not returning anything?

On the A319neo?

edit: Actually, there was more to the FBW changed than I thought.

There was only 1 test vehicle, which was sold on fairly quickly. But it'd still have burned through quite a few hours. Somewhere around 700-800 FH apparently[1][2].

Airbus has 3x ACJ sales to date. The margins on these are far above airlines. I'd expect they've already recovered A319 development costs on these - which were definitely not hundreds of millions.

[1]https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/12/a319neo-with-cfm-leap-1a-engines-wins-joint-type-certification-f.html
[2]https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-aiming-to-get-gtf-powered-a319neo-certificate-454633/

mke717spotter · Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:17 pm

Is it too late for Boeing to design a 717 Max?

TObound · Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:22 pm

mke717spotter wrote:
Is it too late for Boeing to design a 717 Max?

Can't see a basic re-engine being competitive with the aircraft we're talking about here. And why would Boeing do that now that they own the EJets?

EMBSPBR · Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:42 pm

TObound wrote:
It is reality that the E2 order book has some major gaps.

Which "gap" ???
The only "gap" was the 100 E175-E2 for Skywest Airlines and removed on October 2018.
All remain is sale with signed contract.

TObound wrote:
If Scope isn't resolved, the M100 could eat a chunk of their market.

First they must deliver what they promised 11 years ago ...

lightsaber · Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:44 pm

VV wrote:
scbriml wrote:
VV wrote:
In addition Airbus needs to think about its investment in the A319neo.

A319neo investment is already spent and only represents a small proportion of overall neo program cost. That investment has already been recouped multiple times even if Airbus never sold a single A319neo. I don't see what relevance that has to ongoing or future A220 sales campaigns.

Obviously it is already spent. There is no doubt about it, but wouldn't it be extremely stupid to spend several tens or hindreds million dollars for a product that is not returning anything?

But hey, they can spend their money as they like it's not mine, but if I were the head of A320 program I would make a huge blame to the commercial guys who pushed me to spend so much time and money for nothing when there are other very important things to do. After all the head of program is responsible for the P&L of the program

Before anyone protests and say that the A319neo is a "cheap" project, let me say the following.

One hour of a normal flight test costs about 100,000 to 200,000 US dollars, depending on the test it can go much higher. When you says "one hour" of flight test it includes the engineering work, the preparation, the cost of the crew and the support. Don't you dare thinking that flight test is just flying the aircraft with pilots. It is a very expensive endeavor.

Considering the number of flight test hours required for each A319neo, the numbers are in the millions.

And it does not include the hours for data analysis and the generation of documents like flight manuals and other certification reports

Don't ask me how I know it. If you do not want to believe me it is absolutely your right.

Flight testing of a shrink easily hits $100 million. If you can do an hour of flight testing as cheap as you propose, kudos! When you add in all the cost if added training and such, it is usually more.

The base flight testing of the NEO and MAX were easily over a billion usd for each program.

The current process demanded of the FAA means one has to think for months before proposing a new aircraft length.

Lightsaber

TObound · Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:59 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
TObound wrote:
It is reality that the E2 order book has some major gaps.

Which "gap" ???
The only "gap" was the 100 E175-E2 for Skywest Airlines and removed on October 2018.
All remain is sale with signed contract.

No blue chip North American or Asian carrier. No US regional without SkyWest (kinda important for a regional jet....). Heck, is there an actual launch customer for the E2-175 without SkyWest? And heck, without the ILFC buy out of Aercap, there might not even be a major lessor for this program right now.

EMBSPBR wrote:
TObound wrote:
If Scope isn't resolved, the M100 could eat a chunk of their market.

First they must deliver what they promised 11 years ago ...

Meh. Trash talk means squat. When they build that airplane (and there's no reason to think they won't succeed), they'll be the only scope compliant next-gen RJ on the market. And they have a launch customer and two US regionals onboard.

TObound · Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:01 pm

lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:
scbriml wrote:

A319neo investment is already spent and only represents a small proportion of overall neo program cost. That investment has already been recouped multiple times even if Airbus never sold a single A319neo. I don't see what relevance that has to ongoing or future A220 sales campaigns.

Obviously it is already spent. There is no doubt about it, but wouldn't it be extremely stupid to spend several tens or hindreds million dollars for a product that is not returning anything?

But hey, they can spend their money as they like it's not mine, but if I were the head of A320 program I would make a huge blame to the commercial guys who pushed me to spend so much time and money for nothing when there are other very important things to do. After all the head of program is responsible for the P&L of the program

Before anyone protests and say that the A319neo is a "cheap" project, let me say the following.

One hour of a normal flight test costs about 100,000 to 200,000 US dollars, depending on the test it can go much higher. When you says "one hour" of flight test it includes the engineering work, the preparation, the cost of the crew and the support. Don't you dare thinking that flight test is just flying the aircraft with pilots. It is a very expensive endeavor.

Considering the number of flight test hours required for each A319neo, the numbers are in the millions.

And it does not include the hours for data analysis and the generation of documents like flight manuals and other certification reports

Don't ask me how I know it. If you do not want to believe me it is absolutely your right.

Flight testing of a shrink easily hits $100 million. If you can do an hour of flight testing as cheap as you propose, kudos! When you add in all the cost if added training and such, it is usually more.

The base flight testing of the NEO and MAX were easily over a billion usd for each program.

The current process demanded of the FAA means one has to think for months before proposing a new aircraft length.

Lightsaber

The 319NEO is not really a full shrink in this case. I would bet a paycheque, they didn't spend more than $50 million on development and flight testing. A few ACJ sales and that money is easily recovered.

EMBSPBR · Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:15 pm

TObound wrote:
No blue chip North American or Asian carrier.

This became a mantra here on airliners.net ...

TObound wrote:

Meh. Trash talk means squat. When they build that airplane (and there's no reason to think they won't succeed), they'll be the only scope compliant next-gen RJ on the market. And they have a launch customer and two US regionals onboard.

Maybe trash for you ...

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ys-461678/

"First delivery of the Mitsubishi Aircraft SpaceJet M90 may be facing further delay - the program's sixth so far - according to reports in the Japanese media."

and:

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rs-461915/

"Mitsubishi Aircraft's SpaceJet program has been dealt a fresh blow after Trans States Holdings, which owns several US regional airlines, cancelled all of its orders for the aircraft."

and excerpt:

"The cancellation of orders comes as news reports suggest that the SpaceJet programme was facing a fresh round of delays."

TObound · Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:22 pm

VV wrote:

Yes, acquisition cost is only a part of the equation. Operating cost is also part of the equation.

There is a slight advantage on the E2 compared to the C Series.

Where is evidence of this? I don't think even any A220 operators have asserted this.

VV wrote:
The E2 has some kind of operational similarities with its predecessor E1. There a hundreds of them flying out there.

And yet the biggest 220 customers include two of the biggest EJet customers and the launch customer for the EJets. Commonality is highly overrated. And JetBlue's assessment of how much more efficient the larger 223 is vs. the smaller 190 is making a strong case for other 190 operators to upgauge when they replace those jets:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 20-450121/

Was a bit shocking to me on how forthcoming JetBlue was on their maths for replacing the 190 with the 220. Their assessment bears repeating. From the article:

JetBlue estimates that the A220 will lower operating costs by 29% on a per seat basis, comprising a 40% reduction in fuel costs and 22% decline in non-fuel expenses, when compared with its existing Embraer E190 fleet. On a per aircraft basis, the A220 is expected to drive incremental profit of $4-$5 million.

When the airline's transition to the A220 is complete by 2025, systemwide unit cost would benefit by a decline of 5.3% and non-fuel unit cost by over 4.5%, says Priest. Earnings per share will also improve by about 65 cents on JetBlue's current share count.

Goes back to what I said earlier. Airlines care about profits. Not just costs. Looks like the 223 was the "profit hunter" for B6. Not the E2.

VV wrote:
The c Series is a new aircraft without any pedigree. It is almost a stand alone product. This is one of the points that intrigues me a lot when Airbus decided to acquire a majority stake in the C Series program. Knowing the the aircraft in its intimate details and also knowing the A320neo in a much less detail, I know there are significant differences in many aspects. Saying that A320neo and A220 are in the same family would not asse the straight face test.

Who has asserted that they are in the same family? Both platforms are part of the Airbus family of products. But nobody has ever said that they are from the same family of aircraft. If you have a source on who has asserted this, please share.

dtremit wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
46% of all E1 orders where 175, out of scope for the E2, and another 11% where the 170, that doesn´t exist as E2.... seems like Embraer killed a whole lot of the E1 market with the update.

Really not sure what Embraer was thinking here. If Mitsubishi can get the scope compliant MRJ to market, the E175-E2 is going to end up completely shut out of the US. I think any hope of the unions budging on scope disappear when there's a competitive, compliant aircraft available.

A slight bump in seating and MTOW wasn't really that much of a risk when planning future products. It's just that nobody could have predicted the pilot shortage becoming so bad and mainline pilots being so pissed that they have zero interest in conceding any ground at all. It may yet pan out in favour of the E2-175. Right now though, the M100 is looking better every day.

dtremit wrote:
(The only curveball -- could Boeing sweet talk WN into a mainline E2 fleet?)

Southwest couldn't stand those 717s they had. They actually paid to get rid of them. What's they chance they go out of their way to buy another type?

dtremit wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
On the plus side, few customers where E17x and E19x customers at the same time, so it is far from bleak, but considering ~900 Units was the total volume of E19x space sales in the last iteration with more ore less no competition in that size bracket the A220 may have already taken most of the market.

In the last generation the lack of fleet overlap between E17x and E19x didn't really matter, because the CRJ didn't have an E19x equivalent. If you wanted a (non-Russian) 100 seat jet, you bought the Embraer.

Up against the A220, it does matter -- particularly if a stretched, shorter range A220-500 hits the market. And the possibility of that was serious enough for AF to put it in their investor presentation this week.

Not just the 220 but the SpaceJet. The E2-175 faces competition from the Spacejet, while the E2-190 and E2-195 face competition from the A220, That's what makes it tougher for them. The E2 family spans a range which attracts multiple competitors.

TObound · Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:31 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
TObound wrote:
No blue chip North American or Asian carrier.

This became a mantra here on airliners.net ...

And yet very much a relevant point. How do you think lessors assess their business case if you don't have a broad customer base?

EMBSPBR wrote:
TObound wrote:

Meh. Trash talk means squat. When they build that airplane (and there's no reason to think they won't succeed), they'll be the only scope compliant next-gen RJ on the market. And they have a launch customer and two US regionals onboard.

Maybe trash for you ...

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ys-461678/

"First delivery of the Mitsubishi Aircraft SpaceJet M90 may be facing further delay - the program's sixth so far - according to reports in the Japanese media."

and:

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rs-461915/

"Mitsubishi Aircraft's SpaceJet program has been dealt a fresh blow after Trans States Holdings, which owns several US regional airlines, cancelled all of its orders for the aircraft."

and excerpt:

"The cancellation of orders comes as news reports suggest that the SpaceJet programme was facing a fresh round of delays."

And yet the M100 still has more US regional customers than the E2, with more orders from them. You'll be right if Mesa and SkyWest cancel.

EMBSPBR · Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:46 pm

TObound wrote:
And yet the M100 still has more US regional customers than the E2, with more orders from them. You'll be right if Mesa and SkyWest cancel.

Nope: the only order for M100 is for Mesa with 50 firm plus 50 options.

SkyWest ordered 100 M90 back in 2012.

And Skywest is still committed with the E175-E2 but due to IFRS accounting changes, they had to remove it.

Source:
https://embraer.com/global/en/news?slug ... ts-in-3q18

Excerpt:

"Embraer has proactively adopted best practices to align with the latest IFRS principles and remove the order from backlog given its conditionality terms.
Skywest remains committed with the E175-E2 order and its terms are unchanged."

scbriml · Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:05 pm

VV wrote:
But hey, they can spend their money as they like it's not mine, but if I were the head of A320 program I would make a huge blame to the commercial guys who pushed me to spend so much time and money for nothing when there are other very important things to do. After all the head of program is responsible for the P&L of the program

With now over 7,000 neo orders in the book, I’m sure the cost of certifying the A319neo doesn’t even register as a rounding error in the program’s P&L sheet. :lol:

So no, the A319neo will have no relevance to possible A220 sales campaigns.

VV · Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:21 pm

scbriml wrote:
VV wrote:
But hey, they can spend their money as they like it's not mine, but if I were the head of A320 program I would make a huge blame to the commercial guys who pushed me to spend so much time and money for nothing when there are other very important things to do. After all the head of program is responsible for the P&L of the program

With now over 7,000 neo orders in the book, I’m sure the cost of certifying the A319neo doesn’t even register as a rounding error in the program’s P&L sheet.

So no, the A319neo will have no relevance to possible A220 sales campaigns.

Well if three hundred million US dollars is a "rounding error" then everything is okay.

dtremit · Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:38 pm

TObound wrote:
dtremit wrote:
(The only curveball -- could Boeing sweet talk WN into a mainline E2 fleet?)

Southwest couldn't stand those 717s they had. They actually paid to get rid of them. What's they chance they go out of their way to buy another type?

Almost certainly very low, I'll admit. No idea if their IT can even handle it. But -- given rumors of WN now wanting to look past the 737 after the MAX debacle, it might be a way to do that without managing multiple suppliers. And the MAX mess might give Boeing cover to make them a really good deal and book a key client.

With no express scope to contend with, they could fly E175-E2 and E195-E2 and cover a pretty wide range of seat counts.

TObound wrote:
dtremit wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
On the plus side, few customers where E17x and E19x customers at the same time, so it is far from bleak, but considering ~900 Units was the total volume of E19x space sales in the last iteration with more ore less no competition in that size bracket the A220 may have already taken most of the market.

In the last generation the lack of fleet overlap between E17x and E19x didn't really matter, because the CRJ didn't have an E19x equivalent. If you wanted a (non-Russian) 100 seat jet, you bought the Embraer.

Up against the A220, it does matter -- particularly if a stretched, shorter range A220-500 hits the market. And the possibility of that was serious enough for AF to put it in their investor presentation this week.

Not just the 220 but the SpaceJet. The E2-175 faces competition from the Spacejet, while the E2-190 and E2-195 face competition from the A220, That's what makes it tougher for them. The E2 family spans a range which attracts multiple competitors.

From a marketing perspective, Spacejet vs E175-E2 is pretty comparable to the situation with E175-E1 vs CRJ700/CRJ900, though. Embraer is used to having competition at that end of the market. The E195-E1 was unique in not having any really serious competition.

TObound · Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:40 pm

VV wrote:
scbriml wrote:
VV wrote:
But hey, they can spend their money as they like it's not mine, but if I were the head of A320 program I would make a huge blame to the commercial guys who pushed me to spend so much time and money for nothing when there are other very important things to do. After all the head of program is responsible for the P&L of the program

With now over 7,000 neo orders in the book, I’m sure the cost of certifying the A319neo doesn’t even register as a rounding error in the program’s P&L sheet.

So no, the A319neo will have no relevance to possible A220 sales campaigns.

Well if three hundred million US dollars is a "rounding error" then everything is okay.

Sunk cost. Airbus doesn't care at this point. What matters to them is what makes more money now. If selling a 223 makes more they'll sell that. And given the backlog for the NEO, it's pretty attractive to them to sell 223s and use the NEO slots to sell as many as 320Ns and 321Ns as they can.

TObound · Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:43 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
TObound wrote:
And yet the M100 still has more US regional customers than the E2, with more orders from them. You'll be right if Mesa and SkyWest cancel.

Nope: the only order for M100 is for Mesa with 50 firm plus 50 options.

SkyWest ordered 100 M90 back in 2012.

And Skywest is still committed with the E175-E2 but due to IFRS accounting changes, they had to remove it.

So just to confirm, the SpaceJet has more firm orders from US regionals than the E2.

TObound · Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:55 pm

dtremit wrote:
TObound wrote:
dtremit wrote:
(The only curveball -- could Boeing sweet talk WN into a mainline E2 fleet?)

Southwest couldn't stand those 717s they had. They actually paid to get rid of them. What's they chance they go out of their way to buy another type?

Almost certainly very low, I'll admit. No idea if their IT can even handle it. But -- given rumors of WN now wanting to look past the 737 after the MAX debacle, it might be a way to do that without managing multiple suppliers. And the MAX mess might give Boeing cover to make them a really good deal and book a key client.

With no express scope to contend with, they could fly E175-E2 and E195-E2 and cover a pretty wide range of seat counts.

That would be pretty fantastic for the E2. But as I've understood it, Southwest relies on lots of pt2pt. Aircraft start on one end of the country and end the day at the the other end. With that model, what room is there for another type and a sub 100 seater? I would guess that Southwest's next type is the replacement for the 737 family.

I could possibly see a case for the E2-195. Maybe just as a diversification test case.....

dtremit wrote:

TObound wrote:
dtremit wrote:

In the last generation the lack of fleet overlap between E17x and E19x didn't really matter, because the CRJ didn't have an E19x equivalent. If you wanted a (non-Russian) 100 seat jet, you bought the Embraer.

Up against the A220, it does matter -- particularly if a stretched, shorter range A220-500 hits the market. And the possibility of that was serious enough for AF to put it in their investor presentation this week.

Not just the 220 but the SpaceJet. The E2-175 faces competition from the Spacejet, while the E2-190 and E2-195 face competition from the A220, That's what makes it tougher for them. The E2 family spans a range which attracts multiple competitors.

From a marketing perspective, Spacejet vs E175-E2 is pretty comparable to the situation with E175-E1 vs CRJ700/CRJ900, though. Embraer is used to having competition at that end of the market. The E195-E1 was unique in not having any really serious competition.

It all depends on how scope pans out. Without relaxation the E2-175 is going to have a rough time. SpaceJet will do that model what the A223 is doing to the E2-195.

EMBSPBR · Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:57 pm

TObound wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
TObound wrote:
And yet the M100 still has more US regional customers than the E2, with more orders from them. You'll be right if Mesa and SkyWest cancel.

Nope: the only order for M100 is for Mesa with 50 firm plus 50 options.

SkyWest ordered 100 M90 back in 2012.

And Skywest is still committed with the E175-E2 but due to IFRS accounting changes, they had to remove it.

So just to confirm, the SpaceJet has more firm orders from US regionals than the E2.

Unless SkyWest operate the M90 by under their own brand (no scope), this order is so far void as is for E2.

Again, the only order for M100 is for Mesa with 50 firm plus 50 options.
And yes, in this case, the M100 has more orders than E2 for US regionals.

And so, they still have to confirm and deliver what they promised 11 years ago ...

EMBSPBR · Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:01 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Between now and then TAP and AeroMexico will be decided.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rs-462076/

"Brazil’s low-cost carrier Azul has proposed to shareholders a joint venture with Portuguese flag carrier TAP Air Portugal as it looks to gain a greater foothold in the transatlantic travel market, the company says in its investor update on 7 November."

GmvAfcs · Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:13 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Between now and then TAP and AeroMexico will be decided.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rs-462076/

"Brazil’s low-cost carrier Azul has proposed to shareholders a joint venture with Portuguese flag carrier TAP Air Portugal as it looks to gain a greater foothold in the transatlantic travel market, the company says in its investor update on 7 November."

Very interesting quote from the same link EMBSPBR posted:

“ Azul took delivery of its first E195-E2 in September, and the company says its performance is “exceeding expectations.” Azul was Embraer’s launch customer for the fully re-engineered E195-E2.

“The E2 is 14% more efficient on a trip-cost basis than the previous model and comes with 18 additional seats. Going forward we continue to expect consistent CASK (cost per available seat kilometer) reductions as we add more E2s and Airbus A320neos to our fleet, replacing older generation aircraft,” Azul says in its quarterly report.”

scbriml · Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:49 pm

VV wrote:
Well if three hundred million US dollars is a "rounding error" then everything is okay.

As usual, you provide no supporting evidence for your ‘fact’. But, even if you were correct, what percentage of A320neo family revenue does that figure represent? It’s insignificant and of zero relevance to A220 sales.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:47 am

GmvAfcs wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Between now and then TAP and AeroMexico will be decided.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rs-462076/

"Brazil’s low-cost carrier Azul has proposed to shareholders a joint venture with Portuguese flag carrier TAP Air Portugal as it looks to gain a greater foothold in the transatlantic travel market, the company says in its investor update on 7 November."

Very interesting quote from the same link EMBSPBR posted:

“ Azul took delivery of its first E195-E2 in September, and the company says its performance is “exceeding expectations.” Azul was Embraer’s launch customer for the fully re-engineered E195-E2.

“The E2 is 14% more efficient on a trip-cost basis than the previous model and comes with 18 additional seats. Going forward we continue to expect consistent CASK (cost per available seat kilometer) reductions as we add more E2s and Airbus A320neos to our fleet, replacing older generation aircraft,” Azul says in its quarterly report.”

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:59 am

Well, this settles it:

GmvAfcs wrote:
“The E2 is 14% more efficient on a trip-cost basis than the previous model and comes with 18 additional seats. Going forward we continue to expect consistent CASK (cost per available seat kilometer) reductions as we add more E2s and Airbus A320neos to our fleet, replacing older generation aircraft,” Azul says in its quarterly report.”

TObound wrote:
JetBlue estimates that the A220 will lower operating costs by 29% on a per seat basis, comprising a 40% reduction in fuel costs and 22% decline in non-fuel expenses, when compared with its existing Embraer E190 fleet.

lets assume B6 plans to put 130 ~ 135 seats in (150x0.9, just like the 180 seat A320 gets *.09 = 162 seats or 124 x 0.8 ~100 seats for the E90).

For that to work out the A223 needs to burn ~19% less fuel than the E90 (per Trip, not per seat). Embraer is now claiming what, 17% fuel burn reduction E90 to E90E2?.

Please correct me in the early morning after just one coffee, but if based on the numbers provided above the A223 is lower trip fuel than the E-190E2, how could the E-195E2 possibly have better fuel burn....?

best regards
Thomas

VV · Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:10 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Well, this settles it:

GmvAfcs wrote:
“The E2 is 14% more efficient on a trip-cost basis than the previous model and comes with 18 additional seats. Going forward we continue to expect consistent CASK (cost per available seat kilometer) reductions as we add more E2s and Airbus A320neos to our fleet, replacing older generation aircraft,” Azul says in its quarterly report.”

...

Indeed it settles everything.
Azul's E190 (E1) has 106 seats.

They ordered E190-E2 and already got 2 of them delivered.

The guy said the following, "The E2 is 14% more efficient on a trip-cost basis than the previous model and comes with 18 additional seats."

On per seat basis the improvement is around 30% on per seat basis. I think he was talking about the E190 vs E190-E2.
When you transpose the number to the E195-E2 then it will also be quite compelling, especially if you consider the logically better engine maintenance cost because the thrust usage is lower compared to its closest competitor.

I think it is not right to underestimate the E195-E2.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:18 am

VV wrote:
On per seat basis the improvement is around 30% on per seat basis. I think he was talking about the E190 vs E190-E2..

maybe someone with a math degree can help us out here, but i think 40% is a lot more reduction than just 30%.

best regards
Thomas

VV · Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:30 am

tommy1808 wrote:
VV wrote:
On per seat basis the improvement is around 30% on per seat basis. I think he was talking about the E190 vs E190-E2..

maybe someone with a math degree can help us out here, but i think 40% is a lot more reduction than just 30%.

best regards
Thomas

I think you are not really reading the texts properly.

The other guy said, "JetBlue estimates that the A220 will lower operating costs by 29% on a per seat basis, comprising a 40% reduction in fuel costs and 22% decline in non-fuel expenses, when compared with its existing Embraer E190 fleet."
I think a reading skill is as useful as maths.

Jetblue ordered A220-300 with I do not know how many seats and they currently have E190-E2 with 100 seats.

I am pretty sure your excellent maths would result in a very different conclusion if you compare A220-300 against E195-E2. Especially when we know the latter will use the engines at lower temperatures and thus better maintenance costs.

I am just saying that it is not necessarily right to underestimate the E19x-E2, especially the E195-E2.

Jetport · Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:53 am

The C Series (A220) is a great airplane, but it essentially bankrupted a company and forced them out of the commercial aviation business. So far it is a great plane and a commercial disaster. Even if it eventually sells thousands, which I think it will, it will still likely be seen as a poor business decision. So far the A220 makes the 787 look under budget and on time by comparison. I think that is one reason Anet loves the A220 so much, making a good profit margin appears to frowned on by many posters on this site.

VV · Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:22 am

Jetport wrote:
The C Series (A220) is a great airplane, but it essentially bankrupted a company and forced them out of the commercial aviation business. So far it is a great plane and a commercial disaster. Even if it eventually sells thousands, which I think it will, it will still likely be seen as a poor business decision. So far the A220 makes the 787 look under budget and on time by comparison. I think that is one reason Anet loves the A220 so much, making a good profit margin appears to frowned on by many posters on this site.

I think the program can still make a lot of profit if they execute the plan properly from now on.
There are several questions though.

Is there a plan?
If there is one, what's the plan?

We do not need to know the plan, but the people working in the program should know it.
I notice more and more people coming to Mirabel and Airbus is probably trying to take over the space currently occupied by Bombardier and its CRJ facilities. I also heard people from Airbus Toulouse being offered a three year expatriation contract to Montreal with compelling incentives.

It can make a lot of profit, but it is not very useful to underestimate the E19x-E2. It would only give a misleading confidence.

I am today still wondering if Airbus would like to squeeze even more seats into A220-300 in order to distance it from the E195-E2. Obviously it would give a better on per seat cost than a normal A220-300.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:33 am

VV wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
VV wrote:
On per seat basis the improvement is around 30% on per seat basis. I think he was talking about the E190 vs E190-E2..

maybe someone with a math degree can help us out here, but i think 40% is a lot more reduction than just 30%.

best regards
Thomas

I think you are not really reading the texts properly..

oh, i did.

tommy1808 wrote:
For that to work out the A223 needs to burn ~19% less fuel than the E90 (per Trip, not per seat). Embraer is now claiming what, 17% fuel burn reduction E90 to E90E2?.

Please correct me in the early morning after just one coffee, but if based on the numbers provided above the A223 is lower trip fuel than the E-190E2, how could the E-195E2 possibly have better fuel burn....?

Unless Embraer completely screwed up the E190E2, unlikely, it will have lower trip fuel than the E195E2. At least in B6 route structure, may it be the current or the one they plan to have, trip fuel will be lower than the E190E2, and hence be lower than the E195E2, hence significantly lower per seat.

For other Airlines it may look differently, i could imagine that Lufthansa with its often super short feeder runs will see the tables reversed, but for B6 it is pretty clear.

best regards
Thomas

VV · Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:42 am

tommy1808 wrote:
VV wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

maybe someone with a math degree can help us out here, but i think 40% is a lot more reduction than just 30%.

best regards
Thomas

I think you are not really reading the texts properly..

oh, i did.

tommy1808 wrote:
For that to work out the A223 needs to burn ~19% less fuel than the E90 (per Trip, not per seat). Embraer is now claiming what, 17% fuel burn reduction E90 to E90E2?.

Please correct me in the early morning after just one coffee, but if based on the numbers provided above the A223 is lower trip fuel than the E-190E2, how could the E-195E2 possibly have better fuel burn....?

Unless Embraer completely screwed up the E190E2, unlikely, it will have lower trip fuel than the E195E2. At least in B6 route structure, may it be the current or the one they plan to have, trip fuel will be lower than the E190E2, and hence be lower than the E195E2, hence significantly lower per seat.

For other Airlines it may look differently, i could imagine that Lufthansa with its often super short feeder runs will see the tables reversed, but for B6 it is pretty clear.

best regards
Thomas

Most of the diffference in trip fuel between E195-E2 and e190-E2 is due to the difference of ZFW (OEW plus more payload). However, the E195-E2 has a lot more seats. Hence the on per seat cost is reduced significantly.

The difference between the E195-E2 and the current E190 (E1) is way above 40% when expressed on per seat basis.

I think the two statements quoted by your previous message indeed settle it all.

In any case, I think it is unproductive to underestimate the E2, especially the E195-E2.

scbriml · Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:19 am

VV wrote:
scbriml wrote:
You are in your rights to not believe what I wrote and I do not care if you don't.

I just find it would be completely damn stupid to modify an aircraft, install new engines twice on a prototype and flight test two variants to certification without expecting any return.

I know people do very stupid things, but the above would be really really stupid.

So you keep saying.

Meanwhile the A220 continues to sell more than the E2.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:27 am

VV wrote:
Most of the diffference in trip fuel between E195-E2 and e190-E2 is due to the difference of ZFW (OEW plus more payload). However, the E195-E2 has a lot more seats..

You may have missed the part where i am talking about trip fuel, not per seat fuel burn. The A223 as per those quotes as lower trip fuel burn than the E190E2, and since the E195E2 will have higher trip fuel than the E190E2, it will automatically also have higher per seat fuel burn than the even bigger A223.

best regards
Thomas

TObound · Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:57 am

Azul says 14% lower trip fuel burn with 18 more seats over their existing 118 seat config. By my math that's about 22% lower fuel burn per seat. JetBlue gets 40% reduction in fuel costs per seat. But they are comparing to an E190 not E195. They are claiming a drop of 29% in CASM overall. So I'd guess that trip fuel is pretty close for the E2-195 and A223 and that the 223 has a small but definitive CASM advantage.

The big difference between the airplanes, is the 10% extra capacity and range capability of the 223. If you can fill the extra 10-15 seats on the 223, or use the extra capability regularly, the choice is obvious. And most airlines can fill the extra seats. It's part of the reason B6 says that each 223 adds $4-5 million in profit.

Also, given the sales and customer base, Airbus is going to be able to fund and field PIPs earlier. That should build an advantage.

TObound · Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:13 pm

Jetport wrote:
The C Series (A220) is a great airplane, but it essentially bankrupted a company and forced them out of the commercial aviation business. So far it is a great plane and a commercial disaster. Even if it eventually sells thousands, which I think it will, it will still likely be seen as a poor business decision. So far the A220 makes the 787 look under budget and on time by comparison. I think that is one reason Anet loves the A220 so much, making a good profit margin appears to frowned on by many posters on this site.

It's a disaster for Bombardier. They clearly bit off more than they could chew. But it's working out fantastic for Airbus. There's a reason they're actually investing in the program....over and above what was mandated in their rescue deal for the CSeries. I expect investment will really take off once they get full control.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:24 pm

TObound wrote:
JetBlue gets 29%. .

JetBlue gets 40% per Seat Fuelburn vs. the E190, 29% is operating cost per seat.

If they keep about the same seating density, their A223 will seat 130- 135 pax, if per seat fuel burn is 40% lower than the 100 seat E190 trip fuel has to be between 22% (130 seats) and 19% (135 seats) lower than the E190. Now Embraer claims the E190E2 is 17.3% better than the E190E1 .... 17.3 is less than 22 or 19%, hence the A223, according to JetBlue and Embraer numbers, has lower trip fuel than the E195E2.

If the E195E2 has the same fuelburn, lets be generous here, and only seats 116-124 passengers, ~same density, it would burn 8 to 12% more per seat.

And the numbers from JetBlue and Embraer about the hardest numbers we have, unless anyone has better numbers from better sources than dark places.

best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net