Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:35 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
TObound wrote:
JetBlue gets 29%. .


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


Yep. Caught me before I edited my post.....

I suspect they are close on trip fuel costs but that the 223 has a CASM advantage. And of course, if you're going to operate at the same trip fuel but can sell 10 more tickets, that's a no-brainer.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14142
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:59 pm

TObound wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
TObound wrote:
JetBlue gets 29%. .


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


Yep. Caught me before I edited my post.....

I suspect they are close on trip fuel costs but that the 223 has a CASM advantage. And of course, if you're going to operate at the same trip fuel but can sell 10 more tickets, that's a no-brainer.


Yup, and that is B6, flying some longer routes with the E-Jets and the A220 in the future, as mentioned above, that may not hold for lets say European Feeder traffic.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:23 pm

VV wrote:

I do not understand the above statement.

Is there anyway you can express it in a simpler way?


A carrier group should just go with the aircraft that fits their business model best.

In the US pax mainline fleet commonality with sub-100 regional subsidies should not be overlooked.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
tphuang
Posts: 5872
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:33 pm

JetBlue is putting 140 seats on a220 and it has about the same total operating cost as e90 but has lower fuel block. It works out to be 71% of casm of e90 and within a couple of percent of casm of a321ceo. Not sure how you can do better than that for a 140 seater. And economics will be even better on a 500. I don't understand the claims that e2 is 10% lower on casm than a220. Do they think e2 has same unit cost as a321neo? Because that's the only current aircraft with that kind of advantage over a220-300. The entire embaer claims here is pretty ludicrous.

Is there any reason for b6 to pick a220 over e2 if e2 had that kind of casm advantage?
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:37 pm

tphuang wrote:
JetBlue is putting 140 seats on a220 and it has about the same total operating cost as e90 but has lower fuel block. It works out to be 71% of casm of e90 and within a couple of percent of casm of a321ceo. Not sure how you can do better than that for a 140 seater. And economics will be even better on a 500. I don't understand the claims that e2 is 10% lower on casm than a220. Do they think e2 has same unit cost as a321neo? Because that's the only current aircraft with that kind of advantage over a220-300. The entire embaer claims here is pretty ludicrous.

Is there any reason for b6 to pick a220 over e2 if e2 had that kind of casm advantage?


Stats for 195 E2 any dif, or perhaps you meant to compare the 195 with the 220.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:44 pm

tphuang wrote:
Is there any reason for b6 to pick a220 over e2 if e2 had that kind of casm advantage?


Acquisition cost. Commonality with existing fleet. Probably lower pay to crew.

Which is why it's quite telling that B6 got in pretty early in the 220 program. They'll be in the first 200 deliveries. This after all the struggles they had being a launch customer on the E190.

Also, is there confirmation on B6 layout? I thought they were going to put 130 seats on the 223.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:53 pm

Kind of looking forward to seeing a 75 seat regional jet version of the 220 for smaller regional routes.

Many flyers are missing the room of the US configured sub SCOPE 5 abreast Bae 146.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:59 am

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Kind of looking forward to seeing a 75 seat regional jet version of the 220 for smaller regional routes.

Many flyers are missing the room of the US configured sub SCOPE 5 abreast Bae 146.


I hope this is satire. No way to make a 75 seat A220 that would be competitive with the M100 and E2-175. Maybe a 100 seater. But 75 seater would be a shrink too far.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:38 am

TObound wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Kind of looking forward to seeing a 75 seat regional jet version of the 220 for smaller regional routes.

Many flyers are missing the room of the US configured sub SCOPE 5 abreast Bae 146.


I hope this is satire. No way to make a 75 seat A220 that would be competitive with the M100 and E2-175. Maybe a 100 seater. But 75 seater would be a shrink too far.


Oh darn..... I guess it might be better for American Airlines to go with an Embraer E195 E2 as a replacement for the Embraer E190 inherited from US Airways.

Better because Envoy, (owned by AA group and operating for AA group as American Eagle) has the Embraer E175 in its fleet already and thus potentially offer some synergies if mainline went with the bigger and newer E2 for American Airlines Group in ways the A220 cannot as Airbus has no regional offering possible in the E175 size category to place with Envoy.

Embraer offers a product for American mainline.
Embraer offers a product for American regional.
Airbus does NOT offer a common fleet type. Darn!
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:15 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
...
Just to remember: for E1 we still have 185 firm orders plus 326 options.
Source: https://daflwcl3bnxyt.cloudfront.net/m/ ... g-3Q19.pdf
...


I was wondering how Airbus/ Boeing switches their narrowbodies to the new engines before knowing that they are mature. One may take the gamble for long range, but for short/ medium range?
I am pleased to hear there is a management with common sense.


TObound wrote:
...
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.



Early in the C series program pretty much all the equity had to be shifted to retirement pension plans. To design such a sophisticated plane and hope that business aircrafts and train division make enough profit was a gamble. I believe it was the cost of the carbon wing which made the plane unprofitable. At least since shale oil limits few year average oil price to 60 $.
In another topic it's discussed that rather joung A319s are getting scrapped once D-check is due. Apparently too many 130 seater on the market today. It will not always be like that. I assume that's when the A220 could be sold for a descent price.

And why would an airline today order an A220-300 or E195-E2 with immature engines if young A319s are available for scrap rate?


VV wrote:
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.



It doesn't settle anything. How can an airline that has only two young aircraft of a type in it's fleet make statements about operating costs?
And if I hear savings of 30% or 40% I get suspicious, even if it's per seat.


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.


First mover disadvantage. The Comet tried pressurization. Others learned.
Same for Tristar:
"Despite their similarities, the L-1011 and DC-10's engineering approach differed greatly. McDonnell, who had recently taken over Douglas Aircraft, directed DC-10 development on a "very firm budget, and cost overruns were unacceptable – even at the expense of safety", and the conservative approach meant reusing Douglas DC-8 technology. By contrast, Lockheed would "take the most advanced technology of the day and when that technology was lacking, Lockheed created it" for the L-1011
...
The L-1011 featured a highly advanced autopilot system and was the first widebody to receive FAA certification for Cat-IIIc autolanding, which approved the TriStar for completely blind landings performed by the aircraft’s autopilot in zero-visibility weather.[25] The L-1011 used an inertial navigation system to navigate;[26][27] this included aligning the navigation system by entering current coordinates of longitude and latitude.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar

Needless to say, later airliners were happy to use whatever Lockheed pioneered. And then just like the A220 the tristar didn't get the new tech engines delivered as promised.
I believe the Tristar is one of the most interesting planes to read about, the wiki article is recommended.

But then being first/ early mover is high risk, high rewards: B747, Tesla, early Airbus planes.
Why should a businessman only see profit as motivation? Do you buy your car according to the lowest running cost?
Had Howard Huges poor business sense?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:32 pm

TObound wrote:
...
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.



Thinking over it again: you are right.
I believe that Bombardier had to wait for engines while Airbus got them delivered in much higher quantity was dirty politics. After all PW gets a lot of military contracts. And the conditions at which Airbus acquired the C- Series made me wonder if Canadian politics has a bill to settle with US politics concerning that plane.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 21265
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:25 pm

Sokes wrote:
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.


First mover disadvantage. The Comet tried pressurization. Others learned.
Same for Tristar:
"Despite their similarities, the L-1011 and DC-10's engineering approach differed greatly. McDonnell, who had recently taken over Douglas Aircraft, directed DC-10 development on a "very firm budget, and cost overruns were unacceptable – even at the expense of safety", and the conservative approach meant reusing Douglas DC-8 technology. By contrast, Lockheed would "take the most advanced technology of the day and when that technology was lacking, Lockheed created it" for the L-1011
...
The L-1011 featured a highly advanced autopilot system and was the first widebody to receive FAA certification for Cat-IIIc autolanding, which approved the TriStar for completely blind landings performed by the aircraft’s autopilot in zero-visibility weather.[25] The L-1011 used an inertial navigation system to navigate;[26][27] this included aligning the navigation system by entering current coordinates of longitude and latitude.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar

Needless to say, later airliners were happy to use whatever Lockheed pioneered. And then just like the A220 the tristar didn't get the new tech engines delivered as promised.
I believe the Tristar is one of the most interesting planes to read about, the wiki article is recommended.

But then being first/ early mover is high risk, high rewards: B747, Tesla, early Airbus planes.
Why should a businessman only see profit as motivation? Do you buy your car according to the lowest running cost?
Had Howard Huges poor business sense?

The C-series, L85, snd Global 7000 combined bankrupted Bombardier. The L85, with the advanced CFRP was too much.

But take first mover advantage. Boeing moved out of perpetual 2nd place by being first with the 707. The DC-8 never recovered as the 707 built up a backlog that Douglas never matched. From then on Douglas went from first choice to second choice and lacked money to compete.

Ironically, Boeing lost first mover advantage as they couldn't produce enough of a popular twin and opened a market to the DC-2. Douglas kept ahead through the DC-6.

Douglas lost the market by developing a behind tech aircraft, the DC-7 as they saw the comet issues. Boeing did the 707.

The 757 also had first mover advantage. Nothing could touch it until obsolete.

There is no technology in the A220 that wasn't also in the 787. While that program floundered, it is now the cash sustaining Boeing. The first mover advantage of gaining a customer base hasn't been lost.

The A220 also has engines sized for it. The E2 has oversized engines. When PiPs arrive, they will benefit the A220 more and enable a stretch. In my opinion, the A225 needs more thrust to carry an ACT (belly tank).

Bombardier did give up most of first mover advantage. They or Airbus recovered by getting DL, B6, Moxie, and AF as customers.

I only know of three sales campaigns comparing both: IAG, TAP, and AeroMexico. We have a separate thread on the A220 tour of Asia.

What matters is economy of scale. Production is difficult, if not impossible, to be profitable at less than a hundred a year for a narrowbody; only if the line is paid for and spares demand is there can a line fade profitably.

Lightsaber
3 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:43 pm

lightsaber wrote:

The C-series, L85, snd Global 7000 combined bankrupted Bombardier. The L85, with the advanced CFRP was too much.
...
Lightsaber


Sorry, I have to double post:
"The first flight of the C-Series was in September 2013, so more than half year before the Learjet 85. Even though I wonder if any process planned for the C series was first tried on the Learjet 85:
Which machines are good, which make problems? What are the working steps with carbon fiber? Which suppliers are good for this new material/ process? Where do cracks tend to develop? What type of screws to use?"

For more of my assumptions read post 40 in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1428849&p=21577375#p21577375
In short, I would add the development cost for Learjet 85 to the C-Series development costs.

lightsaber wrote:
...
There is no technology in the A220 that wasn't also in the 787.
...
Lightsaber


You forgot the gearbox.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:47 pm

If and when the 225 happens, the dynamics of this competition changes completely. At that point, I fully expect the 223 to outsell the E2-195 by huge ratios (2:1 or higher). The package deals Airbus can offer with 225s and 321NEOs would be huge.

We're still a bit away from the 225 obviously. But it's looking more and more a question of when not if these days.
Last edited by TObound on Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:51 pm

lightsaber wrote:

...
The E2 has oversized engines.
...
Lightsaber



I was wondering about that and thought of starting an own topic. But you already answered the question.
That E190-E2 as well as E195-E2 use the C-Series engine is surprising. On the other side for the E195-E2 it may turn out to be low maintainance.
But for E190-E2?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:51 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Embraer offers a product for American mainline.
Embraer offers a product for American regional.
Airbus does NOT offer a common fleet type. Darn!


Can't win them all. Better to try and win the more profitable segment. And so far only the A220 is in mainline service. No E2s in sight. And American Airlines is phasing out their E-190s (from LUS) from mainline next year. Looks like the business case for a major network carrier to operate an E-Jet at mainline is disappearing.

And commonality means squat. When have large carriers operating hundreds of a type cared about commonality? All three of the major network carriers operate Boeing and Airbus narrowbodies. And Bombardier and Embraer jets at the regionals. They don't care about commonality.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:57 pm

What would be the advantage of an A220-500 over an A320?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:02 pm

Sokes wrote:
What would be the advantage of an A220-500 over an A320?


Operating costs. Better than 321NEO CASM on a 150-170 seat jet, while keeping commonality with the 130-140 seater that most mainlines would operate as their smallest aircraft.

Most mainlines could then go to a fleet mix of 223-225-321N/7M9. The 223 is the route opener and frequency builder. The 225 is the capacity builder. And the 321N/7M9/7M10 becomes the high volume airplane.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7024
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:40 pm

Sokes wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

The C-series, L85, snd Global 7000 combined bankrupted Bombardier. The L85, with the advanced CFRP was too much.
...
Lightsaber


Sorry, I have to double post:
"The first flight of the C-Series was in September 2013, so more than half year before the Learjet 85. Even though I wonder if any process planned for the C series was first tried on the Learjet 85:
Which machines are good, which make problems? What are the working steps with carbon fiber? Which suppliers are good for this new material/ process? Where do cracks tend to develop? What type of screws to use?"

For more of my assumptions read post 40 in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1428849&p=21577375#p21577375
In short, I would add the development cost for Learjet 85 to the C-Series development costs.

lightsaber wrote:
...
There is no technology in the A220 that wasn't also in the 787.
...
Lightsaber


You forgot the gearbox.


The Lear 85 was a ICT product, near zero to do with the C-Series. Now, the G7500 has a lot in common with the C-Series, especially cockpit avionics, FBW, and hydraulic system changes from previous BBD designs. Of course, wing, engines, fuselage very different. No airliner needs at cruise at M.88 at F470 for 12 hours.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:25 pm

Sokes wrote:
What would be the advantage of an A220-500 over an A320?


Size and weight.

With the large GTF, the 321 sized fuselage is now rightsized for that engine. Similarly, the narrower, lighter A220 with the smaller GTF is the most efficient fit for the 130-150 seat market. The 320 sized fuselage is suboptimal for the large GTF engine.
 
VV
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:40 pm

Sokes wrote:
What would be the advantage of an A220-500 over an A320?



The cost per trip marginally increased. However when expressed on per s'est basis the costs are really compelling.

I estimated the costs on per seat basis about 8%-10% better than A420neo.

If launched, this simple stretch that would have 2,400 nmi max range, the right range for a 160 seater, it would eat into A420neo's market severely. Well if they manage to build the aircraft properly, which is not guaranteed.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:57 pm

TObound wrote:
Sokes wrote:
What would be the advantage of an A220-500 over an A320?


Operating costs. Better than 321NEO CASM on a 150-170 seat jet, while keeping commonality with the 130-140 seater that most mainlines would operate as their smallest aircraft.

Most mainlines could then go to a fleet mix of 223-225-321N/7M9. The 223 is the route opener and frequency builder. The 225 is the capacity builder. And the 321N/7M9/7M10 becomes the high volume airplane.


An A318 with 68t MTOW and 34 m wing has 96-106 kN engines.
An A220-300 with 70t MTOW has up to 109 kN. PW 1500G: 88-109 kN engines.
A320 NEO with 79 t MTOW has up to 121 kN. PW 1100G: 108-147 kN engines

OEW A220-300 - OEW 220-100 = 1,9t
I conclude a -500 would require 4t for extra fuselage and passengers.
4t/ 17,7t fuel capacity = 0,23
o,77 * 3,350 nmi (6,200 km) = 2580 nm (4774 km)

I ignored wetted area of 5 abreast vs 6 abreast. Does one need to reduce MTOW for the given engine? At any rate range should be o.k. for Europe and many airlines all over the world. I don't know if for 70t weight the high aspect ratio wing of A220 or bigger surface wing of A320 is better.
I don't know if fuel saving by smaller engine or maintenance saving with bigger engine will dominate. Other maintenance the newer A220 will win.
An A320 can climb faster. Can an A220-500 with 65 t climb to a proper cruise height?
Capital cost of A220-500 should be higher.
For a small airline which needs A220-100, but no A321 you are right. Otherwise I'm undecided. There are too many unknowns.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:09 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The Lear 85 was a ICT product, near zero to do with the C-Series.


What is an ICT product?

What the Lear 85 has in common with C-Series is the use of a new material.
Airbus had the A400 and earlier products to learn working with carbon fiber. How did Bombardier learn it?
Before one builds a full size plane, one should experiment with a model in a wind canal.
Before one builds a high OEW passenger jet with a new material, one should try to build a small business jet with it.
I wonder if Boeing wants to give me an advisory contract. It's a bit late, though.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7024
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:20 pm

Sokes wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The Lear 85 was a ICT product, near zero to do with the C-Series.


What is an ICT product?

What the Lear 85 has in common with C-Series is the use of a new material.
Airbus had the A400 and earlier products to learn working with carbon fiber. How did Bombardier learn it?
Before one builds a full size plane, one should experiment with a model in a wind canal.
Before one builds a high OEW passenger jet with a new material, one should try to build a small business jet with it.
I wonder if Boeing wants to give me an advisory contract. It's a bit late, though.


A Learjet design and believe me, they’re a different company. Grob, prior to their demise, was the carbon fiber partner in the Lear 85. While the C-Series wing is carbon fiber, entirely different design and manufacturing process. And the C isn’t a carbon fuselage.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 21265
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:23 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Sokes wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

The C-series, L85, snd Global 7000 combined bankrupted Bombardier. The L85, with the advanced CFRP was too much.
...
Lightsaber


Sorry, I have to double post:
"The first flight of the C-Series was in September 2013, so more than half year before the Learjet 85. Even though I wonder if any process planned for the C series was first tried on the Learjet 85:
Which machines are good, which make problems? What are the working steps with carbon fiber? Which suppliers are good for this new material/ process? Where do cracks tend to develop? What type of screws to use?"

For more of my assumptions read post 40 in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1428849&p=21577375#p21577375
In short, I would add the development cost for Learjet 85 to the C-Series development costs.

lightsaber wrote:
...
There is no technology in the A220 that wasn't also in the 787.
...
Lightsaber


You forgot the gearbox.


The Lear 85 was a ICT product, near zero to do with the C-Series. Now, the G7500 has a lot in common with the C-Series, especially cockpit avionics, FBW, and hydraulic system changes from previous BBD designs. Of course, wing, engines, fuselage very different. No airliner needs at cruise at M.88 at F470 for 12 hours.

My point is the L85, deriving zero revenue for a $1.4 billion charge:
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2015/01/1 ... efinitely/

If that money had been spent on a more efficient C-series line, we would have a different conversation today.

The fact Bombardier was also developing the Global 7000 also tied up resources. If you will Bombardier was slow to deliver and ran out of cash because they just attempted too much at once.

Today that leaves us with a less than efficient A220 production line. There is a reason Embraer and the Hamburg A320 line are so automated. If Bombardier had focused DL sales would have been break even. That might have won some of the side sales campaigns that have faded into obscurity (EasyJet, Spirit, and United).

What matters now is production economics. Airbus has gained enough sakes (JetBlue, Moxie, and AirFrance on top of Delta, AirBaltic, and LH group) to gain concessions from vendors. Next is assembly efficiency. I suspect more work to Spirit (e g , barrel stuffing).

What this means for Embraer/Boeing is a once incapacitated competitor on prior decisions to do too much instead is being reorganized. For the A220 we are seeing new production rates (soon), better production economics, and aircraft PiPs.

The E2 isn't out, but it is where the 717 was. Customers are waiting for others to commit to supplying the economy of scale. There is no doubt the A220 will achieve maintenance economics of scale.

Every order will be hard fought between these two aircraft as was the case A318 vs. 717. This time the niche has far better economics. The E-190 sold well despite much higher per seat costs. Now we have costs near the A320NEO, close enough the yield advantage of smaller aircraft can be strategically employed

I personally see a larger market for these two aircraft than proposed (excluding theoretical A225).

Both need 20+ operators (for a decent lease market) and 300 aircraft in operation (minimal to support maintenance supply chain). More is better.

We're at the launch stage. In CRJ200 vs. ERJ145 both thrived. In CRJ700/900 vs. E-170/175, there wasn't a clear winner until recently that I personally believe Mitsubishi's delays enabled.

We shall have a long running competition between the E2 and A220. Embraer's and Boeing's job is to increase sales and production to stay competitive and fund PiPs.

AeroMexico is this week's darling. IAG too.

Lightsaber
3 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:28 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Sokes wrote:
What would be the advantage of an A220-500 over an A320?


Size and weight.

With the large GTF, the 321 sized fuselage is now rightsized for that engine. Similarly, the narrower, lighter A220 with the smaller GTF is the most efficient fit for the 130-150 seat market. The 320 sized fuselage is suboptimal for the large GTF engine.


For which range?

B737 classic: 2,060–2,375 nmi/ 3,815–4,398 km range
B737 NG: 2,935–3,010 nmi/ 5,436–5,575 km range
B737 MAX: 3,300–3,850 nmi/ 6,110–7,130 km range

I also think an European airline flying all week less than 1500nm shouldn't buy an aircraft just because it can do the occasional holiday trip.
Or do airlines want the range so that the plane can climb to proper cruise altitude immediately?
Is it realistic to maintain extra planes for holiday demand?
I can't judge that, but from the range demands of airlines so far I believe the A320 is the better plane with the better engine as compared to a possible A220-500.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:38 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Sokes wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The Lear 85 was a ICT product, near zero to do with the C-Series.


What is an ICT product?
...


A Learjet design and believe me, they’re a different company. Grob, prior to their demise, was the carbon fiber partner in the Lear 85. While the C-Series wing is carbon fiber, entirely different design and manufacturing process. And the C isn’t a carbon fuselage.


"Learjet is a Canadian owned, American aerospace manufacturer of business jets for civilian and military use based in Wichita, Kansas. Founded in the late 1950s by William Powell Lear as Swiss American Aviation Corporation, it has been a subsidiary of Canadian Bombardier Aerospace since 1990, which markets it as the "Bombardier Learjet Family".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet

"The Learjet 85 was a Learjet development program by aircraft manufacturer Bombardier Aerospace.
The program was launched on October 30, 2007"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_85

I know the C-Series isn't a carbon fuselage. But not because Bombardier didn't know how to do it.
You have a strong point if the manufacturing process is different. Was it always like this or was there evolution in the process? I don't know enough about it. But I think it's not by chance that Bombardier built a small plane with same material parallel to the C-Series.
I admit these are all assumptions.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7024
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Sokes wrote:

Sorry, I have to double post:
"The first flight of the C-Series was in September 2013, so more than half year before the Learjet 85. Even though I wonder if any process planned for the C series was first tried on the Learjet 85:
Which machines are good, which make problems? What are the working steps with carbon fiber? Which suppliers are good for this new material/ process? Where do cracks tend to develop? What type of screws to use?"

For more of my assumptions read post 40 in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1428849&p=21577375#p21577375
In short, I would add the development cost for Learjet 85 to the C-Series development costs.



You forgot the gearbox.


The Lear 85 was a ICT product, near zero to do with the C-Series. Now, the G7500 has a lot in common with the C-Series, especially cockpit avionics, FBW, and hydraulic system changes from previous BBD designs. Of course, wing, engines, fuselage very different. No airliner needs at cruise at M.88 at F470 for 12 hours.

My point is the L85, deriving zero revenue for a $1.4 billion charge:
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2015/01/1 ... efinitely/

If that money had been spent on a more efficient C-series line, we would have a different conversation today.

The fact Bombardier was also developing the Global 7000 also tied up resources. If you will Bombardier was slow to deliver and ran out of cash because they just attempted too much at once.

Today that leaves us with a less than efficient A220 production line. There is a reason Embraer and the Hamburg A320 line are so automated. If Bombardier had focused DL sales would have been break even. That might have won some of the side sales campaigns that have faded into obscurity (EasyJet, Spirit, and United).

What matters now is production economics. Airbus has gained enough sakes (JetBlue, Moxie, and AirFrance on top of Delta, AirBaltic, and LH group) to gain concessions from vendors. Next is assembly efficiency. I suspect more work to Spirit (e g , barrel stuffing).

What this means for Embraer/Boeing is a once incapacitated competitor on prior decisions to do too much instead is being reorganized. For the A220 we are seeing new production rates (soon), better production economics, and aircraft PiPs.

The E2 isn't out, but it is where the 717 was. Customers are waiting for others to commit to supplying the economy of scale. There is no doubt the A220 will achieve maintenance economics of scale.

Every order will be hard fought between these two aircraft as was the case A318 vs. 717. This time the niche has far better economics. The E-190 sold well despite much higher per seat costs. Now we have costs near the A320NEO, close enough the yield advantage of smaller aircraft can be strategically employed

I personally see a larger market for these two aircraft than proposed (excluding theoretical A225).

Both need 20+ operators (for a decent lease market) and 300 aircraft in operation (minimal to support maintenance supply chain). More is better.

We're at the launch stage. In CRJ200 vs. ERJ145 both thrived. In CRJ700/900 vs. E-170/175, there wasn't a clear winner until recently that I personally believe Mitsubishi's delays enabled.

We shall have a long running competition between the E2 and A220. Embraer's and Boeing's job is to increase sales and production to stay competitive and fund PiPs.

AeroMexico is this week's darling. IAG too.

Lightsaber


Agree with all that. The G7500 was enough of a derivative and piggybacked on enough C-Series that it wasn’t a financial dark hole. The L85 was completely separate design and after Grob went under a Lear project that evaporated 1.4 billion and lots of management and engineering time and talent. Now, the company is back to its roots—large bizjets and maybe a share of the A220. Both are technically exquisite, but the business case is still undecided.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

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

Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:56 pm

Sokes wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Sokes wrote:
What would be the advantage of an A220-500 over an A320?


Size and weight.

With the large GTF, the 321 sized fuselage is now rightsized for that engine. Similarly, the narrower, lighter A220 with the smaller GTF is the most efficient fit for the 130-150 seat market. The 320 sized fuselage is suboptimal for the large GTF engine.


For which range?

B737 classic: 2,060–2,375 nmi/ 3,815–4,398 km range
B737 NG: 2,935–3,010 nmi/ 5,436–5,575 km range
B737 MAX: 3,300–3,850 nmi/ 6,110–7,130 km range

I also think an European airline flying all week less than 1500nm shouldn't buy an aircraft just because it can do the occasional holiday trip.
Or do airlines want the range so that the plane can climb to proper cruise altitude immediately?
Is it realistic to maintain extra planes for holiday demand?
I can't judge that, but from the range demands of airlines so far I believe the A320 is the better plane with the better engine as compared to a possible A220-500.


"Better" depends upon a lot of factors.

We can only make guesses about a lot of the notional A220-500. We know that the fuselage is 10 inches narrower than the 320, and the engines are 8 inches narrower and about 1,500 lbs lighter per engine. Airlines will buy the smallest airplane that can do the job.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 21265
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:47 am

I was thinking how these two aircraft, the A220 and E2, just haven’t sold enough for all the support networks to be properly established. One aspect I’ll focus on is flight simulators, but parts distribution is similar from a scaling perspective in how many aircraft are needed to justify a parts distribution center.

Neither the A220 or E2 have a geographically dispersed enough arrangement.

For the E2, I found only one active flight simulator: in Paris. As far as I know, only a Flight Safety manufactured simulator is available:
https://news.flightsafety.com/pressrele ... t-airport/

Link on above being certified: https://news.flightsafety.com/pressrele ... -approval/

For the A220, I found a 4 running: a simulator at Mirabel, Ontario, I believe Atlanta (for Delta), Frankfurt, and ones on order for Ft. Lauderdale, Cairo, Latvia (AirBaltic), and I would assume when AirFrance finalizes their order they will buy a simulator for install in Paris. All of the current A220 flight simulators are made by CAE, but I found Flight safety has sold their first simulator for the A220 and will deliver it soon to EgyptAir.

This gives a big gap in Asia (I searched and searched, and it looks like KE’s small fleet doesn’t justify owning a simulator, yet).

This is going to make it tough for both to sell to small buyers. Having to fly far to train pilots and pay for hotels gets pricey fast.

Links, A220 simulators:
A220 Mirabel (I chose a link where DL auctioned off time in that simulator, it amused me):
https://thepointsguy.com/news/skymiles- ... simulator/

A220 Flight training alliance (partially owned by LH) has the one in Frankfurt:
https://www.flighttrainingalliance.com/a220-training/

A220 AC has one in Ontario:
https://www.fliegerfaust.com/a220-airbu ... 09923.html

A220 Delta has one, I assume in Atlanta. Warning, video was the only link I found:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=de ... RE&PC=U316

A220 AirBaltic buying a simulator, install late 2019
https://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news ... simulator/

A220 JetBlue has bought two, unclear when to be installed:
https://atwonline.com/training/jetblue- ... simulators

A220: EgypAir ordered an A220 simulator from Flightsafety (all others above from CAE)
https://www.fliegerfaust.com/airbus-a22 ... 34401.html

I failed to find any other links of E2 flight simulators. Does anyone know of more? I assume one in Brazil, but I didn’t find any videos or anything.

For comparison, the E-170/190 has a pretty extensive network of flight simulators:
https://services.embraer.com/global/en/ ... commercial

At this time, I'm concerned for both to sell to small airlines as there just are not enough simulators planned.

Just for comparison, Alteon (Boeing) trains 737 pilots in United Kingdom, Spain, Morocco, South Africa, Australia, China, and the United States
https://news.flightsafety.com/pressrele ... or-alteon/
Plus numerous airlines offer outsourced training on a for profit basis: (UA in Den, DL in Atlanta, AA in Dallas)

I found different quantities of hours for training required. I noted in the above link there were 1350 commercial simulators, or about one for every 20 aircraft. What is the needed ratio of simulators to pilots? When I look at the costs for buying a simulator and training staff, I estimate an airline must have 20+ aircraft to justify staffing up for training. It is always best to have more scale as the training staff will naturally become more familiar with issues.

Can anyone confirm the E2 only has one active commercial simulator? Sadly, that makes sense for how few aircraft are in service...

So the solution is just to sell more aircraft. But wait, aircraft sell when the system is setup already...

Lightsaber
3 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:28 am

lightsaber wrote:
I was thinking how these two aircraft, the A220 and E2, just haven’t sold enough for all the support networks to be properly established. One aspect I’ll focus on is flight simulators, but parts distribution is similar from a scaling perspective in how many aircraft are needed to justify a parts distribution center.

Neither the A220 or E2 have a geographically dispersed enough arrangement.

For the E2, I found only one active flight simulator: in Paris. As far as I know, only a Flight Safety manufactured simulator is available:
https://news.flightsafety.com/pressrele ... t-airport/

Link on above being certified: https://news.flightsafety.com/pressrele ... -approval/

For the A220, I found a 4 running: a simulator at Mirabel, Ontario, I believe Atlanta (for Delta), Frankfurt, and ones on order for Ft. Lauderdale, Cairo, Latvia (AirBaltic), and I would assume when AirFrance finalizes their order they will buy a simulator for install in Paris. All of the current A220 flight simulators are made by CAE, but I found Flight safety has sold their first simulator for the A220 and will deliver it soon to EgyptAir.

This gives a big gap in Asia (I searched and searched, and it looks like KE’s small fleet doesn’t justify owning a simulator, yet).

This is going to make it tough for both to sell to small buyers. Having to fly far to train pilots and pay for hotels gets pricey fast.

Links, A220 simulators:
A220 Mirabel (I chose a link where DL auctioned off time in that simulator, it amused me):
https://thepointsguy.com/news/skymiles- ... simulator/

A220 Flight training alliance (partially owned by LH) has the one in Frankfurt:
https://www.flighttrainingalliance.com/a220-training/

A220 AC has one in Ontario:
https://www.fliegerfaust.com/a220-airbu ... 09923.html

A220 Delta has one, I assume in Atlanta. Warning, video was the only link I found:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=de ... RE&PC=U316

A220 AirBaltic buying a simulator, install late 2019
https://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news ... simulator/

A220 JetBlue has bought two, unclear when to be installed:
https://atwonline.com/training/jetblue- ... simulators

A220: EgypAir ordered an A220 simulator from Flightsafety (all others above from CAE)
https://www.fliegerfaust.com/airbus-a22 ... 34401.html

I failed to find any other links of E2 flight simulators. Does anyone know of more? I assume one in Brazil, but I didn’t find any videos or anything.

For comparison, the E-170/190 has a pretty extensive network of flight simulators:
https://services.embraer.com/global/en/ ... commercial

At this time, I'm concerned for both to sell to small airlines as there just are not enough simulators planned.

Just for comparison, Alteon (Boeing) trains 737 pilots in United Kingdom, Spain, Morocco, South Africa, Australia, China, and the United States
https://news.flightsafety.com/pressrele ... or-alteon/
Plus numerous airlines offer outsourced training on a for profit basis: (UA in Den, DL in Atlanta, AA in Dallas)

I found different quantities of hours for training required. I noted in the above link there were 1350 commercial simulators, or about one for every 20 aircraft. What is the needed ratio of simulators to pilots? When I look at the costs for buying a simulator and training staff, I estimate an airline must have 20+ aircraft to justify staffing up for training. It is always best to have more scale as the training staff will naturally become more familiar with issues.

Can anyone confirm the E2 only has one active commercial simulator? Sadly, that makes sense for how few aircraft are in service...

So the solution is just to sell more aircraft. But wait, aircraft sell when the system is setup already...

Lightsaber


The E2 has only one simulator because the E2 training is done first on the E1 simulators and then a 2.5 days transition training in regular classroom.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:09 am

SteelChair wrote:

"Better" depends upon a lot of factors.



Agreed.
I also believe the A220-500 will come and that it will be the right plane for certain jobs. It may depend on TOW if A320NEO or A220-500 is better.
An airline with low load factors/ fluctuating demand may choose the A220-500, even if for the full plane an A320Neo is better.
Swiss Air with it's rather wealthy customer base may prefer an A220-500 for comfort. Lufthansa may like the A220-500 because most routes are very short.
Why would Air Baltic prefer an A320Neo?
And if the A220-500 has only slightly higher CASM than A320Neo, who wouldn't prefer to sit in the A220?

A220-500 TOW for short flights rough idea: 39 t OEW + 15 t passengers (average load factor!) + 5 t fuel (alternates in Europe never far) = 59 t.That's more than 10 t below MTOW. While I can't judge, I wouldn't be surprised if the A220-500 is the better plane for that job.

It also doesn't matter if 5000 A320Neo and 1000 A220-500 or 1000 A320Neo and 5000 A220-500 get sold. For thousand pieces it's worth designing a sub-type.
I just don't see the A220-500 as a potential replacement for even 40% of A320Neos. I rather see 3-4 A320Neos sold for each A220-500.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:36 am

lightsaber wrote:

For the A220, I found a 4 running: a simulator at Mirabel, Ontario, I believe Atlanta (for Delta), Frankfurt, and ones on order for Ft. Lauderdale, Cairo, Latvia (AirBaltic)
...
So the solution is just to sell more aircraft. But wait, aircraft sell when the system is setup already...

Lightsaber


Jungleneer wrote:

The E2 has only one simulator because the E2 training is done first on the E1 simulators and then a 2.5 days transition training in regular classroom.



No wonder Boeing likes to work with Embraer.

How much does a simulator cost? Did Airbus have to pay too much for the C-Series or why are they so bloody miser to install a simulator in Asia?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7024
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:33 pm

How much for a sim? All in, probably about half the price of one airplane and there’s little discounting.
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:14 pm

Sokes wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

For the A220, I found a 4 running: a simulator at Mirabel, Ontario, I believe Atlanta (for Delta), Frankfurt, and ones on order for Ft. Lauderdale, Cairo, Latvia (AirBaltic)
...
So the solution is just to sell more aircraft. But wait, aircraft sell when the system is setup already...

Lightsaber


Jungleneer wrote:

The E2 has only one simulator because the E2 training is done first on the E1 simulators and then a 2.5 days transition training in regular classroom.



No wonder Boeing likes to work with Embraer.

How much does a simulator cost? Did Airbus have to pay too much for the C-Series or why are they so bloody miser to install a simulator in Asia?


Around 10M each...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 21265
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:42 pm

Sokes wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

For the A220, I found a 4 running: a simulator at Mirabel, Ontario, I believe Atlanta (for Delta), Frankfurt, and ones on order for Ft. Lauderdale, Cairo, Latvia (AirBaltic)
...
So the solution is just to sell more aircraft. But wait, aircraft sell when the system is setup already...

Lightsaber


Jungleneer wrote:

The E2 has only one simulator because the E2 training is done first on the E1 simulators and then a 2.5 days transition training in regular classroom.



No wonder Boeing likes to work with Embraer.

How much does a simulator cost? Did Airbus have to pay too much for the C-Series or why are they so bloody miser to install a simulator in Asia?

A simulator needs 150+ pilots on contract to pay for it.

LH formed a joint venture as they needed other (AirBaltic) pilots to pay for the A220 simulator, keeping the trainers current and paid, and maintenance of the simulator.

For KE, it is probably cheaper to fly pilots to Montreal, Ontario, Atlanta, or Frankfurt. At this time it is possible for A220 operators to bid training sites against each other.

So I learned E2 opperators are doing conversion training. That definitely improves simulator access. With the dramatically improved cockpit, I expect existing E1 simulators to be retrofitted. I've done a bit of reading and apparently,

Flight training is performed at a profit. The goal is to get into the dedicated flight training centers such as L3, which only trains extreme high volume airframes (A320 family, 737 family, A330 and 787).

https://www.l3commercialaviation.com/ai ... rs/london/

This is like any other bid support, the more vendors, the better the deals.

For example, WoW and EasyJet chose L3 to train pilots: https://www.l3commercialaviation.com/news/

It is competitive. Airlines pick on total cost: travel, (includes cost and time), hotel, and the flight training.

http://mullers.net/mike/Training%20Cost/

Considering lease and maintenance should be about 1.5% of purchase price per month or about, $ 2 million per year and from what I've seen, about $3,000 to $6,000 in simulator cost per pilot, that means an airline must train hundreds of pilots, or save equivalent in hotel costs/pay, to buy a simulator. No wonder so many airlines train others.

I did notice many simulators have quick change cockpits, reducing costs for multiple types.

But there need to be enough demand to set up courses at many locations. So my opinion switched, the A220 has a disadvantage in simulators.

Lightsaber
3 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
VV
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:59 pm

The more this thread progresses, I think the more people understand that it is unproductive to underestimate the E190-E2 and especially the E195-E2.

Slowly, people discover aspects that could potentially make the E2 interesting to airlines.

Why it has not sold so many? Perhaps because they are still delivering the older version of E190 and E195. After all they need to maintain their market value.

What if they go to an all out war next year and the subsequent years? Who knows.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19554
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:50 pm

The more this thread progresses, I think the more people get desperate to explain the E2's lack of sales.

VV wrote:
Slowly, people discover aspects that could potentially make the E2 interesting to airlines.


But apparently not interesting enough to actually sign on the dotted line.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
US319
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:33 am

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:52 pm

The more this thread progresses, I think more people understand that it is unproductive to underestimate the A220. #worksbothways
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 21265
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:57 pm

VV wrote:
The more this thread progresses, I think the more people understand that it is unproductive to underestimate the E190-E2 and especially the E195-E2.

Slowly, people discover aspects that could potentially make the E2 interesting to airlines.

Why it has not sold so many? Perhaps because they are still delivering the older version of E190 and E195. After all they need to maintain their market value.

The old aircraft will lose market value no matter what Embraer does, Airbus and Boeing production rates are just too high.

It does beg the question why the E2 hasn't sold better. While disadvantages of lack of economy of scale have work mitigations, more sales are needed.

Production used to be over a hundred per year for E-Jets. It is dropping just a little in 2019, but have there been enough orders to recover for the E2?

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... eries-2018

A hundred plus production rates are needed for economy of scale. The A220 has suffered in cost from too low of a production rate. There are two new buildings for Mirabel in late 2019 as well as Mobile.

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-to-ramp ... acilities/

Expected to be 2/month in Mobile in 2020, 3 in 2021, 4 in 2022. I do not know how much capacity the new buildings at Mirabel add.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/11/futur ... -capacity/
.
We debate here, but what is needed is manufacturing and later service scale.

For example, the first A220-300 just went through a c-check. No E2 should have, yet. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of MRO economics of scale for either type.

https://www.baltictimes.com/airbaltic_p ... 0_c_check/

Both aircraft have merit. Airbus seems to have figured out how to sell the A220 (partially by promising PiPs, partially by cutting costs) and will ramp production by 2022 significantly. Embraer/Boeing know how to produce, time to get out costs, a few PiPs, but mostly enough orders.

It isn't a popularity contest, it is manufacturing, support, and maintenance economics of scale.

Lightsaber
3 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:18 pm

Sokes wrote:
It also doesn't matter if 5000 A320Neo and 1000 A220-500 or 1000 A320Neo and 5000 A220-500 get sold. For thousand pieces it's worth designing a sub-type.
I just don't see the A220-500 as a potential replacement for even 40% of A320Neos. I rather see 3-4 A320Neos sold for each A220-500.


What matters is how many 737NG replacement sales the 225 can capture for Airbus. Both direct replacements for the 738 and and 73G, and enticements to take on 321Ns as part of packaged deals.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

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

Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:25 am

EMBSPBR wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
The E2 is just not as good an aircraft. Very limited improvements over the last generation in almost every respect.


Really ???
Could you elaborate, please ?
Seems you know the E2 family very deeply !!!
Something that we don´t I guess ...


That is an opinion I would BET he cannot Substantiate Like many on this site. That Delta bought the A220? Has nothing to Do with the Price of tea in China!
Delta is known for looking for the best Deal and the A220 with it's 5 across seating is not much different their MD80's with their 5 across seating. And HELL! They Had to buy something since they weren't going to buy Boeings, Though we may see about that if Boeing actually launches the B797. We may very well see a change of heart.
I would bet that NOBODY else get's the deal that Delta got on the CS300 or the A220, Time will tell what the reliability of that Airplane really is and whether it holds up or falls apart.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5872
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:35 am

TObound wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Is there any reason for b6 to pick a220 over e2 if e2 had that kind of casm advantage?


Acquisition cost. Commonality with existing fleet. Probably lower pay to crew.

Which is why it's quite telling that B6 got in pretty early in the 220 program. They'll be in the first 200 deliveries. This after all the struggles they had being a launch customer on the E190.

Also, is there confirmation on B6 layout? I thought they were going to put 130 seats on the 223.

They got 140 seats and the total operating cost is about the same as E90 (which has 100 seats). That's pretty impressive.

Sokes wrote:

Agreed.
I also believe the A220-500 will come and that it will be the right plane for certain jobs. It may depend on TOW if A320NEO or A220-500 is better.
An airline with low load factors/ fluctuating demand may choose the A220-500, even if for the full plane an A320Neo is better.
Swiss Air with it's rather wealthy customer base may prefer an A220-500 for comfort. Lufthansa may like the A220-500 because most routes are very short.
Why would Air Baltic prefer an A320Neo?
And if the A220-500 has only slightly higher CASM than A320Neo, who wouldn't prefer to sit in the A220?

A220-300 has about the same CASM as A320NEO based on the numbers B6 provided. A220-500 should be lower.
Again, that's without factoring in fleet commonality and such. B6 is not taking anymore A320NEOs and going with only A220 series to replace A320s. That should say something.

VV wrote:
The more this thread progresses, I think the more people understand that it is unproductive to underestimate the E190-E2 and especially the E195-E2.

Slowly, people discover aspects that could potentially make the E2 interesting to airlines.

Why it has not sold so many? Perhaps because they are still delivering the older version of E190 and E195. After all they need to maintain their market value.

What if they go to an all out war next year and the subsequent years? Who knows.

E2 can never replace A320. A220 can. E2 and A220 are actually not going to be direct competitors once A220-500 comes around. And you have to be kidding me with the E90 and E95 part. AA/B6/AC have been so eager to dump it. Who still takes it? E90 has been a maintenance nightmare for B6.
 
VV
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:36 am

US319 wrote:
The more this thread progresses, I think more people understand that it is unproductive to underestimate the A220. #worksbothways


The title of this discussion thread is "A220 vs E-195E2, market battle already won by Airbus ?"

So I am just saying that while currently A220 has more orders than E19x-E2, it doesn't mean we should underestimate the E2. The war may not be over.

In fact it has just started.
 
VV
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:56 am

tphuang wrote:
...
E2 can never replace A320. A220 can. E2 and A220 are actually not going to be direct competitors once A220-500 comes around. And you have to be kidding me with the E90 and E95 part. AA/B6/AC have been so eager to dump it. Who still takes it? E90 has been a maintenance nightmare for B6.


It seems obvious since the beginning that Embraer does not have any intention to "replace A320" nor go compete head-to-head against 737
If they develop a derivative of the E1 with 4 abreast cabin cross section and maintain the range below 2,600 nmi it is because they want to stay in a market apart.

You mentioned it very well that the A220 can indeed eat into A320neo market because there is some kind of overlap, especially if a stretch of CS300 is offered.

As far as the E1 is concerned, after asking a friend in a leasing company, I understand most of the conversation about E1's maintenance cost was about the engine maintenance. The engines are GE CF34.

As far as E19x-E2 is concerned, I believe the engine hardware is virtually identical between E19x-E2 and A220. In addition the thrust usage should be lower on the E2 because the targeted missions are not as harsh as those of the A220. It means the maintenance cost of the E19x-E2 should theoretically be lower than that of A220.
 
VV
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:23 am

This is a follow-up relative to 4 abreast, 5 abreast and 6 abreast cabin cross section.

It is clear the E195-E2 has never been intended to go even close to A320's or 737-8's size. E195 can accommodate four seats abreast and not more, whereas A320 or 737 can have six seats abreast. I do not understand why some people still talk about "E195-E2 having no potential for growth". In my understanding there has never been any plan to increase its capacity beyond what it is today.

The A220 (C Series) has a cabin cross section that allows a comfortable 5 seats abreast configuration. That's fine. It range is currently stated as higher than 3,400 nmi.
One can deduce easily that A220 somehow overlaps with the A320neo family from payload-range capability, especially concerning the A319neo.

I fully agree with tphuang's opinion that the E190-E2 and E195-E2 are not in the same league as the A220.
This said one can wonder how the market would evolve concerning the two aircraft.

In my opinion it is a little bit too early to say that E190-E2 and E195-E2 "has lost the war" and A220 won it already.

The war has just started, despite the fact the C Series (A220) had a five year head-start.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:24 am

Really is odd how polarized enthusiasts seem to be on the topic of a silly shorter ranged, not supersonic, non-wide-body, non-t-tailed, non-quad / trijet equipped group of airliner types.

Personally I like the design of the A220. I just don’t think it is the right fleet decision choice for all, major airlines flag carriers, mainline air carrier groups, or airlines.

Glad to see some airlines are rational enough to give both types a chance and decide which works best for their individual circumstances, their employees, their passengers, their shareholders, and their corporation’s longevity.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
VV
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:59 am

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Really is odd how polarized enthusiasts seem to be on the topic of a silly shorter ranged, not supersonic, non-wide-body, non-t-tailed, non-quad / trijet equipped group of airliner types.
...


Yes, I agree about the fact some enthusiasts are so enthusiast about the A220.

In my opinion it is not very useful to declare "A220 vs E-195E2, market battle already won by Airbus ?"

I think the reality is somehow much less pronounced, although it really is not a good thing to underestimate the market potential of the E195-E2 at this stage.

Embraer's choice to stay with a 4 seat abreast configuration and with a range below 2,600 nmi denotes a very clear intention to remain close to the regional jet market, whereas A220 with 5 seat abreast configuration with a capacity up to 150 seats and a range longer than 3,300 nmi is clearly entering the narrowbody aircraft for mainline airlines.

Several months ago I wrote my opinion about that market segment in a blog entry to express my observation how crowded it is.

If you look carefully the offers in the sub-150 seat narrowbody, you have the following aircraft
  1. A220-100 PW1500G
  2. A220-300 PW1500G
  3. E190-E2 PW1900G
  4. E195-E2 PW1900G
  5. A319neo PW PW1100G
  6. A319neo CFM Leap-1A
  7. 737-7 CFM Leap-1B
I do not think we need to include Sukhoi SSJ100 and other aircraft.

Considering how crowded the market segment is, it is a little bit early to draw a conclusion. The reality is that the A319neo powered by PW1100G has not got its type certificate as yet. The certification is expected soon. It is in flight test phase since April 2019.

If one looks carefully, Airbus and Airbus Canada have four aircraft in the offer. THose are A220-100, A220-300, A319neo PW and A319neo CFM.

Airlines that already have a fleet of A320 or 737 may decide to stay with the family, although it has not been the case for JetBlue who decided to add some complexity to their fleet with the A220-300 instead of ordering A319neo. the same apply to Delta.

Air Canada has been even more courageous by switching to 737-8 and A220-300 from A320 family. That's a bold move. Or is it inconscience?

As one poster said here, each airline has its own strategy that matches their business plan. However, I am very often puzzled by airlines' executive decisions.

This thread has been quite interesting so far excepted some weird comments from some overly enthusiastic people.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14142
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:20 am

VV wrote:
The A220 (C Series) has a cabin cross section that allows a comfortable 5 seats abreast configuration.


Most importantly: 4 abreast J-Class, making it perfect for mainline service where J actually gets a different seat. Just takes 20% of the seats out of a row instead of 25%, magnifying the A220 advantage... for Delta probably a 2% cost per seat reduction for free.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tphuang
Posts: 5872
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:47 am

VV wrote:
tphuang wrote:
...
E2 can never replace A320. A220 can. E2 and A220 are actually not going to be direct competitors once A220-500 comes around. And you have to be kidding me with the E90 and E95 part. AA/B6/AC have been so eager to dump it. Who still takes it? E90 has been a maintenance nightmare for B6.


It seems obvious since the beginning that Embraer does not have any intention to "replace A320" nor go compete head-to-head against 737
If they develop a derivative of the E1 with 4 abreast cabin cross section and maintain the range below 2,600 nmi it is because they want to stay in a market apart.

You mentioned it very well that the A220 can indeed eat into A320neo market because there is some kind of overlap, especially if a stretch of CS300 is offered.

As far as the E1 is concerned, after asking a friend in a leasing company, I understand most of the conversation about E1's maintenance cost was about the engine maintenance. The engines are GE CF34.

As far as E19x-E2 is concerned, I believe the engine hardware is virtually identical between E19x-E2 and A220. In addition the thrust usage should be lower on the E2 because the targeted missions are not as harsh as those of the A220. It means the maintenance cost of the E19x-E2 should theoretically be lower than that of A220.


E1 problems have been more than just engines. This past summer, B6 had take several E90s out of service due to air frame issues.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos