TObound wrote:

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.

for an A220-500 to have the seating capacity of a B737-800, what would be OEW and which range would it have?

In post 280 I assumed only 5 t fuel to make a case for an A220-500 on short ranges. And I wonder nobody criticized me for it.
I believe the stretch from -300 to -500 should be rather 3 than 4 rows. How many rows would you like to stretch?

tphuang wrote:

A220-300 has about the same CASM as A320NEO based on the numbers B6 provided.

Considering how many A320Neos and how many A220-300s are ordered, do you believe it?

scbriml wrote:

VV wrote:

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

In my opinion it wasn't a declaration, but a question.

And the answer is that the was has just started, despite the fact C Series had five years headstart.

Question to A320 and B737 pilots:
At 50 t TOW you initially climb to which altitude?
At 60 t TOW you initially climb to which altitude?

A350-1000 has same wing span as -900, but more wing area.
Question to A220 pilots or whoever heard something from such a pilot:
From which TOW is an A320 wing superior to an A220 wing?

Sokes wrote:

TObound wrote:

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.

for an A220-500 to have the seating capacity of a B737-800, what would be OEW and which range would it have?

In post 280 I assumed only 5 t fuel to make a case for an A220-500 on short ranges. And I wonder nobody criticized me for it.
I believe the stretch from -300 to -500 should be rather 3 than 4 rows. How many rows would you like to stretch?

People get so hung up with one for one replacements when it's not reality.

I personally think they should aim for a tad smaller than the A320 and go to 150 seats J/Y+/Y (for an airline like Delta) which would get them to 170 seats in an LCC config and 180 seats in a ULCC config.

This creates particularly nice differentiation when Airbus stretches the A320 to 200 seats LCC.

Sokes wrote:

tphuang wrote:

A220-300 has about the same CASM as A320NEO based on the numbers B6 provided.

Considering how many A320Neos and how many A220-300s are ordered, do you believe it?

Yes. Sales aren't just about CASM.

TObound wrote:

Sokes wrote:

...
How many rows would you like to stretch?

People get so hung up with one for one replacements when it's not reality.

I personally think they should aim for a tad smaller than the A320 and go to 150 seats J/Y+/Y (for an airline like Delta) which would get them to 170 seats in an LCC config and 180 seats in a ULCC config.

This creates particularly nice differentiation when Airbus stretches the A320 to 200 seats LCC.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

TObound wrote:

Sokes wrote:

tphuang wrote:

A220-300 has about the same CASM as A320NEO based on the numbers B6 provided.

Considering how many A320Neos and how many A220-300s are ordered, do you believe it?

Yes. Sales aren't just about CASM.

True. If two planes have the same CASM, the smaller plane offers more frequency and therefore outsells the bigger plane.

VV wrote:

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.

VV wrote:

scbriml wrote:

VV wrote:

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

In my opinion it wasn't a declaration, but a question.

And the answer is that the was has just started, despite the fact C Series had five years headstart.

Not in the same league. And yet somehow fighting a war.....

I don't think they're in the same league at all. And the order patterns prove it. The A220 is being ordered by mainline carriers. No regional carrier has ordered the A220 to date. Meanwhile, with the exception of Azul (which has no regional subsidiary), no other mainline carrier has taken up the E2.

Might as well argue that the E2 is going to take down the 319NEO and 737 Max 7.

Sokes wrote:

TObound wrote:

Sokes wrote:

Considering how many A320Neos and how many A220-300s are ordered, do you believe it?

Yes. Sales aren't just about CASM.

True. If two planes have the same CASM, the smaller plane offers more frequency and therefore outsells the bigger plane.

So in your world, lease rates, value retention, availability and cost of support (like the simulator availability determined by lightsaber), spares availability, MRO options, etc. don't count? You think all airlines care about is seat count and CASM?

Sokes wrote:

tphuang wrote:

A220-300 has about the same CASM as A320NEO based on the numbers B6 provided.

Considering how many A320Neos and how many A220-300s are ordered, do you believe it?

There are many reasons why A320NEO is more desirable.
- fleet commonality for the LCCs
- New product that airlines want to have real world data before buying. for example, is its availability going to reach A320NEO level?
- Airbus and its product/sales team did not take over until a year ago
- Not enough sales until recently which would have driven up the maintenance cost
- Airlines could be looking for higher capacity aircraft in congested airports and airspace like Asia.
But we are getting to the point now where more and more airlines are buying A321NEO rather than A320NEO. You are also seeing more A220 sales this year. Once you have enough airlines operating A220, it will also pick up more sales. And the early adopters will eventually be very happy they got in so early.

I think it's quite telling that B6 saw a role for the 223 and no role for the 320NEO in their future fleet. That should tell people something. The 223 has a low enough CASM to be the frequency builder and route opener for mainline carriers. The 321NEO can do all the heavy hauling.

I'm curious if the B6 model works for mainline carriers like DL, AC and AF. It'll be interesting to see how they adjust their fleet plans once they get 223s in their stables.

Sokes wrote:

for an A220-500 to have the seating capacity of a B737-800, what would be OEW and which range would it have?

Why would this be an issue, when the NG was produced it contained more seats than the A320 and the A320 carried on just fine, why exactly would the A220-XXX need to have more seats than its sister product to go all the way up to the 737-800 or the MAX, is the A220-XXX supposed to be a replacement for the A320?

TObound wrote:

Sokes wrote:

TObound wrote:

Yes. Sales aren't just about CASM.

True. If two planes have the same CASM, the smaller plane offers more frequency and therefore outsells the bigger plane.

So in your world, lease rates, value retention, availability and cost of support (like the simulator availability determined by lightsaber), spares availability, MRO options, etc. don't count? You think all airlines care about is seat count and CASM?

I believe lease rates are included in CASM.
All of your other objections I can agree to for small airlines. But why doesn't Lufthansa or any other big carrier replace all it's A320s with A220-300s? They have their own maintenance, can order spare parts together with the sales deed, buy own simulator...
The A220-300 besides offering less seats (= higher frequency) also has far more comfort. I would be surprised to learn that A220-300 comes even within 107% of A320Neo CASM.
At any rate with the first A220-300 entering C-check and no D-checks yet it is too early to discuss CASM. Same for A320Neo.

tphuang wrote:

There are many reasons why A320NEO is more desirable.
- fleet commonality for the LCCs
- New product that airlines want to have real world data before buying. for example, is its availability going to reach A320NEO level?
- Airlines could be looking for higher capacity aircraft in congested airports and airspace like Asia.
But we are getting to the point now where more and more airlines are buying A321NEO rather than A320NEO.

Agreed to the points I kept. Maintenance COST should be part of CASM.
I believe the success of the A321Neo as compared to A321 is based on range. That's why I can't share the euphoria about an A220-500.

par13del wrote:

Sokes wrote:

for an A220-500 to have the seating capacity of a B737-800, what would be OEW and which range would it have?

Why would this be an issue, when the NG was produced it contained more seats than the A320 and the A320 carried on just fine, why exactly would the A220-XXX need to have more seats than its sister product to go all the way up to the 737-800 or the MAX, is the A220-XXX supposed to be a replacement for the A320?

Funny that you quote me. I agree with you.
Your last question is exactly what we are discussing about. Some believe an A220-500 would have superb CASM. I doubt it would have enough range or at least that it could beat a 6-abreast A320Neo with more wing area on CASM.

Sokes wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There are many reasons why A320NEO is more desirable.
- fleet commonality for the LCCs
- New product that airlines want to have real world data before buying. for example, is its availability going to reach A320NEO level?
- Airlines could be looking for higher capacity aircraft in congested airports and airspace like Asia.
But we are getting to the point now where more and more airlines are buying A321NEO rather than A320NEO.

Agreed to the points I kept. Maintenance COST should be part of CASM.
I believe the success of the A321Neo as compared to A321 is based on range. That's why I can't share the euphoria about an A220-500.

Not really, A321NEO CASM is much lower than A320NEO. A220-500 will have very low CASM.

Your number of 107% is made up out of nowhere. Based on what B6 has said, I actually calculated A220-300 CASM to be marginally lower than that of A320NEO. I'm sure they did their own calculation before giving guidance to investors. Once you get enough sales of A220, availability, reliability and maintenance cost all improves. And that's what you are seeing with A220 right now. More sales as this aircraft matures. It's up to Airbus at this point whether they want to push A320NEO or A220 in sales campaigns. If they buy out rest of the program and manage to get the production rate up, it's certainly within their interest to push an aircraft with more near term availability. But until A220 get its production rate higher, it simply doesn't have enough production slots available for multiple large orders like the one for IndiGO.

As for lease rates, A220 according to the reports for both B6 and DL have been sold at very low prices (sounds like < $30 million). I really don't see A320NEO prices to be lower than that.

Under the new ‘Virgin Connect’ brand will BE be in the market for E2 or A220? The current Q400 fleet plus the ATRs operated by RE are likely still suitable for much of the route network, but as the plan is to grow VS feed at LHR & MAN then I’m guessing there’s scope for new regional jets (on better terms than BE had themselves). Imagine DL will have some input here as a major stakeholder in VS.

Sokes wrote:

TObound wrote:

Sokes wrote:

True. If two planes have the same CASM, the smaller plane offers more frequency and therefore outsells the bigger plane.

So in your world, lease rates, value retention, availability and cost of support (like the simulator availability determined by lightsaber), spares availability, MRO options, etc. don't count? You think all airlines care about is seat count and CASM?

I believe lease rates are included in CASM.
All of your other objections I can agree to for small airlines. But why doesn't Lufthansa or any other big carrier replace all it's A320s with A220-300s? They have their own maintenance, can order spare parts together with the sales deed, buy own simulator...
The A220-300 besides offering less seats (= higher frequency) also has far more comfort. I would be surprised to learn that A220-300 comes even within 107% of A320Neo CASM.
At any rate with the first A220-300 entering C-check and no D-checks yet it is too early to discuss CASM. Same for A320Neo.

As has been mentioned several times to you cost is only part of equation. Reliability, availability, program uncertainty, etc are all part of the game. Just two years ago we were wondering whether the CSeries would bankrupt Bombardier. And then folks were wondering whether Airbus was sincere or just buying the CSeries to kill it. It's amazing to me that the A220 got any orders with all that uncertainty. But as that drama all fades into the past and Airbus gets cracking on PIPs and optimizing production, I suspect we'll see the pace of orders picking up.

Effectively, what you're posing here is a strawman argument. "If this plane is so good, why doesn't it immediately replace every plane for every airline?"

spud757 wrote:

Under the new ‘Virgin Connect’ brand will BE be in the market for E2 or A220? The current Q400 fleet plus the ATRs operated by RE are likely still suitable for much of the route network, but as the plan is to grow VS feed at LHR & MAN then I’m guessing there’s scope for new regional jets (on better terms than BE had themselves). Imagine DL will have some input here as a major stakeholder in VS.

I'd expect E2 to win that order. Existing experience with EJets. The A220 is too much airplane for regional feeder ops.

tphuang wrote:

Sokes wrote:

I believe the success of the A321Neo as compared to A321 is based on range. That's why I can't share the euphoria about an A220-500.

Not really, A321NEO CASM is much lower than A320NEO. A220-500 will have very low CASM.

Your number of 107% is made up out of nowhere.

Interesting point about the lease rates and how cheap early planes sell.

While you are right that the A321 Neo should have better CASM than A320 Neo, the same was probably true for A321 versus A320. Low CASM doesn't help if the range is not enough. Or maybe CASM of the bigger plane should be considerable lower and that wasn't the case for A321? I don't know. I think there is a limit how much weight a 35 m wing can reasonable carry. Similary I believe from a certain TOW the more area wing of the A320 should be better than the A220 wing.

107% is indeed made up. It means if CASM of A220-300 is 106% of CASM A320 I expect the A220-300 to outsell the A320 because of frequency, pricing power and comfort of the smaller plane. If CASM of A220-300 is 108% of A320 I expect A320 to sell better.
Truth being told, I have no knowledge if the number is 105%, 110% or 115%. Below 107% would surprise me.

spud757 wrote:

Under the new ‘Virgin Connect’ brand will BE be in the market for E2 or A220? The current Q400 fleet plus the ATRs operated by RE are likely still suitable for much of the route network, but as the plan is to grow VS feed at LHR & MAN then I’m guessing there’s scope for new regional jets (on better terms than BE had themselves). Imagine DL will have some input here as a major stakeholder in VS.

I would doubt any new aircraft from there... there will be a huge dearth of E190s available soon for far less cost that would be better suited for the short sectors than anything with GTFs; and there is no indication that BE will expand rapidly once Virgin is on the planes.

Sokes wrote:

Your last question is exactly what we are discussing about. Some believe an A220-500 would have superb CASM. I doubt it would have enough range or at least that it could beat a 6-abreast A320Neo with more wing area on CASM.

I ran a few back of a postage stamp numbers the other day. With the published numbers not making much sense*, its hard to be sure just how it all ties up.

I reckon that a 4 row stretch would add somewhere in around 1.2T to OEW.

At 105kg per passenger & baggage, I think your range @ max payload would come down from around 2000nm (current -300 with current MTOW) to 1700 nm (future -500 with 2020 MTOW increase). Is that enough range? Dunno.


[A -300 with the MTOW increase* would have around 2300 nm range @ max payload.]




*how does an MTOW increase without corresponding tankage increase result in increased max range? Answers on a postcard to Airbus PR department. Rue de Fabrique, Blagnac, Toulouse.
[might improve payload-range, but don't see how it changes max range]

My question on the whole A220 being the next greatest thing, is anyone looking at the fact that the A220 breaks Airbus type rating philosophy?
Unless Airbus re-certifies the the a/c with its FBW system, the A220 is not the same as the A320 / A321, yes I know that to defend this folks will say that once an airline is large enough, the cost benefit becomes irrelevant, yet somehow, despite this "reality", Airbus continues to push this commonality as a benefit, are we downplaying this because we want the latest greatest toy? How important is the feature to carriers that have the A32X a/c in their fleet?

par13del wrote:

Sokes wrote:

for an A220-500 to have the seating capacity of a B737-800, what would be OEW and which range would it have?

Why would this be an issue, when the NG was produced it contained more seats than the A320 and the A320 carried on just fine, why exactly would the A220-XXX need to have more seats than its sister product to go all the way up to the 737-800 or the MAX, is the A220-XXX supposed to be a replacement for the A320?

Exactly. And 225 could have a lower seat count than the 320 and still sell fantastically. JetBlue fits 162 seats in its 320s. And they still saw no role for the 320NEO. The 200-seat 321N and 140-seat 223 offer them enough flexibility to run their network effectively. If a 225 was offered, I imagine they'd swap their 223 orders, up the Y+ proportion and fit 150 seats to it.

Airlines like AC, DL, AF, LH Group would love a 150-160 seat 225. I could see carriers like OS, LX, AF going to a narrowbody mix of 223s, 225s and 321Ns.

The real question for Airbus is how many MAX sales can be "stolen away" from Boeing with the 225. And will that number be more than just 320 conversions to 225s. The ideal scenario is to get more 320 orders converted to 321Ns and get some Boeing customers on the Airbus train with 223s and 225s replacing 73Gs and 738s. Owing to the MAX disaster, Airbus now has lots more time and room to manoeuvre.

par13del wrote:

My question on the whole A220 being the next greatest thing, is anyone looking at the fact that the A220 breaks Airbus type rating philosophy?
Unless Airbus re-certifies the the a/c with its FBW system, the A220 is not the same as the A320 / A321, yes I know that to defend this folks will say that once an airline is large enough, the cost benefit becomes irrelevant, yet somehow, despite this "reality", Airbus continues to push this commonality as a benefit, are we downplaying this because we want the latest greatest toy? How important is the feature to carriers that have the A32X a/c in their fleet?

Airlines are showing you exactly how important commonality is to them. Air Canada being a fantastic example. AC is replacing their E175s and E190s and 320 family with the 737 Max and A220. Nor did concern about commonality stop JetBlue from replacing their 320s and E190s with 223s.

The lesson here is that commonality is valued differently by different carriers. Single type LCCs value commonality very highly. Network carriers operating multiple types rarely see a new type as an obstacle, especially if that new type can replace multiple types, submodels and configurations.

I found something



source: https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... a220-mtow/

I have no doubt that an A220-500 could do a lot of jobs. I doubt it could do so cheaper than an A320Neo.
A B777-300 has lots of range. But it can't climb to a fuel saving altitude when close to MTOW.
The A330 also has lots of range. Is it used for that range or even for range at maximum payload?

TObound wrote:

Airlines are showing you exactly how important commonality is to them. Air Canada being a fantastic example. AC is replacing their E175s and E190s and 320 family with the 737 Max and A220. Nor did concern about commonality stop JetBlue from replacing their 320s and E190s with 223s.

Just to be correct on this... AC is NOT replacing the Air Canada Express ERJ-175s operated by SkyRegional with A220s or anything else at this time. AC passed the 175s to SkyRegional in 2013, they aren't flown by AC pilots since then.

The A220s were to be taking over for the bottom end of A319s and some CRA/E75 routes as the E90s were supposed to be gone already

The MAX8 was to take over the top end A319 and most A320 routes, along with displacing some longer but light 767 routes.

The A321 was theoretically going to be replaced by the MAX9 but that was never confirmed.

But because of the MAX8 grounding the EMB190 will still be in service when the A220 come along.


Nor is B6 replacing A320s directly with A220-300s. They will replace the capacity of the E190 and expand the fleet. The A321s on order will do more to cut into the A320s.

Sokes wrote:

I have no doubt that an A220-500 could do a lot of jobs. I doubt it could do so cheaper than an A320Neo.
A B777-300 has lots of range. But it can't climb to a fuel saving altitude when close to MTOW.
The A330 also has lots of range. Is it used for that range or even for range at maximum payload?

You're assuming that most mainline narrowbody ops are close to MTOW and long flights where they operate at cruise altitude for long. That's not anywhere close to even a significant percentage of narrowbody ops in real life. On a one hour flight, half of it is spent on the departure, climb to cruise, descent and approach. How much do you think a few percentage difference in cruise really matters between a 320N and 225 on that profile? And that's assuming you're correct. You'd have to know what flight profiles the engines are optimized for. I can't see airlines advocating for the 225 if it doesn't beat out 320NEO for them.

I keep saying this over and over again. Airlines don't buy the cheapest frame to acquire or the frame that's cheapest to operate. They buy the type that yields them the greatest profit for their particular business model. This varies by airline. For JetBlue, the 223 and 321N are so good in their roles, that they don't need a 320N. I suspect they might not even take a 225 if offered with more than 150 seats in their configuration. On the other hand , for a carrier with Eurobusiness like AF, the 225 would be highly attractive and get them even capacity bumps (150-175-200 seats), with the ability to differentiate pay (slightly less for A220 crews). Looking at one or two specs and drawing blanket conclusions is a rather amateur approach.

northstardc4m wrote:

TObound wrote:

Airlines are showing you exactly how important commonality is to them. Air Canada being a fantastic example. AC is replacing their E175s and E190s and 320 family with the 737 Max and A220. Nor did concern about commonality stop JetBlue from replacing their 320s and E190s with 223s.

Just to be correct on this... AC is NOT replacing the Air Canada Express ERJ-175s operated by SkyRegional with A220s or anything else at this time.

Was referring to the families.

northstardc4m wrote:

Nor is B6 replacing A320s directly with A220-300s. They will replace the capacity of the E190 and expand the fleet. The A321s on order will do more to cut into the A320s.

Quite right. I should have been more clear. I do think some 320 rotations will be replaced by 223s, but you're right that the bulk of it is upgauging. I expect that most future orders for B6 will be the conversion of those A220 options before they add more 321 NEO orders (owing to the young 321CEO fleet).

I keep forgetting TK said they were looking into the A220/E2:
https://www.airway1.com/turkish-airline ... s-e2-jets/

Has there been any new information? The quantity was undisclosed.

I always compare back to the 717 which only had one volume operator, but was able to get a few orders, but now has only Delta 91, Hawaiian20 , Volotea 17, but retiring, and Qantas link 20, discussing replacement.

The A220 has good size orders from:
Delta 95
AirBaltic 45
AirCanada 45
JetBlue 70
Moxie 60

Not yet firm, but equally large:
AirFrance 60

Plus LH 30 and small orders

The E2 has:
Azul 51
Plus small orders

Not yet firm, but announced;
KLM 15


In play:
TAP (unknown quantity, assumed 13+)
AeroMexico 60
TK, unknown quantity assumed 20 or less
IAG, unknown quantity, assumed 20 or less

Plus quite a few in speculation such as Qantas link.

Plus both have flown around the world selling.

This competition will go for years.

Lightsaber

I consider the Moxy orders "soft."

northstardc4m wrote:

Nor is B6 replacing A320s directly with A220-300s. They will replace the capacity of the E190 and expand the fleet. The A321s on order will do more to cut into the A320s.

Right, A220-300 being 140 seat will replace a combination of E90 and A320s. There are some routes that have both E90/A320 which may be better off being mostly A220-300. There are routes that A320 is too much capacity for.

If A220-500 was available, B6 would order it in a heartbeat. The gap between A220-300 and A321N is too large. I suspect Moxy would order it too. I'm not sure about DL since they have many types that can already fill that role.

The A220 has good size orders from:
Delta 95
AirBaltic 45
AirCanada 45
JetBlue 70
Moxie 60

I think DL will end up with more than 95 A220
AC will end up with more than 45 A220 and actually get A220-300 to replace some A320 as well.
B6 will definitely order more than 70 A220. If they are getting 2 simulators, then they are planning to go big here. I'd be shocked if they don't get more. If there is A220-500, they might get get more than even 120.
Moxie is the unknown here. Really depends on how successful they are.

SteelChair wrote:

I consider the Moxy orders "soft."

Same. David Neeleman is a talented genius. But this business model is a stretch. And does he even have financing for those 60 jets?

tphuang wrote:

If A220-500 was available, B6 would order it in a heartbeat. The gap between A220-300 and A321N is too large. I suspect Moxy would order it too. I'm not sure about DL since they have many types that can already fill that role.

Would JetBlue actually jump on the 225 if it puts them beyond 150 seats? I always get the sense that they reluctantly went to 162 seats on their A320s, pushed by investors. Even 140 seats in the 223s seems a tad tight for B6.

I expect DL to order the 225. Pairs fantastically with the 321N and/or Boeing's MOM/797.

TObound wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If A220-500 was available, B6 would order it in a heartbeat. The gap between A220-300 and A321N is too large. I suspect Moxy would order it too. I'm not sure about DL since they have many types that can already fill that role.

Would JetBlue actually jump on the 225 if it puts them beyond 150 seats? I always get the sense that they reluctantly went to 162 seats on their A320s, pushed by investors. Even 140 seats in the 223s seems a tad tight for B6.

I expect DL to order the 225. Pairs fantastically with the 321N and/or Boeing's MOM/797.

Yes I think they would. The legroom on the reconfigured 320s and the 321s is adequate and still industry leading. The A220 demonstrator with 32” pitch felt very spacious. I think if a 160 seat (@32” pitch) A225 came out JB would most definitely order it as a 320 replacement, depending on the costs of course. I also think a 180 seat stretched A320NEO+ would fit well with B6.

tphuang wrote:

I think DL will end up with more than 95 A220
AC will end up with more than 45 A220 and actually get A220-300 to replace some A320 as well.
B6 will definitely order more than 70 A220. If they are getting 2 simulators, then they are planning to go big here. I'd be shocked if they don't get more. If there is A220-500, they might get get more than even 120.
Moxie is the unknown here. Really depends on how successful they are.

I agree B6 will take at least the remaining 50 options over time, but I will point out that they had 3 E190 sims at one point and only 60 E190s, and the 2 sims they have now are barely adequate to complete all the training events. That said, the E190 has a large amount of training churn, and I expect pilots will stay on the A220 longer than they stay on the E190 before going to the 320/321, so practically speaking 2 A220 sims should be adequate for the 70 firm orders. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see 3 sims at some point.

Sokes wrote:

I found something



source: https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... a220-mtow/

I have no doubt that an A220-500 could do a lot of jobs. I doubt it could do so cheaper than an A320Neo.
A B777-300 has lots of range. But it can't climb to a fuel saving altitude when close to MTOW.
The A330 also has lots of range. Is it used for that range or even for range at maximum payload?

I do not understand the chart.

There has never been any mention about fuel volume increase.

Is the chart correct?

VV wrote:

There has never been any mention about fuel volume increase.

what makes you think there is increased fuel volume in that chart?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

There has never been any mention about fuel volume increase.

what makes you think there is increased fuel volume in that chart?

best regards
Thomas

Read the chart.

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

There has never been any mention about fuel volume increase.

what makes you think there is increased fuel volume in that chart?

best regards
Thomas

Read the chart.

I did, I am not seeing it, hence I ask.

Best regards
Thomas

TObound wrote:

Sokes wrote:

I have no doubt that an A220-500 could do a lot of jobs. I doubt it could do so cheaper than an A320Neo.
A B777-300 has lots of range. But it can't climb to a fuel saving altitude when close to MTOW.
The A330 also has lots of range. Is it used for that range or even for range at maximum payload?

You're assuming that most mainline narrowbody ops are close to MTOW and long flights where they operate at cruise altitude for long. That's not anywhere close to even a significant percentage of narrowbody ops in real life. On a one hour flight, half of it is spent on the departure, climb to cruise, descent and approach. How much do you think a few percentage difference in cruise really matters between a 320N and 225 on that profile? And that's assuming you're correct. You'd have to know what flight profiles the engines are optimized for. I can't see airlines advocating for the 225 if it doesn't beat out 320NEO for them.
...
On the other hand , for a carrier with Eurobusiness like AF, the 225 would be highly attractive and get them even capacity bumps (150-175-200 seats), with the ability to differentiate pay (slightly less for A220 crews). Looking at one or two specs and drawing blanket conclusions is a rather amateur approach.

I'm actually assuming that most flights don't operate at MTOW. If it's MTOW, the next bigger plane (or in our case wing) would be better.
I agree that for business heavy airlines A220-500 is attractive. I never said it shouldn't be built. I just can't share the excitement.

Did any airline make any commitments like "If the A220-500 gets build, we will order 20 of them."? For Boeing's potential NMA airlines did make such statements.
"Delta Air Lines has once again presented their views on the Boeing 797, this time stating they are interested in ordering up to 200 aircraft.
First reported by Bloomberg, Delta Air Line’s Chief Executive Officer, Ed Bastian, states the airline has a significant number of Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft that need replacing soon and the proposed 797 would be a perfect aircraft."
https://samchui.com/2019/09/23/delta-in ... cpT_pIzbcc
United needs 30-40 NMAs.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ma-459767/

How many airlines expressed interest in general in an A220-500?
When I google "What airlines want A220-500" I get only Air France.

One more amateur conclusion: I believe the more passengers, the better 6-abreast vs 5-abreast.

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

There has never been any mention about fuel volume increase.

what makes you think there is increased fuel volume in that chart?

best regards
Thomas

(1) The right-most gradient on the payload-range diagram is always max fuel volume limited - and runs from (right to left) 0kg payload to MTOW with max fuel.
(2) The middle-gradient on the diagram is then swapping fuel for payload, so runs from (right to left) MTOW with max fuel to MTOW with max payload.
(3) The left-gradient (which is flat) is then MTOW with max payload and a decreasing fuel load.
The horizontal offsets (for equivalent payload) on the lower-right side of the diagram (part 1) can only come from fuel changes (or reductions in fuel burn - but that's not applicable here).


With regards the original point - there is an A220CJ (Corporate Jet) on the drawing boards with 4x ACT.
Not sure on the fuel volume - but supposedly good for a ~30% range increase.

That has not been launched yet. Not sure it'll ever be launched. But its there somewhere.

There is of course, this thread here on a.net. I suppose it could be a version of the above and be represented by the HGW noted in the payload-range diagram above.

Amiga500 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

There has never been any mention about fuel volume increase.

what makes you think there is increased fuel volume in that chart?

best regards
Thomas

The right-most gradient on the payload-range diagram is always max fuel volume limited - and runs from (right to left) 0kg payload to MTOW with max fuel.
The middle-gradient on the diagram is then swapping fuel for payload, so runs from (right to left) MTOW with max fuel to MTOW with max payload.
The left-gradient (which is flat) is then MTOW with max payload and a decreasing fuel load.

I know. The fuel volume limit kinks have however not moved, they are right on top of each other. Only the payload at the respective spots has increased = fuel volume unchanged.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

I know. The fuel volume limit kinks have however not moved, they are right on top of each other. Only the payload at the respective spots has increased = fuel volume unchanged.

Best regards
Thomas

At 0 payload, the HGW versions will fly further (going from extrapolating that chart to the x-axis).

Which can only mean increased fuel tank volume.

If the HGW version superimposed onto the top of their equivalents at the very right of the chart, then it would be just an MTOW bump.

Its also a pretty crap diagram - as in the top left corner, there should be an offset of payload due to the additional fuel carried (unless the MTOW bump exactly matches additional fuel carried+ACT weight)


See example of what it should be like here:

Amiga500 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

I know. The fuel volume limit kinks have however not moved, they are right on top of each other. Only the payload at the respective spots has increased = fuel volume unchanged.

Best regards
Thomas

At 0 payload, the HGW versions will fly further (going from extrapolating that chart to the x-axis).

Yes, but since the fuel volume limit kinks are in the same place the explanation isn't

increased fuel tank volume.

But simply

Its also a pretty crap diagram

Best regards
Thomas

TObound wrote:

Airlines like AC, DL, AF, LH Group would love a 150-160 seat 225. I could see carriers like OS, LX, AF going to a narrowbody mix of 223s, 225s and 321Ns.

I'm not sure why AF or LH would love a 150-160 seat A225, except as an A319 replacement (which is of course entirely possible especially for Air France). Their A320s use the Eurobusiness layout, with standard seats throughout and middle seats left unsold in rows allocated for business class. The number of seats allocated to business class varies from flight to flight, even on the same aircraft. If used in all-economy mode they seat between 174 and 180, quite a bit of a downgauge to change to A225. Same applies to IAG, really.

There is absolutely no doubt the efficiency of a simple stretch of the CS300 (A220-300) with four or five extra seat rows will be very-very compelling for operators in Europe and in the US.

Simple stretch means the same thing everywhere excepted the following:

• longer fuselage to accommodate the extra seats
• extra emergency exit to allow more than 150 passengers
• slightly increased MTOW to around 151,000 lb to 154,000 lb depending on the remaining design margin

According to my estimates, the simple stretch could carry 160 passengers over 2,400 nmi or slightly more depending on the MTOW.
Its economics is on par with the A321neo when expressed on per seat basis.

Whether Airbus would allow Airbus Canada to develop this version is a question that we will follow closely.

If airlines insist on having this version and put the request in a contract then perhaps it would happen.

If it happens, it would allow Airbus Canada to hire more people to run the development which is not very difficult since it is a simple stretch.

I published the ZFW-Range diagram based on the information published in the Airport Planning Document.

The ZFW-Range diagram was discussed in another thread. The link is below.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1434491&start=100#p21784635

Sokes wrote:

TObound wrote:

Sokes wrote:

I have no doubt that an A220-500 could do a lot of jobs. I doubt it could do so cheaper than an A320Neo.
A B777-300 has lots of range. But it can't climb to a fuel saving altitude when close to MTOW.
The A330 also has lots of range. Is it used for that range or even for range at maximum payload?

You're assuming that most mainline narrowbody ops are close to MTOW and long flights where they operate at cruise altitude for long. That's not anywhere close to even a significant percentage of narrowbody ops in real life. On a one hour flight, half of it is spent on the departure, climb to cruise, descent and approach. How much do you think a few percentage difference in cruise really matters between a 320N and 225 on that profile? And that's assuming you're correct. You'd have to know what flight profiles the engines are optimized for. I can't see airlines advocating for the 225 if it doesn't beat out 320NEO for them.
...
On the other hand , for a carrier with Eurobusiness like AF, the 225 would be highly attractive and get them even capacity bumps (150-175-200 seats), with the ability to differentiate pay (slightly less for A220 crews). Looking at one or two specs and drawing blanket conclusions is a rather amateur approach.

I'm actually assuming that most flights don't operate at MTOW. If it's MTOW, the next bigger plane (or in our case wing) would be better.
I agree that for business heavy airlines A220-500 is attractive. I never said it shouldn't be built. I just can't share the excitement.

Like I said earlier, there's different business models where the the plane makes sense. It makes the most sense for mainline carriers.

I don't get your comment about getting "excited" for it. So you get excited over subtypes regularly?

Sokes wrote:

Did any airline make any commitments like "If the A220-500 gets build, we will order 20 of them."? For Boeing's potential NMA airlines did make such statements.
"Delta Air Lines has once again presented their views on the Boeing 797, this time stating they are interested in ordering up to 200 aircraft.
First reported by Bloomberg, Delta Air Line’s Chief Executive Officer, Ed Bastian, states the airline has a significant number of Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft that need replacing soon and the proposed 797 would be a perfect aircraft."
https://samchui.com/2019/09/23/delta-in ... cpT_pIzbcc
United needs 30-40 NMAs.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ma-459767/

How many airlines expressed interest in general in an A220-500?
When I google "What airlines want A220-500" I get only Air France.

Cause what airline CEOs say publicly matters more than what they tell Airbus?

Sokes wrote:

One more amateur conclusion: I believe the more passengers, the better 6-abreast vs 5-abreast.

So at 300 pax, you think six abreast is better? Likewise, so you think six abreast is sensible for 100 pax?

There's obviously a range where 5 abreast is optimal. And I'd argue that one more stretch in the 220 maxes it out (at that point the 225 would be just shorter than the 321N).

Andy33 wrote:

TObound wrote:

Airlines like AC, DL, AF, LH Group would love a 150-160 seat 225. I could see carriers like OS, LX, AF going to a narrowbody mix of 223s, 225s and 321Ns.

I'm not sure why AF or LH would love a 150-160 seat A225, except as an A319 replacement (which is of course entirely possible especially for Air France). Their A320s use the Eurobusiness layout, with standard seats throughout and middle seats left unsold in rows allocated for business class. The number of seats allocated to business class varies from flight to flight, even on the same aircraft. If used in all-economy mode they seat between 174 and 180, quite a bit of a downgauge to change to A225. Same applies to IAG, really.

Ummmm AF plans to fit 149 seats to the 223. LX fits 145 seats to their 223s today. And those numbers are with Eurobusiness. So a hypothetical 225 would be in the 170-180 seats range with Eurobusiness. Very much an A320 replacement for the Euro mainlines.

TObound wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

TObound wrote:

Airlines like AC, DL, AF, LH Group would love a 150-160 seat 225. I could see carriers like OS, LX, AF going to a narrowbody mix of 223s, 225s and 321Ns.

I'm not sure why AF or LH would love a 150-160 seat A225, except as an A319 replacement (which is of course entirely possible especially for Air France). Their A320s use the Eurobusiness layout, with standard seats throughout and middle seats left unsold in rows allocated for business class. The number of seats allocated to business class varies from flight to flight, even on the same aircraft. If used in all-economy mode they seat between 174 and 180, quite a bit of a downgauge to change to A225. Same applies to IAG, really.

Ummmm AF plans to fit 149 seats to the 223. LX fits 145 seats to their 223s today. And those numbers are with Eurobusiness.

Yes and no. LX fits 145 seats, but of the 30 seats "Eurobusiness" 12 are unoccupied when used as J. So with Eurobusiness it's only 133 seats plus 12 unoccupied.

Best regards
Thomas

TObound wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If A220-500 was available, B6 would order it in a heartbeat. The gap between A220-300 and A321N is too large. I suspect Moxy would order it too. I'm not sure about DL since they have many types that can already fill that role.

Would JetBlue actually jump on the 225 if it puts them beyond 150 seats? I always get the sense that they reluctantly went to 162 seats on their A320s, pushed by investors. Even 140 seats in the 223s seems a tad tight for B6.

I expect DL to order the 225. Pairs fantastically with the 321N and/or Boeing's MOM/797.

I was a little surprised that they fit 140 eats on 220-300. But then again, AirBaltic managed to fit 145 seats with 31 rows of seating. So 28 rows seems to be plenty of space. Not sure how many rows A220-500 will have, but 162 to 170 seat version would be very attractive for B6. Would be the perfect replacement for their reconfigured A320. I guess maybe they will have to do with fewer EMS rows?