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.

Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
VV wrote:In my opinion it is not very useful to declare "A220 vs E-195E2, market battle already won by Airbus ?"
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.
tphuang wrote:
A220-300 has about the same CASM as A320NEO based on the numbers B6 provided.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The A220 has good size orders from:
Delta 95
AirBaltic 45
AirCanada 45
JetBlue 70
Moxie 60
SteelChair wrote:I consider the Moxy orders "soft."
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.
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.
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.
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?
VV wrote:There has never been any mention about fuel volume increase.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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).
increased fuel tank volume.
Its also a pretty crap diagram
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.
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.
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.
Sokes wrote:One more amateur conclusion: I believe the more passengers, the better 6-abreast vs 5-abreast.
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.
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.
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.