• 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:47 am

DL717 wrote:
Agreed. The 175 has been a barn burner, 190 pretty good. 195? Not so much. Right now though, scope is killing the 175-E2. The airlines need to fix that. Planes are getting heavier and it makes no sense for mainline to fly 76-seaters which in turn chokes off pilot development at the regional level.


That's the wrong end of the horse as my grandfather used to say. The airline unions in the US are not going to relax the scope clause, because they don't have to. Just because EMB overshot the weight on the E275, doesn't mean there aren't other options that don't (spacejet 100, E1 175, etc), nor is it an urgent decision for them. Probably looking at least 2 contract cycles before it could be pushed realistically, and the worry is of course that they relax it so much that the A220 becomes an express aircraft as well. Even at the E2's weight it opens the door to the Spacejet 90 which is 10 seats bigger and is likely a bigger concern to the mainline unions.

Alaska/Horizon might be able to go with the E275, but they would be about the only one of the "majors". The other airline they should be targeting with the E275 is SkyRegional (AC Express), the AC scope clause would allow the E2 as i read them (max 76 passenger configuration, no weight limit?)... and i'd love to see racoon masked E275s personally :mrgreen: . They would fit well too as SkyRegional tends to operate longer sectors on average than the US Express carriers so the efficiencies of the GTF are more apparent.

If EMBRAER realistically want to see an E2 in Express service in the US, they will need to build a lighter one... end of discussion. Really they should be able to do that but the question is how the cost equation works for them. Is it worth it to them or are they better off chasing performance improvements on the E175/CF34 combo without adding the GTF weight, and maybe waiting for a lighter GTF engine version? How well and when the SpaceJet 100 does in service might be the tipping point they are going to wait for.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:04 am

northstardc4m wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Agreed. The 175 has been a barn burner, 190 pretty good. 195? Not so much. Right now though, scope is killing the 175-E2. The airlines need to fix that. Planes are getting heavier and it makes no sense for mainline to fly 76-seaters which in turn chokes off pilot development at the regional level.


That's the wrong end of the horse as my grandfather used to say. The airline unions in the US are not going to relax the scope clause, because they don't have to. Just because EMB overshot the weight on the E275, doesn't mean there aren't other options that don't (spacejet 100, E1 175, etc), nor is it an urgent decision for them. Probably looking at least 2 contract cycles before it could be pushed realistically, and the worry is of course that they relax it so much that the A220 becomes an express aircraft as well. Even at the E2's weight it opens the door to the Spacejet 90 which is 10 seats bigger and is likely a bigger concern to the mainline unions.

Alaska/Horizon might be able to go with the E275, but they would be about the only one of the "majors". The other airline they should be targeting with the E275 is SkyRegional (AC Express), the AC scope clause would allow the E2 as i read them (max 76 passenger configuration, no weight limit?)... and i'd love to see racoon masked E275s personally :mrgreen: . They would fit well too as SkyRegional tends to operate longer sectors on average than the US Express carriers so the efficiencies of the GTF are more apparent.

If EMBRAER realistically want to see an E2 in Express service in the US, they will need to build a lighter one... end of discussion. Really they should be able to do that but the question is how the cost equation works for them. Is it worth it to them or are they better off chasing performance improvements on the E175/CF34 combo without adding the GTF weight, and maybe waiting for a lighter GTF engine version? How well and when the SpaceJet 100 does in service might be the tipping point they are going to wait for.


It’s never going to be lighter and scope based on weight is the dumbest thing ever in the history of aviation. It was conceited around an obsolete CRJ family. Cap it at 80-100 seats and move on. The ideas coming out of pilot unions are about as useful these days as a car with four flat tires in the middle of the desert.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:20 am

DL717 wrote:

It’s never going to be lighter and scope based on weight is the dumbest thing ever in the history of aviation. It was conceited around an obsolete CRJ family. Cap it at 80-100 seats and move on. The ideas coming out of pilot unions are about as useful these days as a car with four flat tires in the middle of the desert.


Oh you are funny...

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out. And you may not agree with what the unions want but they don't care, they are there to protect the pilots they represent... And the memories of Continental, Eastern, TWA and others with BOHICA will not be going away any time soon, so you are more likely to get a stone to jump rope than get anything 80 seats much less 100 or more into express.

If the airlines are very very polite and give something in return you might EVENTUALLY get no weight limit and a 76 seat limit, but only with massive consessions most likely. It won't be this contract cycle though, so 5-10 years from now maybe. The pilot shortage and low fuel prices mean the unions don't have any incentive to do f*** all to help lower pilot costs for now. In fact my guess is you will see express shrink overall over the next few years are be replaced by mainline 100-150 seaters more and more.

Labor holds the cards right now and it's not going to change soon.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
Sokes
Posts: 572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:04 am

northstardc4m wrote:

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out.


The unions could agree for temporary work pilots if the profits so generated are shared with old unionized pilots. When temporary work became legal in Germany the unions didn't mind temporary workers (= non unionized labor) to work for much less. Companies profit and therefore union members' salaries become more secure. Exploited temporary workers may even facilitate higher wage increases for old unionized labor?
Obviously as long as there is pilot shortage you are right.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11849
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:44 am

Sokes wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out.


The unions could agree for temporary work pilots if the profits so generated are shared with old unionized pilots. When temporary work became legal in Germany the unions didn't mind temporary workers (= non unionized labor) to work for much less.


While of topic, those unions fought pretty hard to force the same pay for temporary workers and in essence managed to push that through years ago. Temps have to get the same pay from day one, *unless* they are unionized and have a tariff agreement allowing to pay less for the first couple of month. In unionized companies Unions had often added language that those companies can only hire temps if they pay them the same even over a decade ago. Sometime that even meant somewhat better conditions, temps got their overtime paid every month, while regular employees had to burn the time if they could.

If Pilot Unions see the economics of outsourcing go to hell they open a bottle of champagne as that makes above scope flying with mainline pilots more attractive, especially when that means flying a A221/190 or 195E2 for essential the same trip cost, sans Crew, as an CRJ or 175E1. They have zero incentive to move even a millimetre.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Sokes
Posts: 572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:58 am

tommy1808 wrote:

While of topic, those unions fought pretty hard to force the same pay for temporary workers and in essence managed to push that through years ago. Temps have to get the same pay from day one, ...



I don't spend too much time in Germany any more, so probably you are right. But I remember there was a time it was as I described above.
Imagine there is a recession and people have to be laid off. Isn't it nice for old unionized labor if temporary workers have to go first? Divide and rule is the name of the game.
Can you expand on how unions fought and how many years back they pushed through equal pay?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11849
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:54 am

Sokes wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

While of topic, those unions fought pretty hard to force the same pay for temporary workers and in essence managed to push that through years ago. Temps have to get the same pay from day one, ...



I don't spend too much time in Germany any more, so probably you are right. But I remember there was a time it was as I described above.


For lower skilled work, where the gigs are often short, that was and is still the case..

Imagine there is a recession and people have to be laid off. Isn't it nice for old unionized labor if temporary workers have to go first? Divide and rule is the name of the game.


You essentially have to kick the young, cheap, new, no-dependents employees first in any case, and hence firing in an recession drives Unit costs up quite a bit.

Can you expand on how unions fought and how many years back they pushed through equal pay?


Iirc 2015, but the last time friends of mine worked as temps, 2005, the companies they worked in already had it in their tariff agreements. Employers need work council (= employees representation) approval to hire temps, hire anyone period, so employees have a rather strong position in any case. If the company doesnt habe a work council employes can just vote to have one w/o the employer having a say. Germany is a constitutional collectivist, Article 14, republic after all.

Tangent over, if you have further questions non-av or PM.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Skywatcher
Posts: 842
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:19 am

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:44 pm

reidar76 wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Embraer managed to sell its civil aircraft branch for 4 billion dollars while on the other hand the commercial aircraft division of Bombardier ran out of cash thanks to the CSeries. To me, there is a clear winner.


Bombardier is selling of their aerospace business part by part. They will probably end up with around 4 billion dollars in the end. Longview bought the dash-8 program for, if I remember correctly, 250 million dollars. Mitsubishi bought the CRJ program for close to 800 million dollars, including liabilities etc. Spirit aerosystems bought Bombardiers factories in Ireland and Morocco. I think that also was around 800 million dollars. Bombardier retains the business jet business, but also a significant share of the A220 program. In a few years Bombardier can demand that Airbus buys the remaining shares at market value.


Bombardier also sold the land at the Q-400 factory in Downsview (Toronto suburb) for around $500 million I believe it was.

You make a good point-that fact that Bombardier sold the C series for $1 is only part of the story. Maybe the E-2 portion of the Embraer sale to Boeing was $1 as well?
 
Nean1
Posts: 340
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:53 pm

Skywatcher wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Embraer managed to sell its civil aircraft branch for 4 billion dollars while on the other hand the commercial aircraft division of Bombardier ran out of cash thanks to the CSeries. To me, there is a clear winner.


Bombardier is selling of their aerospace business part by part. They will probably end up with around 4 billion dollars in the end. Longview bought the dash-8 program for, if I remember correctly, 250 million dollars. Mitsubishi bought the CRJ program for close to 800 million dollars, including liabilities etc. Spirit aerosystems bought Bombardiers factories in Ireland and Morocco. I think that also was around 800 million dollars. Bombardier retains the business jet business, but also a significant share of the A220 program. In a few years Bombardier can demand that Airbus buys the remaining shares at market value.


Bombardier also sold the land at the Q-400 factory in Downsview (Toronto suburb) for around $500 million I believe it was.

You make a good point-that fact that Bombardier sold the C series for $1 is only part of the story. Maybe the E-2 portion of the Embraer sale to Boeing was $1 as well?


Skywatcher,
E-2 = 1USD? It looks like you are spending a lot of time looking at the sky.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:57 pm

northstardc4m wrote:
DL717 wrote:

It’s never going to be lighter and scope based on weight is the dumbest thing ever in the history of aviation. It was conceited around an obsolete CRJ family. Cap it at 80-100 seats and move on. The ideas coming out of pilot unions are about as useful these days as a car with four flat tires in the middle of the desert.


Oh you are funny...

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out. And you may not agree with what the unions want but they don't care, they are there to protect the pilots they represent... And the memories of Continental, Eastern, TWA and others with BOHICA will not be going away any time soon, so you are more likely to get a stone to jump rope than get anything 80 seats much less 100 or more into express.

If the airlines are very very polite and give something in return you might EVENTUALLY get no weight limit and a 76 seat limit, but only with massive consessions most likely. It won't be this contract cycle though, so 5-10 years from now maybe. The pilot shortage and low fuel prices mean the unions don't have any incentive to do f*** all to help lower pilot costs for now. In fact my guess is you will see express shrink overall over the next few years are be replaced by mainline 100-150 seaters more and more.

Labor holds the cards right now and it's not going to change soon.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I agree, if anything the pilots now see the error of there ways and want lower caps on outsourced flying.

The weight limits are to keep regional jet flying regional. Otherwise they could buy A220-100 with a centerline fuel tank and fly TATL.

Asking pilots to give up scope is asking them to vote against their own interests.

Any increase in weight will increase M100 range. The airlines, except for DL, are not reducing scope. The concessions requested are steep. Best to wait for the M100 or a new scope compliant E2.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:13 pm

Skywatcher wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Embraer managed to sell its civil aircraft branch for 4 billion dollars while on the other hand the commercial aircraft division of Bombardier ran out of cash thanks to the CSeries. To me, there is a clear winner.


Bombardier is selling of their aerospace business part by part. They will probably end up with around 4 billion dollars in the end. Longview bought the dash-8 program for, if I remember correctly, 250 million dollars. Mitsubishi bought the CRJ program for close to 800 million dollars, including liabilities etc. Spirit aerosystems bought Bombardiers factories in Ireland and Morocco. I think that also was around 800 million dollars. Bombardier retains the business jet business, but also a significant share of the A220 program. In a few years Bombardier can demand that Airbus buys the remaining shares at market value.


Bombardier also sold the land at the Q-400 factory in Downsview (Toronto suburb) for around $500 million I believe it was.

You make a good point-that fact that Bombardier sold the C series for $1 is only part of the story. Maybe the E-2 portion of the Embraer sale to Boeing was $1 as well?
$1+debt... Not an uncommon sale price actually. Especially when the debt is 9 or 10 figures.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11849
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:46 pm

Nean1 wrote:
Skywatcher wrote:
reidar76 wrote:

Bombardier is selling of their aerospace business part by part. They will probably end up with around 4 billion dollars in the end. Longview bought the dash-8 program for, if I remember correctly, 250 million dollars. Mitsubishi bought the CRJ program for close to 800 million dollars, including liabilities etc. Spirit aerosystems bought Bombardiers factories in Ireland and Morocco. I think that also was around 800 million dollars. Bombardier retains the business jet business, but also a significant share of the A220 program. In a few years Bombardier can demand that Airbus buys the remaining shares at market value.


Bombardier also sold the land at the Q-400 factory in Downsview (Toronto suburb) for around $500 million I believe it was.

You make a good point-that fact that Bombardier sold the C series for $1 is only part of the story. Maybe the E-2 portion of the Embraer sale to Boeing was $1 as well?


Skywatcher,
E-2 = 1USD? It looks like you are spending a lot of time looking at the sky.


If you happen to have a break down which values Boeing assigned to which part of what they are buying, please share it.

They could have found the E2 worth billions and the rest of Embraer more a liability, or they found the rest of Emraer to be worth multiple billions and the E2 program a liability. Unlikely as the E2 is likely what they wanted, but outside of Boeing I don't think anyone knows how much of the purchase price was for the E2.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Sokes
Posts: 572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:39 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Sokes wrote:

Can you expand on how unions fought and how many years back they pushed through equal pay?


Iirc 2015, but the last time friends of mine worked as temps, 2005, the companies they worked in already had it in their tariff agreements.
...
Tangent over, if you have further questions non-av or PM.

best regards
Thomas


I just read same payment for same work is law since 1. April 2017. Also the number of temps in Germany is below 1 million. I indeed painted a too dramatic picture.
Sorry for that.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

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

Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:37 am

northstardc4m wrote:
DL717 wrote:

It’s never going to be lighter and scope based on weight is the dumbest thing ever in the history of aviation. It was conceited around an obsolete CRJ family. Cap it at 80-100 seats and move on. The ideas coming out of pilot unions are about as useful these days as a car with four flat tires in the middle of the desert.


Oh you are funny...

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out. And you may not agree with what the unions want but they don't care, they are there to protect the pilots they represent... And the memories of Continental, Eastern, TWA and others with BOHICA will not be going away any time soon, so you are more likely to get a stone to jump rope than get anything 80 seats much less 100 or more into express.

If the airlines are very very polite and give something in return you might EVENTUALLY get no weight limit and a 76 seat limit, but only with massive consessions most likely. It won't be this contract cycle though, so 5-10 years from now maybe. The pilot shortage and low fuel prices mean the unions don't have any incentive to do f*** all to help lower pilot costs for now. In fact my guess is you will see express shrink overall over the next few years are be replaced by mainline 100-150 seaters more and more.

Labor holds the cards right now and it's not going to change soon.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Glad you find humor in scope stupidity. What your plan? Regionals going away? Sure.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11849
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:50 am

DL717 wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
DL717 wrote:

It’s never going to be lighter and scope based on weight is the dumbest thing ever in the history of aviation. It was conceited around an obsolete CRJ family. Cap it at 80-100 seats and move on. The ideas coming out of pilot unions are about as useful these days as a car with four flat tires in the middle of the desert.


Oh you are funny...

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out. And you may not agree with what the unions want but they don't care, they are there to protect the pilots they represent... And the memories of Continental, Eastern, TWA and others with BOHICA will not be going away any time soon, so you are more likely to get a stone to jump rope than get anything 80 seats much less 100 or more into express.

If the airlines are very very polite and give something in return you might EVENTUALLY get no weight limit and a 76 seat limit, but only with massive consessions most likely. It won't be this contract cycle though, so 5-10 years from now maybe. The pilot shortage and low fuel prices mean the unions don't have any incentive to do f*** all to help lower pilot costs for now. In fact my guess is you will see express shrink overall over the next few years are be replaced by mainline 100-150 seaters more and more.

Labor holds the cards right now and it's not going to change soon.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Glad you find humor in scope stupidity. What your plan? Regionals going away? Sure.


Well, if tegionals can't stay competitive in the free market they are in, they will go away.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:55 am

DL717 wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
DL717 wrote:

It’s never going to be lighter and scope based on weight is the dumbest thing ever in the history of aviation. It was conceited around an obsolete CRJ family. Cap it at 80-100 seats and move on. The ideas coming out of pilot unions are about as useful these days as a car with four flat tires in the middle of the desert.


Oh you are funny...

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out. And you may not agree with what the unions want but they don't care, they are there to protect the pilots they represent... And the memories of Continental, Eastern, TWA and others with BOHICA will not be going away any time soon, so you are more likely to get a stone to jump rope than get anything 80 seats much less 100 or more into express.

If the airlines are very very polite and give something in return you might EVENTUALLY get no weight limit and a 76 seat limit, but only with massive consessions most likely. It won't be this contract cycle though, so 5-10 years from now maybe. The pilot shortage and low fuel prices mean the unions don't have any incentive to do f*** all to help lower pilot costs for now. In fact my guess is you will see express shrink overall over the next few years are be replaced by mainline 100-150 seaters more and more.

Labor holds the cards right now and it's not going to change soon.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Glad you find humor in scope stupidity. What your plan? Regionals going away? Sure.
Well then do explain why the business model is failing with the scope clauses restrictions on weight as it exists now?

The E1 175 does meet those restrictions
The M100 will meet those restrictions, with GTFs

It's not like the E2 175 is the only thing in the market. EMB made an unwise move building the E2 175 too heavy, the airline scope clauses aren't going to change at least soon, EMB screwed itself on that and assuming anyone else will fix a problem they inflicted on themselves for them is a disastrous notion (if that's what they were thinking). Don't blame the airline unions for doing what they are supposed to do, blame the manufacturer building something without a market.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
TObound
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:51 pm

DL717 wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
DL717 wrote:

It’s never going to be lighter and scope based on weight is the dumbest thing ever in the history of aviation. It was conceited around an obsolete CRJ family. Cap it at 80-100 seats and move on. The ideas coming out of pilot unions are about as useful these days as a car with four flat tires in the middle of the desert.


Oh you are funny...

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out. And you may not agree with what the unions want but they don't care, they are there to protect the pilots they represent... And the memories of Continental, Eastern, TWA and others with BOHICA will not be going away any time soon, so you are more likely to get a stone to jump rope than get anything 80 seats much less 100 or more into express.

If the airlines are very very polite and give something in return you might EVENTUALLY get no weight limit and a 76 seat limit, but only with massive consessions most likely. It won't be this contract cycle though, so 5-10 years from now maybe. The pilot shortage and low fuel prices mean the unions don't have any incentive to do f*** all to help lower pilot costs for now. In fact my guess is you will see express shrink overall over the next few years are be replaced by mainline 100-150 seaters more and more.

Labor holds the cards right now and it's not going to change soon.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Glad you find humor in scope stupidity. What your plan? Regionals going away? Sure.


If I were a mainline pilot, I'd say, "Yes".

The entire regional sector exists to suppress the wages of pilots (and cabin crew) to a lesser extent. Shrinking the sector is in the interest of every professional pilot.

Is that going to happen? No. But with 76 seat options available, there's no reason for pilots to budge. It's the carriers mess. They can sort it out.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:28 pm

[url][/url]I found the images for the Leeham analysis:

At full load factor, the A220 has quite an advantage:
Image

At very light loads, the E2 looks better:
Image

I did some calculations. For the light load the A220-100 has far too much wing. Overwinged aircraft suffer the skin friction without the ability to climb up into less dense air to evade drag. I also do not understand comparing a bunch of different sized aircraft all with 100 passengers. The smaller the plane, the lower the costs for a fixed low payload.

This implies in low season the A223 and E295 have similar costs. In peak season the A223 has far more profit potential.

The charts also show why the -7 and A319NEO are not selling. Peak season profit potential per passenger the same as smaller aircraft. In low season, high losses.

I'd like to see this chart updated with multiple ranges. The flights picked are on the short length for A220 electrical subsystems (suffer climb fuel burn penalty for weight without the time for cruise fuel burn savings). I would also like to see it corrected from theoretical to with in service data (-7 excluded).



Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

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

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:16 am

lightsaber wrote:
[url][/url]I found the images for the Leeham analysis:

At full load factor, the A220 has quite an advantage:
Image

At very light loads, the E2 looks better:
Image

I did some calculations. For the light load the A220-100 has far too much wing. Overwinged aircraft suffer the skin friction without the ability to climb up into less dense air to evade drag. I also do not understand comparing a bunch of different sized aircraft all with 100 passengers. The smaller the plane, the lower the costs for a fixed low payload.

This implies in low season the A223 and E295 have similar costs. In peak season the A223 has far more profit potential.

The charts also show why the -7 and A319NEO are not selling. Peak season profit potential per passenger the same as smaller aircraft. In low season, high losses.

I'd like to see this chart updated with multiple ranges. The flights picked are on the short length for A220 electrical subsystems (suffer climb fuel burn penalty for weight without the time for cruise fuel burn savings). I would also like to see it corrected from theoretical to with in service data (-7 excluded).
Lightsaber


Maybe I am reading the charts wrongly, but the CS300 is exact the same in the last chart and better in the first chart in an scenario that should be advantageous for the E2; namely short stage lengths. At longer stage lengths the advantage of the Cs300 will be even more.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:12 am

JonesNL wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
[url][/url]I found the images for the Leeham analysis:

At full load factor, the A220 has quite an advantage:
Image

At very light loads, the E2 looks better:
Image

I did some calculations. For the light load the A220-100 has far too much wing. Overwinged aircraft suffer the skin friction without the ability to climb up into less dense air to evade drag. I also do not understand comparing a bunch of different sized aircraft all with 100 passengers. The smaller the plane, the lower the costs for a fixed low payload.

This implies in low season the A223 and E295 have similar costs. In peak season the A223 has far more profit potential.

The charts also show why the -7 and A319NEO are not selling. Peak season profit potential per passenger the same as smaller aircraft. In low season, high losses.

I'd like to see this chart updated with multiple ranges. The flights picked are on the short length for A220 electrical subsystems (suffer climb fuel burn penalty for weight without the time for cruise fuel burn savings). I would also like to see it corrected from theoretical to with in service data (-7 excluded).
Lightsaber


Maybe I am reading the charts wrongly, but the CS300 is exact the same in the last chart and better in the first chart in an scenario that should be advantageous for the E2; namely short stage lengths. At longer stage lengths the advantage of the Cs300 will be even more.

At light loads the E2 and A220 are basically the same. At higher loads, payload or fuel, the A220 pulls ahead. I would like to see line charts for ranges 250nm to max range.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
rrbsztk
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:48 am

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

Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:18 pm

JonesNL wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
[url][/url]I found the images for the Leeham analysis:

At full load factor, the A220 has quite an advantage:
Image

At very light loads, the E2 looks better:
Image

I did some calculations. For the light load the A220-100 has far too much wing. Overwinged aircraft suffer the skin friction without the ability to climb up into less dense air to evade drag. I also do not understand comparing a bunch of different sized aircraft all with 100 passengers. The smaller the plane, the lower the costs for a fixed low payload.

This implies in low season the A223 and E295 have similar costs. In peak season the A223 has far more profit potential.

The charts also show why the -7 and A319NEO are not selling. Peak season profit potential per passenger the same as smaller aircraft. In low season, high losses.

I'd like to see this chart updated with multiple ranges. The flights picked are on the short length for A220 electrical subsystems (suffer climb fuel burn penalty for weight without the time for cruise fuel burn savings). I would also like to see it corrected from theoretical to with in service data (-7 excluded).
Lightsaber


Maybe I am reading the charts wrongly, but the CS300 is exact the same in the last chart and better in the first chart in an scenario that should be advantageous for the E2; namely short stage lengths. At longer stage lengths the advantage of the Cs300 will be even more.


The light load one is not all the same load factor percent. Took me a few minutes to figure it out yesterday wondering the same thing. Its 100 people on a E2 195 for a 76% load factor or 100 people on a a220-300 for a 72% load factor (or 100 on a 319/737 for a 69% load factor)
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

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

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:58 pm

Wow, this is a fascinating chart!! Thanks Lightsaber!!

Operating the A220 seems to be a no brainer for most applications, particularly for longer range "or" higher loads.

The E2 would have to sell at real discounts to offset those operational economies - unless stricly used below 600 nm range "combined" with lighter loads.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:57 pm

One question about the charts though, are they based on the projected costs for the 220 or the in service costs from Baltic, Swiss, etc which have been quoted at up to 8% better fuel efficiency than projected?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:28 pm

As noted, be careful reading the 2nd chart. Assuming a fixed payload for very different sized aircraft (a mere hundred passengers) assume one or more of the following:
1. A yield management team that is asleep, drunk, or on holiday.
2. An odd day for passenger count (e.g., last Thursday in the USA).
3. An airline heading into bankruptcy as no one routinely flies low load factors, excluding island hopping or subsidized service.

The smaller plane must have lower costs carrying the same count of passengers, in particular on such a short mission, or it will be out of production quickly.


northstardc4m wrote:
One question about the charts though, are they based on the projected costs for the 220 or the in service costs from Baltic, Swiss, etc which have been quoted at up to 8% better fuel efficiency than projected?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I've read 3% better than expected, where did you get 8%? That would add several hundred nautical miles to the range and thus the MTOW increase would not have been required. So I'm going to doubt it was that good.

The charts are theoretical performance. They predate E2 entry into service. That is why I would like to see new charts based on actual payload and fuel burn. There is now enough data from all A220 and E2 aircraft. In particular for the A220.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:32 pm

lightsaber wrote:
As noted, be careful reading the 2nd chart. Assuming a fixed payload for very different sized aircraft (a mere hundred passengers) assume one or more of the following:
1. A yield management team that is asleep, drunk, or on holiday.
2. An odd day for passenger count (e.g., last Thursday in the USA).
3. An airline heading into bankruptcy as no one routinely flies low load factors, excluding island hopping or subsidized service.

The smaller plane must have lower costs carrying the same count of passengers, in particular on such a short mission, or it will be out of production quickly.


northstardc4m wrote:
One question about the charts though, are they based on the projected costs for the 220 or the in service costs from Baltic, Swiss, etc which have been quoted at up to 8% better fuel efficiency than projected?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I've read 3% better than expected, where did you get 8%? That would add several hundred nautical miles to the range and thus the MTOW increase would not have been required. So I'm going to doubt it was that good.

The charts are theoretical performance. They predate E2 entry into service. That is why I would like to see new charts based on actual payload and fuel burn. There is now enough data from all A220 and E2 aircraft. In particular for the A220.

Lightsaber
From a Latvian article about Baltic... But 3% even makes a large difference.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:36 am

northstardc4m wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
As noted, be careful reading the 2nd chart. Assuming a fixed payload for very different sized aircraft (a mere hundred passengers) assume one or more of the following:
1. A yield management team that is asleep, drunk, or on holiday.
2. An odd day for passenger count (e.g., last Thursday in the USA).
3. An airline heading into bankruptcy as no one routinely flies low load factors, excluding island hopping or subsidized service.

The smaller plane must have lower costs carrying the same count of passengers, in particular on such a short mission, or it will be out of production quickly.


northstardc4m wrote:
One question about the charts though, are they based on the projected costs for the 220 or the in service costs from Baltic, Swiss, etc which have been quoted at up to 8% better fuel efficiency than projected?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I've read 3% better than expected, where did you get 8%? That would add several hundred nautical miles to the range and thus the MTOW increase would not have been required. So I'm going to doubt it was that good.

The charts are theoretical performance. They predate E2 entry into service. That is why I would like to see new charts based on actual payload and fuel burn. There is now enough data from all A220 and E2 aircraft. In particular for the A220.

Lightsaber
From a Latvian article about Baltic... But 3% even makes a large difference.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Delta's A220s (all -100s today) are fuel misers.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/analysi ... -at-delta/

On a 3 mission: 3500 lb/hr
717, same mission 5000 lb/hr

Now, the 717s are in really low utilization duty. Do they are safe for a long time.

I'd like to see E2-195/190 data on similar mission lengths.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11849
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:48 am

lightsaber wrote:
As noted, be careful reading the 2nd chart. Assuming a fixed payload for very different sized aircraft (a mere hundred passengers) assume one or more of the following:
1. A yield management team that is asleep, drunk, or on holiday.
2. An odd day for passenger count (e.g., last Thursday in the USA).
3. An airline heading into bankruptcy as no one routinely flies low load factors, excluding island hopping or subsidized service.


mm... i was reading it:

a) Top Chart: High Season, can sell as many tickets as you have seats available at good prices = planes full
b) Bottom Chart: Beyond 100 seats you have to dump tickets to fill them beyond 100 seats

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:54 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
As noted, be careful reading the 2nd chart. Assuming a fixed payload for very different sized aircraft (a mere hundred passengers) assume one or more of the following:
1. A yield management team that is asleep, drunk, or on holiday.
2. An odd day for passenger count (e.g., last Thursday in the USA).
3. An airline heading into bankruptcy as no one routinely flies low load factors, excluding island hopping or subsidized service.


mm... i was reading it:

a) Top Chart: High Season, can sell as many tickets as you have seats available at good prices = planes full
b) Bottom Chart: Beyond 100 seats you have to dump tickets to fill them beyond 100 seats

best regards
Thomas

For b, then it should be as is normal in say September, put aircraft through maintenance or otherwise park them reducing service. For the US3, that is an obvious switch to a regional partner for the slow season or reduce flights.

The opposite of last Sunday. 859 more flights added to accommodate the Thanksgiving rush while the prior Thursday was very reduced service (few fliers, let the staff see their families).
https://thepointsguy.com/news/american- ... ving-rush/

For example, Hawaiian flies their 717s 17 flights per day during busy season, but averages only 14 flights per day for the year. That implies for every busy season day there is a day with 11 (or fewer) flights per day. But what matters is cost/ability. The A220 will take in the money during peak season and do so very economically. During low season, it will fly at light loads for little.

We're back in low season in the USA for a little while, so we see JetBlue offing $40 fares. This is the prisoner's dilemma except airlines can recover. If one airline is dumping, all must dump. But why not reposition the flights like JetBlue does (to holiday destinations)?

The extreme is Allegiant and Volotea. Those two airlines only fly on high demand days (e.g., park on Tuesday and Wednesday unless there is enough demand to raise fairs and park many aircraft during low seasons).

Since we are talking A221/3 Vs E295, we should talk Delta. Delta has a huge subfleet of 717s that when I went through their utilization, I found 4-5 cycles per day (on average) and 5 to 6 hours per day. That tells me DL will, once the A220s are proven, fly the A220s hard and will park the extremely low fixed cost 717s on low days (but fly enough to maintain the pilot pool). I expect airlines replacing E190s to keep some around as the low utilization aircraft. This has been the nature of high fixed cost/low variable cost vs. low fixed cost/high variable cost flying for decades. Effectively, every airline needs 3 subfleets, the new fleet to fly intensely, a mid-fleet to only fly intensely during high season, and a low utilization fleet to only fly during peak yield (e.g., DL flies more for a peak morning and evening hub bank every day, but will cut back other banks on Tuesday/Wednesday during low season while still serving the main banks to ensure no city losses connectivity, but DL will charge more for the peak banks and due to the convenience earns a higher fare).

So the yield department must be drunk, on Holiday, or it is an odd Holiday that has an A220 flying only 100 passengers. e.g., flights on Thanksgiving day and Christmas day are traditionally the cheapest:
https://abc7.com/travel/best-day-of-the ... l/5567949/ But one doesn't buy aircraft for 2 days per year. Just as no one buys aircraft for the Sunday after Thanksgiving where everything flies and if not, someone has to explain every non-flying aircraft to a vice-president who must stand before the board to explain the lessons learned.

The E295 isn't cheap enough for low season to pay for the lost high season revenue is the way I read those charts. If low season persists, airlines need to be like Allegiant and Volotea and only buy used. In my opinion, airlines should only buy new for 8.5 hours+ of daily utilization (on average), with obviously Island hoppers and other unique cases worthy of their own case study.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11849
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:44 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Effectively, every airline needs 3 subfleets, the new fleet to fly intensely, a mid-fleet to only fly intensely during high season, and a low utilization fleet to only fly during peak yield (e.g., DL flies more for a peak morning and evening hub bank every day, but will cut back other banks on Tuesday/Wednesday during low season while still serving the main banks to ensure no city losses connectivity, but DL will charge more for the peak banks and due to the convenience earns a higher fare).


While I agree with everything you sre saying, I don't think those charts can be expected to reflect the economics of larger airlines. Don't think Delta, think of a small charter outfit with a single type fleet, wondering what to replace their A319/737-700 with. They may very well fill several, lets say PMI, flights/day during high season vacation time, but struggle to find 100 pax for a flight for long stretches of winter. Or simply "you don't bleed more money on a slow day, but you can make more on a good one".

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2624
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:37 pm

But if utilisation isn't high enough, then said charter airline won't be interested in new metal (or plastic...)

Instead they'll go looking to replace their old 737-700 or A319 with less old 737-700 or A319...

[and even then, that upgrade is likely gonna be forced by timing of heavy checks that force economic obsolescence]


edit: I suppose you could make a good case for them evaluating an E195.1 in such a scenario - assuming they can find some in the right condition at the right price. Although the CF34-10 may be a bit off-putting relative to the CFM56 or V2500.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:08 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Effectively, every airline needs 3 subfleets, the new fleet to fly intensely, a mid-fleet to only fly intensely during high season, and a low utilization fleet to only fly during peak yield (e.g., DL flies more for a peak morning and evening hub bank every day, but will cut back other banks on Tuesday/Wednesday during low season while still serving the main banks to ensure no city losses connectivity, but DL will charge more for the peak banks and due to the convenience earns a higher fare).


While I agree with everything you sre saying, I don't think those charts can be expected to reflect the economics of larger airlines. Don't think Delta, think of a small charter outfit with a single type fleet, wondering what to replace their A319/737-700 with. They may very well fill several, lets say PMI, flights/day during high season vacation time, but struggle to find 100 pax for a flight for long stretches of winter. Or simply "you don't bleed more money on a slow day, but you can make more on a good one".

Best regards
Thomas

I'm sure DL will look at many fleet types, but this is an E2 vs A220 thread. So what you discuss impacts jow many older aircraft they keep or NEO/MAX they buy. That is another discussion on E2 vs. A220 market sizing.

I cannot describe airline economics without teaching a short course with hundreds of PowerPoint slides. ;)

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
inkjet7
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:32 am

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

Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:12 pm

Death by PowerPoint? ;)
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:20 pm

FWIW, the ALC A220 order remains a MOU:
(search for A220, it has one paragraph on the MOU).

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... 19-Results
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:32 pm

lightsaber wrote:
FWIW, the ALC A220 order remains a MOU:
(search for A220, it has one paragraph on the MOU).

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... 19-Results


50 MOU's and 25 options. More than 10% of the order book, what has to happen/change to firm those orders?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:39 pm

JonesNL wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
FWIW, the ALC A220 order remains a MOU:
(search for A220, it has one paragraph on the MOU).

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... 19-Results


50 MOU's and 25 options. More than 10% of the order book, what has to happen/change to firm those orders?

I would imagine ALC demands slots and won't sign until some fraction are leased out. Udvar-Hazy is a great seller of aircraft. He avoids assets that lack demand. He must have seen demand at Paris to sign the MOU. I thought this order would be firmed by now.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Sokes
Posts: 572
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:13 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Effectively, every airline needs 3 subfleets, the new fleet to fly intensely, a mid-fleet to only fly intensely during high season, and a low utilization fleet to only fly during peak yield

Lightsaber


I wonder how a 0-2% interest rate politics affects the mid fleet.
Would the low utilisation fleet be old narrow-bodies of the airline or old wide-bodies for extra seats at peak morning times? That question obviously only makes sense if the airline already employs this wide-body type.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:22 pm

Sokes wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Effectively, every airline needs 3 subfleets, the new fleet to fly intensely, a mid-fleet to only fly intensely during high season, and a low utilization fleet to only fly during peak yield

Lightsaber


I wonder how a 0-2% interest rate politics affects the mid fleet.
Would the low utilisation fleet be old narrow-bodies of the airline or old wide-bodies for extra seats at peak morning times? That question obviously only makes sense if the airline already employs this wide-body type.

Low interest rates are definitely skewing to buy new.

I believe the low interest rates are responsible for the massive backlogs. I was reading great credit rating airlines are stockpiling parts for aircraft as the loan interest rate is below the annual price increase:

https://www.mro-network.com/engines-eng ... ket-stress

For entry-into-service engines, some operators install new LLPs early to avoid price escalation. “It’s not uncommon,” Bryce says. “If it’s already in the shop for something other than LLPs, they use the opportunity to pull LLPs out. If a $5,000 part escalates at 5% per year, they can save a lot of money. We do it, too, under our flight-hour programs.”

Now Pratt is redesigning parts on these two airframes, so buyers need to be wise.

I believe DL's A220 order size, combined with A321 orders are a result of low interest rates as well as the opportunity.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:59 pm

After reading the article I didn't know DELTA was getting A220 with increased weights.....how does that work with the agreement they they have with Bombardier regarding stage length and not having full fuel capacity?

lightsaber wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
As noted, be careful reading the 2nd chart. Assuming a fixed payload for very different sized aircraft (a mere hundred passengers) assume one or more of the following:
1. A yield management team that is asleep, drunk, or on holiday.
2. An odd day for passenger count (e.g., last Thursday in the USA).
3. An airline heading into bankruptcy as no one routinely flies low load factors, excluding island hopping or subsidized service.

The smaller plane must have lower costs carrying the same count of passengers, in particular on such a short mission, or it will be out of production quickly.



I've read 3% better than expected, where did you get 8%? That would add several hundred nautical miles to the range and thus the MTOW increase would not have been required. So I'm going to doubt it was that good.

The charts are theoretical performance. They predate E2 entry into service. That is why I would like to see new charts based on actual payload and fuel burn. There is now enough data from all A220 and E2 aircraft. In particular for the A220.

Lightsaber
From a Latvian article about Baltic... But 3% even makes a large difference.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Delta's A220s (all -100s today) are fuel misers.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/analysi ... -at-delta/

On a 3 mission: 3500 lb/hr
717, same mission 5000 lb/hr

Now, the 717s are in really low utilization duty. Do they are safe for a long time.

I'd like to see E2-195/190 data on similar mission lengths.

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:08 pm

TropicalSky wrote:
After reading the article I didn't know DELTA was getting A220 with increased weights.....how does that work with the agreement they they have with Bombardier regarding stage length and not having full fuel capacity?

lightsaber wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
From a Latvian article about Baltic... But 3% even makes a large difference.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Delta's A220s (all -100s today) are fuel misers.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/analysi ... -at-delta/

On a 3 mission: 3500 lb/hr
717, same mission 5000 lb/hr

Now, the 717s are in really low utilization duty. Do they are safe for a long time.

I'd like to see E2-195/190 data on similar mission lengths.

Lightsaber

I'm going from memory, so dangerous... I thought DL was buying increased gross weight A220-300s while purchasing discounted (fuel limited) A220-100s.

I believe the article is speculating in error on super long range A220-100 flights.

A.net had discussion on this before:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1399949

It is just changing a dongle for the fuel. DL just has to write a check and will get new manuals and new dongles.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:13 pm

Thank so LightSaber! That makes more sense....I'm really excited to see what unique ways (city pairs) Delta can think of using this aircraft....I've been watching usage and they seem to have almost a shuttle service IAH/DFW-LGA/JFK,SEA-SFO/SNA

lightsaber wrote:
TropicalSky wrote:
After reading the article I didn't know DELTA was getting A220 with increased weights.....how does that work with the agreement they they have with Bombardier regarding stage length and not having full fuel capacity?

lightsaber wrote:
Delta's A220s (all -100s today) are fuel misers.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/analysi ... -at-delta/

On a 3 mission: 3500 lb/hr
717, same mission 5000 lb/hr

Now, the 717s are in really low utilization duty. Do they are safe for a long time.

I'd like to see E2-195/190 data on similar mission lengths.

Lightsaber

I'm going from memory, so dangerous... I thought DL was buying increased gross weight A220-300s while purchasing discounted (fuel limited) A220-100s.

I believe the article is speculating in error on super long range A220-100 flights.

A.net had discussion on this before:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1399949

It is just changing a dongle for the fuel. DL just has to write a check and will get new manuals and new dongles.

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:22 pm

TropicalSky wrote:
Thank so LightSaber! That makes more sense....I'm really excited to see what unique ways (city pairs) Delta can think of using this aircraft....I've been watching usage and they seem to have almost a shuttle service IAH/DFW-LGA/JFK,SEA-SFO/SNA

lightsaber wrote:
TropicalSky wrote:
After reading the article I didn't know DELTA was getting A220 with increased weights.....how does that work with the agreement they they have with Bombardier regarding stage length and not having full fuel capacity?


I'm going from memory, so dangerous... I thought DL was buying increased gross weight A220-300s while purchasing discounted (fuel limited) A220-100s.

I believe the article is speculating in error on super long range A220-100 flights.

A.net had discussion on this before:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1399949

It is just changing a dongle for the fuel. DL just has to write a check and will get new manuals and new dongles.

Lightsaber

DL must have upgraded the fuel system/MTOW, DL claimed at EIS 3100nm range, twice 717 range.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/delta-t ... -a220-100/

The A220-100, on the other hand, offers over double the range of the Boeing 717 (1,415 miles vs. 3,100 miles) at highly efficient numbers. For Delta, this means the A220-100 can easily operate many missions the 717 cannot.

Now the maximum range of the A220-100 as 3400nm. I have no idea if Delta is conservative or does indeed have a slightly reduced fuel dongle. However, they quote the statue mile range of the 717 basic (low MTOW) version.

3100sm=2690nm, so ATL to west coast, but not a winter JFK-LAX against winds. But it could do PIT-LAX. :duck:

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:36 pm

TropicalSky wrote:
After reading the article I didn't know DELTA was getting A220 with increased weights.....how does that work with the agreement they they have with Bombardier regarding stage length and not having full fuel capacity?



Pretty sure that all went away when the tariff case got quashed. As I recall the stage length limit was an attempt to placate the trade board and didn't end up being needed.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

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

Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:59 pm

Really? Didn't hear anything about this..you have an article I can read regarding this?

northstardc4m wrote:
TropicalSky wrote:
After reading the article I didn't know DELTA was getting A220 with increased weights.....how does that work with the agreement they they have with Bombardier regarding stage length and not having full fuel capacity?



Pretty sure that all went away when the tariff case got quashed. As I recall the stage length limit was an attempt to placate the trade board and didn't end up being needed.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18816
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:48 pm

SAS is now entering the fray:

There is a separate thread for SAS 120 to 150 seats:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436327
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

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

Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:33 pm

TropicalSky wrote:
Really? Didn't hear anything about this..you have an article I can read regarding this?

northstardc4m wrote:
TropicalSky wrote:
After reading the article I didn't know DELTA was getting A220 with increased weights.....how does that work with the agreement they they have with Bombardier regarding stage length and not having full fuel capacity?



Pretty sure that all went away when the tariff case got quashed. As I recall the stage length limit was an attempt to placate the trade board and didn't end up being needed.


It did go away. IIRC it was buried in the dumping claim testimony transcripts.
 
User avatar
J4YC3
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:21 pm

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

Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:44 pm

lightsaber wrote:
[url][/url]I found the images for the Leeham analysis:

At full load factor, the A220 has quite an advantage:
Image

At very light loads, the E2 looks better:
Image

Lightsaber


Slightly OOT, but I wonder how the 90-seater Dash 8 and the future M90 stack up against the E2-175 on the left side of the table. I know that 600 nm is longer than usual for a turboprop, but it's still far from the longest routes that are flown with the type. Does anyone know what the trip time difference would be for that stage length, and in general at which distance a turboprop's relative slowness becomes noticeable for passengers? I wonder if people (in markets where turboprops don't have a bad reputation, of course) would be willing to put up with, say, 45 extra minutes of flight provided that the cost saving was high enough.
Bah, humbug!
 
ewt340
Posts: 994
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:46 pm

northstardc4m wrote:
DL717 wrote:

It’s never going to be lighter and scope based on weight is the dumbest thing ever in the history of aviation. It was conceited around an obsolete CRJ family. Cap it at 80-100 seats and move on. The ideas coming out of pilot unions are about as useful these days as a car with four flat tires in the middle of the desert.


Oh you are funny...

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out. And you may not agree with what the unions want but they don't care, they are there to protect the pilots they represent... And the memories of Continental, Eastern, TWA and others with BOHICA will not be going away any time soon, so you are more likely to get a stone to jump rope than get anything 80 seats much less 100 or more into express.

If the airlines are very very polite and give something in return you might EVENTUALLY get no weight limit and a 76 seat limit, but only with massive consessions most likely. It won't be this contract cycle though, so 5-10 years from now maybe. The pilot shortage and low fuel prices mean the unions don't have any incentive to do f*** all to help lower pilot costs for now. In fact my guess is you will see express shrink overall over the next few years are be replaced by mainline 100-150 seaters more and more.

Labor holds the cards right now and it's not going to change soon.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Wouldn't that plays to the benefits for the union members?

Instead of being stuck in the Express brand with lower wages, they would eventually be moved up to the mainline narrow-body section. I mean this would only speed up the process.

Instead of flying 100 seater Ejets. They would just fly A319, A220-100, B717, or B737-700 instead.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

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

Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:24 pm

ewt340 wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
DL717 wrote:

It’s never going to be lighter and scope based on weight is the dumbest thing ever in the history of aviation. It was conceited around an obsolete CRJ family. Cap it at 80-100 seats and move on. The ideas coming out of pilot unions are about as useful these days as a car with four flat tires in the middle of the desert.


Oh you are funny...

The mainline unions are never in a million years going to allow 100 seater express. That would be selling their own members out. And you may not agree with what the unions want but they don't care, they are there to protect the pilots they represent... And the memories of Continental, Eastern, TWA and others with BOHICA will not be going away any time soon, so you are more likely to get a stone to jump rope than get anything 80 seats much less 100 or more into express.

If the airlines are very very polite and give something in return you might EVENTUALLY get no weight limit and a 76 seat limit, but only with massive consessions most likely. It won't be this contract cycle though, so 5-10 years from now maybe. The pilot shortage and low fuel prices mean the unions don't have any incentive to do f*** all to help lower pilot costs for now. In fact my guess is you will see express shrink overall over the next few years are be replaced by mainline 100-150 seaters more and more.

Labor holds the cards right now and it's not going to change soon.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Wouldn't that plays to the benefits for the union members?

Instead of being stuck in the Express brand with lower wages, they would eventually be moved up to the mainline narrow-body section. I mean this would only speed up the process.

Instead of flying 100 seater Ejets. They would just fly A319, A220-100, B717, or B737-700 instead.
You make a bad assumption that Express pilots mean anything to the mainline unions. People at mainline have the mindset of they took their licks so let the next bunch do the same to earn "the big show". There is no sense of altruism in any union shop, they care about the members and f*** everyone else even other unions if push comes to shove. It often isn't fair looking to anyone looking in, but it's exactly the point of view fair the union wants and that is acceptable to them.

It does absolutely no benefit to the mainline pilots to give anything to lower wage probably non union Express pilots for nothing substantial in return... Very substantial at the moment.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:44 pm

David Neeleman discussing the fuel burn differences of 195, 195-E2 and A220 and missions differences between the two:

https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/davi ... the-aisle/
David: The 195 works good at about 2 hours. Once you start getting to 3 hours, the fuel consumption per seat is… I mean the E2 has the same engines as the 220 and it’s burning 20% less fuel than the 195s are. So you can imagine if we have 145 seats on a 220 — that’s the coach configuration — and it’s burning less fuel than the 195s and you fly the thing on three-hour, four-hour, five-hour stage lengths… there are a lot of three, four-hour transcons in the US as well.

I don’t think we’ll have any routes for the 195 that are over 2 hours, maybe 2 hours 15 minutes. The fuel doesn’t make sense. It burns 600 gallons an hour and the 220 will burn maybe you know, 560, or something. But the [acquisition] cost of the 220s is a lot more, obviously. So you have to fly it more but if you’re flying it losing money on certain days of the week, then that doesn’t work either, so [the 195 and 220] work good together.

195= 600 gallons (2271L)/ hour
195-E2= 20% less = 480 gallons (1817L)/ hour
A220= 560 gallons (2120L)/ hour
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:52 pm

Also from the same article:

David: (about an hypothetical 8hrs trip costs) ...but if you have an A321XLR you’d probably have have it at $50,000 to $60,000. And then [the A220-300] is under $30,000.

That article is very interresting. He plans to use the low capital costs 195E1 mostly on less than 2hrs trips, with a low utilisation - like 4hrs per day (somewhat like Allegiant did with its higher operating costs older eqpt). And use the higher capital costs A223 on longer trips, with a much higher hrs use per day.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 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