I think the A220 and the E2 are almost serving different roles, the A220 is more mainline, the E2 is more regional. Although if you compare the two, youd go for the A220 every time.

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

Correct, but do most airlines in Europe need the range capability?

Useful pretty much ends at 2000nm ....

Best regards
Thomas

Exactly.

So why would you carry more weight when you do not need the range capability?

Because there was a focus on American carriers buying them for long thin routes?

Honest guess.

Problem is long thin routes require big fat gates at the hubs and those are at a premium. And even if you wanted to do it, it was cheaper to use a E175 or CRJ900.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

I think in terms of history. Since the dawn of the Jet Age in the 50’s, I cannot really think of any major European or North American, legacy, mainline, or flag carrier that has gone with a 4 abreast coach cabin as a SUBSTANTIAL and MAJORITY (20%~50%) part of their jet travel fleet business model.

Caravelles, DC 9-30s, BAC 111’s, and Fokker 100’s were pretty much the smallest airliners operating for these sorts of carriers that made up a substantial portion of the airlines fleets and these were all 5 abreast, unless in a premium cabin configuration.

Times have changed since the dawn of the Jet Age. We have had deregulation, tremendous increase in fuel prices, ULCC’s, regional outsourcing, new aircraft interiors designs, de-flagging of state supported carriers, 9/11.

I do not think airlines can succeed using the exact same paradigms and business as usual prism, in a society more nimble, mobile, and technology driven, thus requiring fleets to be shifted rapidly to where the business is, or fits that airlines particular business model against the upstart competition.

The age of Dinosaurs may be extinct.

I'll believe it when i see it (mainline airlines flying 4 abreast airplanes in large numbers). The economics of having an extra seat per row haven't changed. Maybe it'll change if and when we go to some shape other than a tube. For now, my money is on the CSeries/A220.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The two planes are different. The EMB an extension of its regional jet which has hobbled it in the US. The A220 is designed as a mainline plane—longer legs, room for expansion (-300 and possible -500) and 2-3 seating.

E195E2:
OEW: 35,7 t, MTOW 61,5 t, length 41,5m, wing span 35,1 m, fan diameter 73 inch, range 2600 nm = 4600 km,

A220-100:
OEW: 35,2 t, MTOW 63,0 t, length 35,0 m, wing span 35,1 m, fan diameter 73 inch, range 3400 nm = 6300 km,

tomcat wrote:

There is not much point looking at the 195E2 in isolation since it has a high degree of commonality with the 190E2.
...

While the A220-100 may be the better plane, the E195-E2 may be the better plane for an airline with E175-E2s and E190-E2s.

tphuang wrote:

You always need to sell at loss in the beginning. Once you get enough sale, you can lower production cost through higher volume and turn those losses to profits.
I am sure the initial a220 to JetBlue will be at loss.
...

Boeing would never do such unfair dumping.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

I think in terms of history. Since the dawn of the Jet Age in the 50’s, I cannot really think of any major European or North American, legacy, mainline, or flag carrier that has gone with a 4 abreast coach cabin as a SUBSTANTIAL and MAJORITY (20%~50%) part of their jet travel fleet business model.
...

I can't judge if you are right, but E-Jets and CRJs did o.k..

aviationaware wrote:

And on the downside the E2 is 20% heavier than the previous generation. Absolutely unacceptable design failure.

The E2 has longer wing and better engines than E1. The new B777 will also be heavier. However considering the A220-100 has the same OEW, you may still be right. A220-100 fuselage has more diameter, for this E195-E2 is longer.
Again: The E195-E2 is not the main model of the family

VV wrote:

By the way the thrust usage of the engine will be lower on E2 and thus the maintenance cost should be better. That's what drives the COC better on E2 even on per seat basis.

You are right for E175-E2.
Fan diameter, thrust and OEW of E195-E2 and A220-100 are more or less same.

Sokes wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The two planes are different. The EMB an extension of its regional jet which has hobbled it in the US. The A220 is designed as a mainline plane—longer legs, room for expansion (-300 and possible -500) and 2-3 seating.

E195E2:
OEW: 35,7 t, MTOW 61,5 t, length 41,5m, wing span 35,1 m, fan diameter 73 inch, range 2600 nm = 4600 km,

A220-100:
OEW: 35,2 t, MTOW 63,0 t, length 35,0 m, wing span 35,1 m, fan diameter 73 inch, range 3400 nm = 6300 km,

tomcat wrote:

There is not much point looking at the 195E2 in isolation since it has a high degree of commonality with the 190E2.
...

While the A220-100 may be the better plane, the E195-E2 may be the better plane for an airline with E175-E2s and E190-E2s.

tphuang wrote:

You always need to sell at loss in the beginning. Once you get enough sale, you can lower production cost through higher volume and turn those losses to profits.
I am sure the initial a220 to JetBlue will be at loss.
...

Boeing would never do such unfair dumping.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

I think in terms of history. Since the dawn of the Jet Age in the 50’s, I cannot really think of any major European or North American, legacy, mainline, or flag carrier that has gone with a 4 abreast coach cabin as a SUBSTANTIAL and MAJORITY (20%~50%) part of their jet travel fleet business model.
...

I can't judge if you are right, but E-Jets and CRJs did o.k..

aviationaware wrote:

And on the downside the E2 is 20% heavier than the previous generation. Absolutely unacceptable design failure.

The E2 has longer wing and better engines than E1. The new B777 will also be heavier. However considering the A220-100 has the same OEW, you may still be right. A220-100 fuselage has more diameter, for this E195-E2 is longer.
Again: The E195-E2 is not the main model of the family

VV wrote:

By the way the thrust usage of the engine will be lower on E2 and thus the maintenance cost should be better. That's what drives the COC better on E2 even on per seat basis.

You are right for E175-E2.
Fan diameter, thrust and OEW of E195-E2 and A220-100 are more or less same.

I didn't realize the E2-195 was heavier than the A220-100. Facinating. Now that all four aircraft under discussion have flown enough missions, I could dream about comparing in service data with various flight distances

The E2-195 is the main model as it is the sales volume, it has 123 firm+ commitments. There are only 38 E2-190 on firm order and the E2-175 is going into flight testing having lost the one conditional customer.

As to calls on dumping, all early aircraft are sold at a loss. As sales volume increases, production coats drop 13% for every doubling of production. The minimum viable production rate is a hundred per year until equipment is paid off via prior sales or a charge against earnings.

The minimum production volume of spares or rebuilds is a batch of 25 as it really doesn't cost less to do fewer Most parts have two, but most see the shop every 8 to 12 years. or 25/2*10 means a minimum of 125 aircraft in service to keep spares going. Not all planed fly forever. For example, the current E190/195 only have 90% still flying.

Embraer must sell more. Now 95% of the engine costs are common with the A220, so that will not be an issue (as 80% of engine costs are also common with the business jet engines that sell forever). But nacelles and many actuators are custom. So is the cockpit, cabin pressurization system, galleys and lavs. PiPs take volume to fund as they are done on a profit potential (sell x PiPs at Y profit to recover Z investment in R&D with surplus profit).

The only E2 model that will sell in higg volume is the E2-195. ATP pilots have more opportunities and will seek better opportunities. The era, in MOL's words, of shaking a tree and having qualified pilots drop out is over.

The E2 needs needs orders. JetBlue was a major black eye. The only way to recover is sales volume which means cost cutting (merging with Boeing) to enable profitable discounted sales.

I worry for the E2 as it is the 717 revisited.

Lightsaber

Sokes wrote:

...

VV wrote:

By the way the thrust usage of the engine will be lower on E2 and thus the maintenance cost should be better. That's what drives the COC better on E2 even on per seat basis.

You are right for E175-E2.
Fan diameter, thrust and OEW of E195-E2 and A220-100 are more or less same.

No, you interpreted it wrong.

The engines for E195-E2 (PW1900G) and for A220/C Series (PW1500G) are basically identical.
However, E195-E2 requires lower take-off thrust and climb thrust, thus the thrust usage is significantly lower on the E195-E2.
As a consequence, the E195-E2 engines runs cooler and thus the damage of each cycle is much lower than the engine of the A220.

It means PW1900G on the E195-E2 will have longer life on wing, thus lower maintenance cost when expressed it on per flying hour basis.

In addition, PW will have to sell PW1900G engine at lower pricing too.

In general, the DOC of the E195-E2 expressed both on per trip or per seat basis is theoretically lower than A220-300 (CS300) when evlauated at an average distance that is achievable by E195-E2.

The only advantage of the A220-300 is its payload-range capability, but I do not think many European airlines or even airlines in the US need the range capability beyond that of the E195-E2.

As for JetBlue and some other orders, the reason behind it is not COC or DOC on per trip or per seat basis. I do not know what the reason was, although I have some suspicions that I cannot express in this forum.

As mentioned by several posters in this thread, the story has not fully unfolded. There will be surprises in 2020, but I still do not know what those surprises are as yet. Again, I have some suspicions, but I cannot discuss it here.

(Slightly off topic)
Due to the A220 having excess range for many markets (for Europe by example), we may pretend that a simple strech (that hypothetical "A220-500"), basically trading range for more capacity should be an excellent fit for markets like Europe. Again, that would be a CASM killer machine.

That same logic was applied by Embraer for the E195E2 (versus the E190E2)

FWIW, more design work was performed (when under Bombardier) on such a stretch than admitted. I'm sure VV knows more on this, but can't discuss.

lightsaber wrote:

Embraer must sell more. Now 95% of the engine costs are common with the A220, so that will not be an issue (as 80% of engine costs are also common with the business jet engines that sell forever). But nacelles and many actuators are custom. So is the cockpit, cabin pressurization system, galleys and lavs. PiPs take volume to fund as they are done on a profit potential (sell x PiPs at Y profit to recover Z investment in R&D with surplus profit).

The only E2 model that will sell in higg volume is the E2-195. ATP pilots have more opportunities and will seek better opportunities. The era, in MOL's words, of shaking a tree and having qualified pilots drop out is over.

The E2 needs needs orders. JetBlue was a major black eye. The only way to recover is sales volume which means cost cutting (merging with Boeing) to enable profitable discounted sales.

I worry for the E2 as it is the 717 revisited.

Lightsaber

This is a good point. I think you might have a A330NEO vs B787 situation here, where originally E2 was thought (at least in my mind) to be cheaper to produce. Given A220's current larger order book and more going forward, they are simply going to be able to use economy of scale to get production cost lower than E2. At that point, I don't see how E2 can be competitive with A220. And with much greater sales and airbus support, the maintenance will be lower over time. Without more orders, E2 is in a lot of trouble. A220 will simply get more dominant in the 110 to 150 seat space with each additional sale.

I think not only B6 was a major black eye, but also Moxy. Here is DN who has bought E90 with 2 of his airlines and E2 at Azul deciding to go with A220 over something he knows well.

There is just so many things A220 can do that E2 cannot.
- XLR will allow it to do long thin TATL and Florida to South America routes
- Standard version allows it to do long transcon routes like BOS-SFO or FLL-SEA.
- all J cabin on JFK-LCY.
- extended to build A220-500, which will be second only to A321NEO in CASM, but with 40 to 50 fewer seats to sell.

B6 has found in its own evaluation that A220-300 fuel burn is less than that of E90 and that it's overall cost is about the same as E90, making the CASM 30% lower. It has just slightly higher CASM than the current 200 seat A321CEO in service with B6. They estimate A220-300 will drop system wide CASM by 5%! I don't see how E2 beat that.

Basically, A220 is a A319/320 replacement. E2 just simply can't be that.

And all this doesn't even include the greater utilization that you will get out of A220 series. With Airbus help, I'm sure they will eventually get to similar availability as A320 series. And they already do red-eyes and multiple segments a day.

GmvAfcs wrote:

A220 wins in flexibility for cabin and range. E195E2 is slightly more economical. And this is due specially because of higher aspect ratio wings on E2, and maintenance is expected to be lower as well since E2 has 1000/10000 A and C checks, while A220 has 850/8500 FH.

Anybody knows how much fuel/ hour an A350-900 versus an A350-1000 with same weight needs in cruise?

lightsaber wrote:

...
The E2-195 is the main model as it is the sales volume, it has 123 firm+ commitments. There are only 38 E2-190 on firm order and the E2-175 is going into flight testing having lost the one conditional customer.

As to calls on dumping, all early aircraft are sold at a loss. As sales volume increases, production coats drop 13% for every doubling of production.
...

I worry for the E2 as it is the 717 revisited.

Lightsaber

Right. I assumed the middle model of the family is the main model. My mistake.

I was sarcastic about dumping. AFAIK suppliers want their investments back over the first few hundred frames. The first planes are the most expensive, carry the highest risk and don't enjoy later MTOW increases. Naturally they have to be sold at loss. That Boeing complained about Bombardier doesn't deserve serious criticism, only sarcasm.
Unless of course all aircraft manufacturers are supposed to follow the B787 example about deferred production cost.

I believe there will be a need for planes below 100 seats. I wish turboprops would win these orders, but I rather believe Embraer will get these orders.

VV wrote:

...
The engines for E195-E2 (PW1900G) and for A220/C Series (PW1500G) are basically identical.
However, E195-E2 requires lower take-off thrust and climb thrust, thus the thrust usage is significantly lower on the E195-E2.
As a consequence, the E195-E2 engines runs cooler and thus the damage of each cycle is much lower than the engine of the A220.

It means PW1900G on the E195-E2 will have longer life on wing, thus lower maintenance cost when expressed it on per flying hour basis.

In addition, PW will have to sell PW1900G engine at lower pricing too.
...

If A220-100 and E195-E2 have same OEW, nearly same engines and same wingspan, why should take off/ climb thrust with same payload over same mission be different?

tphuang wrote:

...
B6 has found in its own evaluation that A220-300 fuel burn is less than that of E90 and that it's overall cost is about the same as E90, making the CASM 30% lower. It has just slightly higher CASM than the current 200 seat A321CEO in service with B6. They estimate A220-300 will drop system wide CASM by 5%! I don't see how E2 beat that.
...

Wikipedia tells that Jetblue will receive it's first A220 in 2020.
Is the assumed average mission length of B6's A220-300s the same as the average mission length of the old E190?
I struggle to believe that the A220-300 has only slightly worse CASM than A321-CEO, as this would reflect in more orders for the A220-300.
Do you have a source?

Sokes wrote:

While the A220-100 may be the better plane, the E195-E2 may be the better plane for an airline with E175-E2s and E190-E2s.

This may well be true, but that's a pretty small group of potential carriers. Looking at combined numbers, 68% of the combined deliveries of E170-E1 and E175-E1 have been to US express carriers.

Even if the 75-seat MTOW scope issue were fixed, those express carriers will never be able to operate an E190-E2 or E195-E2.

Embraer has only delivered a total of 210 E17x-E1 outside of the US (and 25 of those were to AC which isn't a likely E2 customer).

Embraer’s E2 breakeven figure compared to
Airbus’ A220 breakeven figure?

Any #s?

Sokes wrote:

GmvAfcs wrote:

...

VV wrote:

...
The engines for E195-E2 (PW1900G) and for A220/C Series (PW1500G) are basically identical.
However, E195-E2 requires lower take-off thrust and climb thrust, thus the thrust usage is significantly lower on the E195-E2.
As a consequence, the E195-E2 engines runs cooler and thus the damage of each cycle is much lower than the engine of the A220.

It means PW1900G on the E195-E2 will have longer life on wing, thus lower maintenance cost when expressed it on per flying hour basis.

In addition, PW will have to sell PW1900G engine at lower pricing too.
...

If A220-100 and E195-E2 have same OEW, nearly same engines and same wingspan, why should take off/ climb thrust with same payload over same mission be different?

But are those assumptions correct?
What about the frontal cross section (aerodynamic).?

Think about it again deeply.

Sokes wrote:

Is the assumed average mission length of B6's A220-300s the same as the average mission length of the old E190?

I would expect the average length to be somewhat longer, since A220 will pick up most if not all current E190 routes, as well as "long and thin" routes that they either can't operate profitably today, or for which the A320 is currently used but is overcapacity.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

(Slightly off topic)
Due to the A220 having excess range for many markets (for Europe by example), we may pretend that a simple strech (that hypothetical "A220-500"), basically trading range for more capacity should be an excellent fit for markets like Europe. Again, that would be a CASM killer machine.

That same logic was applied by Embraer for the E195E2 (versus the E190E2)

FWIW, more design work was performed (when under Bombardier) on such a stretch than admitted. I'm sure VV knows more on this, but can't discuss.

No, I cannot discuss about it for obvious reasons.

VV wrote:

I think Airbus will always tout A220 better payload-range capability, but in places like Europe, range capability for such small aircraft doesn't have much value.

Yet European airlines have ordered twice as many A220 as E2s. Curious.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

Embraer’s E2 breakeven figure compared to
Airbus’ A220 breakeven figure?

Any #s?

I do not think there is any number.

However, we can say the following.

E2 is a derivative of the E1. Embraer has delivered q hell lot of E1<
The development cost for E2 is quite modest. If my memory serves me well it was below 2 billion US dollars.

In 2015 or so, Bombardier write off about 5 billion US dollars of cost for the C Series.
When Airbus took a majority stake of the program, the partnership started with clean financial healthy bill. However the program is still bleeding cash and both Airbus and Bombardier are still injecting money into the program.

It depends much on by you mean by "break even". If you consider the situation after Airbus Canada limited partnership then the break even point is perhaps only 250 units or so. But if you include the cost that has been written off by bombardier then the number is certainly much higher.

Embraer has been quite disciplined in their development effort. If there is any trouble it would be due to the engines. But again, since the thrust usage is lower than that of the A220-300 (CS300), I expect there would be fewer problems.

scbriml wrote:

VV wrote:

I think Airbus will always tout A220 better payload-range capability, but in places like Europe, range capability for such small aircraft doesn't have much value.

Yet European airlines have ordered twice as many A220 as E2s. Curious.

I already mentioned this before. the reasons can be multiple. I have my suspicions, but I cannot discuss about it here.
Yes, it is curious and those orders have certainly based on other aspects than just COC or DOC on per trip and per seat basis.

This being said, I expect surprises in the US and in Europe in the coming year. I do not know which airline would consider E195-E2, but I heard through the grapevine there are some interesting on-going campaigns.

I'm thinking the sweet spot for a 2-2 aircraft is about 100' to 110' in length with a capacity of 23 rows at 32" pitch for 92.
2-3, 120' to 130', 28 rows for 140
3-3, 140' to 150', 33 rows for 198

VV wrote:

Sokes wrote:

If A220-100 and E195-E2 have same OEW, nearly same engines and same wingspan, why should take off/ climb thrust with same payload over same mission be different?

But are those assumptions correct?
What about the frontal cross section (aerodynamic).?

Think about it again deeply.

I don't understand which assumptions you refer to.
The E195-E2 has a cross section of 3 m and a length of 41,5 m.
The A220-100 has a fuselage diameter of 3,7 m and a length of 35 m.

"At speeds below critical mach, one of the primary forms of drag is skin friction. As the name implies, this is drag caused by the interaction of the airflow with the aircraft's skin. To minimize this drag, the aircraft should be designed to minimize the exposed skin area, or "wetted surface". One solution to this problem is constructing an "egg shaped" fuselage, for example as used on the home-built Questair Venture.

Theoretical ideal fineness ratios in subsonic aircraft fuselages are typically found at about 6:1, however this may be compromised by other design considerations such as seating or freight size requirements. Because a higher fineness fuselage can have reduced tail surfaces, this ideal ratio can practically be increased to 8:1.[1]

Most aircraft have fineness ratios significantly greater than this, however. This is often due to the competing need to place the tail control surfaces at the end of a longer moment arm to increase their effectiveness. Reducing the length of the fuselage would require larger controls, which would offset the drag savings from using the ideal fineness ratio. An example of a high-performance design with an imperfect fineness ratio is the Lancair. In other cases, the designer is forced to use a non-ideal design due to outside factors such as seating arrangements or cargo pallet sizes. Modern airliners often have fineness ratios much higher than ideal, a side effect of their cylindrical cross-section which is selected for strength, as well as providing a single width to simplify seating layout."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fineness_ratio

I have to admit that 70 cm extra fuselage diameter for one seat is a lot. On the other side the E195-E2 has a bit of an extreme fineness ratio.
Thinking doesn't lead me to any conclusion beside that the A220 seems to be a lot more spacious.

VV wrote:

scbriml wrote:

VV wrote:

This being said, I expect surprises in the US and in Europe in the coming year. I do not know which airline would consider E195-E2, but I heard through the grapevine there are some interesting on-going campaigns.

Unless and until scope rules change, sales prospects in the US would seem to be poor at best.

scbriml wrote:

Unless and until scope rules change, sales prospects in the US would seem to be poor at best.

Perhaps it would be ordered outside the scope clause by mainline airline, just like the A220-100 was ordered by Delta.

The last time I checked, almost all, if not all, of the routes operated by Delta using the A220-100 can be operated by E190-E2 or even E195-E2.

So, Delta is operating the A220-100 outside the scope clause. Other airlines can potentially decide to do the same.

Let's consider Southwest, perhaps they would consider the E195-E2 for their short and thin routes where range capability is not very useful.

I think people underestimate the E2 too much.

Sokes wrote:

tphuang wrote:

...
B6 has found in its own evaluation that A220-300 fuel burn is less than that of E90 and that it's overall cost is about the same as E90, making the CASM 30% lower. It has just slightly higher CASM than the current 200 seat A321CEO in service with B6. They estimate A220-300 will drop system wide CASM by 5%! I don't see how E2 beat that.
...

Wikipedia tells that Jetblue will receive it's first A220 in 2020.
Is the assumed average mission length of B6's A220-300s the same as the average mission length of the old E190?
I struggle to believe that the A220-300 has only slightly worse CASM than A321-CEO, as this would reflect in more orders for the A220-300.
Do you have a source?

I think we are expecting a220 to have longer average stage length and higher utilization than e90.

Currently expected to get 1, 6, 8 a220 over next 2020-2022.

I have posted in other threads my calculation on casm. It's generally based on the numbers b6 have passed out. A220 is the a320 replacement for them.

tphuang wrote:

I think we are expecting a220 to have longer average stage length and higher utilization than e90.

Currently expected to get 1, 6, 8 a220 over next 2020-2022.

I have posted in other threads my calculation on casm. It's generally based on the numbers b6 have passed out. A220 is the a320 replacement for them.

That's why I was asking.
If the average stage length of an E190 is 1000 nm and of an A220 is 1500 nm, then it's not surprising that the A220 has a fantastic CASM compared to E190.

Sokes wrote:

Again: The E195-E2 is not the main model of the family

If that's true it only proves my point even more. The E195 is clearly the member of the family with the, by far, highest sales potential. If Embraer had not designed this as the main model in the family and taken all the compromises to the smaller parts, that would prove gross incompetence on part of Embraer's management.

Sokes wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think we are expecting a220 to have longer average stage length and higher utilization than e90.

Currently expected to get 1, 6, 8 a220 over next 2020-2022.

I have posted in other threads my calculation on casm. It's generally based on the numbers b6 have passed out. A220 is the a320 replacement for them.

That's why I was asking.
If the average stage length of an E190 is 1000 nm and of an A220 is 1500 nm, then it's not surprising that the A220 has a fantastic CASM compared to E190.

These are stage length adjusted numbers.

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

Correct, but do most airlines in Europe need the range capability?

Useful pretty much ends at 2000nm ....

Best regards
Thomas

Exactly.

So why would you carry more weight when you do not need the range capability?

So the E2 might appeal more to European carriers more focused on optimal weight/range discipline while the range flexibility of the A220 might appeal a little more to a North American carrier like DL. Of course, that’s not to say that some of those those European carriers wouldn’t mind having the option of using A220s on some of their African/ME routes.

dampfnudel wrote:

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Useful pretty much ends at 2000nm ....

Best regards
Thomas

Exactly.

So why would you carry more weight when you do not need the range capability?

So the E2 might appeal more to European carriers more focused on optimal weight/range discipline while the range flexibility of the A220 might appeal a little more to a North American carrier like DL. Of course, that’s not to say that some of those those European carriers wouldn’t mind having the option of using A220s on some of their African/ME routes.

I don't know, but I think people underestimate the E2 a little bit too much.

It is very likely there will be some US airlines that could buy E195-E2 in big number. I do not know anything about it.

So, Delta is operating the A220-100 outside the scope clause. Other airlines can potentially decide to do the same.

There’s no “inside” or “outside” of the scope clause. There’s a plane with fewer than 76-seats flown by regional operators and there’s larger planes flown by mainline seniority list crews. DL’s A220s are flown by mainline crews. The size of the A220 puts it at a distinct advantage as passengers love the extra room, the windows and quieter cabin, it’s extra revenue due to more seats and range than the EMB models means management loves it. Only JB and US Air flew 190s in the US, I don’t see it changing.

GF

docmtl wrote:

Hi, folks

I'm wondering whether the market battle between Airbus A220 vs Boeing E-195 E2 is already won by Airbus...

A220: More than 500 units already ordered, major airlines in NA, Europe and Asia on board with this plane.

E-195E2: Just launched with Azul (Brazilian company, very close to Embraer), and a few more companies, no NA customer, no major order as yet.

With Boeing struggling to cope with the B737 Max grounding, B737 NG structural cracks, can the new Boeing Brasil stand up to the challenge and turn this commercial battle around ?

Your thoughts are most welcome

docmtl

I suspect that given the long delivery lines for A320neo and B737-MAX that both the A220-300 and Embraer E195 E2 (which are around 140 pax aircraft) will take significant orders.
The Embraer is an incredibly advanced aircraft, the in house developed FBW system is a real advance. I would argue that the A220 is off to an early start. Note that Southwest operate 700 B737-700 NG with about 140 passengers, its the core of their fleet and both the A220-300 and E195 E2 could replaced these aircraft.

Several days ago Runway Girl Network issued an article about the E195-E2 presentation tour in the US.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/11/0 ... it-hunter/

Which airlines could be interested by the E195-E2 in the US?

The aircraft used for the tour is the same shown at Paris air show this year. I had the chance to visit it accompanied by a very kind Embraer marketing guy.

VV wrote:

Several days ago Runway Girl Network issued an article about the E195-E2 presentation tour in the US.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/11/0 ... it-hunter/

Which airlines could be interested by the E195-E2 in the US?

The aircraft used for the tour is the same shown at Paris air show this year. I had the chance to visit it accompanied by a very kind Embraer marketing guy.

I'm not aware of any active campaigns. DL, B6, and NK decided against the E2. That leaves UA, AS, and AA. However AA decided their cost structure could not support a hundred seater.

The best near term hope of the E2 is AeroMexico (competition vs. A220, large E1 fleet), IAG (competition vs. A220, however scope limit should favor E2-190), and AS. Only the last being a North American opperator.

Due to UA's, DL's, LH's, KE's, and SQ's training center (as a profit center), those are the most valuable possible wins. I do not rule out DL and LH opperating a split fleet sometime in the future. So Embraer better keep UA on speed dial and keep selling to DL and LH.

Lightsaber

VV wrote:

But are those assumptions correct?
What about the frontal cross section (aerodynamic).?

Think about it again deeply.

You need to think about it a bit more. Your also showing up yourself for what you were not in Montreal.

Fuselage frontal cross section area does not determine aircraft parasitic drag as all designs are approximately equal at maintaining laminar boundary layers to more or less the same extent. Wetted area however does. Wetted area is determined by circumference times length.


But anyway, in take-off and climb out, fuselage drag is a negligible proportion of the overall drag polar.

My only thought on calling the A220 a replacement for the A320 family is that it was designed outside of Airbus.

So it is lacking the commonality of the A320 family cockpit?

Does it share common parts with the A320 family?

Would a captain need a new type rating and would all the pilots need retraining for the A220 cockpit?

If the answer to those is what I suspect, wouldn’t it form a sub fleet which isn’t compatible with other Airbuses?

I imagine this wouldn’t make it attractive to airlines who exclusively fly Airbuses such as EasyJet or Aer Lingus.

All true and, if the A220 fleet were sufficiently large >25, irrelevant.

GF

Amiga500 wrote:

VV wrote:

But are those assumptions correct?
What about the frontal cross section (aerodynamic).?

Think about it again deeply.

You need to think about it a bit more. Your also showing up yourself for what you were not in

....

But anyway, in take-off and climb out, fuselage drag is a negligible proportion of the overall drag polar.

Well, you can think as you want, but although deep in me I wish the C Dries has a better cost on per trip and per seat basis, it is not the case and it will not be the case.

However, it is clear the C Series has better payload-range capability. There's no doubt about it. And that's exactly why it costs are not superior that the E195-E2.

lol, C series has great CASM and per trip cost according to an actual airline that will operate it, total cost said to be 30% lower than E90 (so E90 cost is 40% higher than A220-300). And you keep repeating embraer managements line that it's cost are not superior to E2

tphuang wrote:

lol, C series has great CASM and per trip cost according to an actual airline that will operate it, total cost said to be 30% lower than E90 (so E90 cost is 40% higher than A220-300). And you keep repeating embraer managements line that it's cost are not superior to E2

Well, again I repeat that deep in me I wish it was the case, but it simply is not realistic.

The main advantage of the C Series is not it's cost on per seat or per trip basis, but it's payload-range capability.
This payload-range capability is exactly the reason why on a benchmark route of 500-800 nmi it's costs are not better than E195-E2.

That's life.

A simple stretch of the CS300 would have excellent per seat cost. It's max range would be around 2400-2500 nmi. This version would be the right size for the C Series.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

FWIW, more design work was performed (when under Bombardier) on such a stretch than admitted. I'm sure VV knows more on this, but can't discuss.

With regards the wing, there wasn't that much more done (certainly as far as the time-consuming expensive stuff goes - conceptually yes, there obviously was).

- Torque box is specific to each type. CS100 and CS300 have different layups. A CS500 would be no different.
- Trailing edge and leading edge are now moving toward commonality for costs, sacrificing some CS100 weight. Neither were designed for CS500. Analyses would have to be re run and in some cases, structure resized. This would then require either separate parts bins (which would not aid driving down build costs), or a further sacrifice in CS100 performance and new sacrifices to CS300 performance.
- However, the MTOW increase program is doing much of that analysis re-work in the background anyway[1].



[1]Estimated weight growth ~ 2.9 tonnes
Fuse weight increase for 4 extra rows ~ 800 kg (based on fuselage being fraction of 0.3 of OEW and factored by overall fuselage & cabin lengths)
Extra cargo weight due to 40 extra seats ~ 2100 kg (@105kg pax)

Airbus are increasing MTOW by 2.3 tonnes. Obviously my estimations are rough as ____, but I think most airlines would sacrifice 600 kg of fuel at MTOW (which is going to be something like an 8-10% range hit) to get 20 extra bookings on board.

I agree with GalaxyFlier, if there is s large enough sub-fleet, irrelevant. Both the E2 and A220 have an opportunity to take most of the A319 market. I realize Sprint bought A319NEOs, but those are:
1. Empty weight of 42.6 tons versus
A220-300 37.1
E2-195 35.7
A220-100 35.2
2. Oversized engines, the A319NEO doesn't benefit from all the NEO efficiency improvements of the PW1100G. On an aircraft that needs 22k of thrust, 33 k is not efficient. The PW1500/1900 is well sized for the E2-195 and A220, a bit oversized for the E2-190.
3. Range, the A319 was often bought back when the A320 didn't have the range with payload, not an issue for the A220. The E2-195 range is quoted MAX payload, so it shouldn't be an issue either. Not an issue E2-190.
4. Hot/high shortfield. The A220 and E2-190 are exceptional in this area.

There will be more sales. Both the A220 and E2 lack enough airlines flying them. Unfortunately, this reminds me of the old A318 vs. 717 vs. E-190/195 threads. Everyone rooted for their favorite, but market economics chose the E-190. Now we repeat, so far the A220-300 is the only airframe with enough sales to give buyers/leasors confidence.

When Aircastle announces they placed mist of their E2s, I will celebrate.

Until then the A319NEO is playing the role of the A318 and the E2 the 717. I hope for better sales in this size range, but perhaps the economics say upgauge?

Lightsaber

VV wrote:

The main advantage of the C Series is not it's cost on per seat or per trip basis, but it's payload-range capability.

Agreed.

VV wrote:

A simple stretch of the CS300 would have excellent per seat cost. It's max range would be around 2400-2500 nmi. This version would be the right size for the C Series.

If they did the stretch, then the likes of Easyjet could have a single type covering the market from 110 to 180 seats. That means airlines can have their cake and eat it with regards right-sizing and MX simplification.

Amiga500 wrote:

VV wrote:

The main advantage of the C Series is not it's cost on per seat or per trip basis, but it's payload-range capability.

Agreed.

VV wrote:

A simple stretch of the CS300 would have excellent per seat cost. It's max range would be around 2400-2500 nmi. This version would be the right size for the C Series.

If they did the stretch, then the likes of Easyjet could have a single type covering the market from 110 to 180 seats. That means airlines can have their cake and eat it with regards right-sizing and MX simplification.

Would Airbus sacrifice its A320neo to provide the room for the hypothetical simple stretch of CS300. It really hard to believe they would do it.

Just to add something. I believe they should do something about the C Series landing performance.

Just saying.

VV wrote:

Would Airbus sacrifice it's A320neoo to provide the room for the hypothetical simple stretch of CS300. It really hard to believe they would do it.

If they can make more profit on an A220 (which could be partially a result of selling an A321 in that build slot instead of an A320)... why wouldn't they?

If that A220-500 sale means Boeing didn't sell a 737, why on earth wouldn't they?


The sums have to add up of course - but if they do add up - Airbus won't cut off their nose to spite their face.

VV wrote:

Just to add something. I believe they should do something about the C Series landing performance.

Just saying.

Why? 1387m at MLW for A220-100
1509m for A220-300

1240 m E2-190
1412 m E2-195

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

VV wrote:

Just to add something. I believe they should do something about the C Series landing performance.

Just saying.

Why? 1387m at MLW for A220-100
1509m for A220-300

1240 m E2-190
1412 m E2-195

Lightsaber

Why?
Well you will know perhaps one day.

Amiga500 wrote:

VV wrote:

Would Airbus sacrifice it's A320neoo to provide the room for the hypothetical simple stretch of CS300. It really hard to believe they would do it.

If they can make more profit on an A220 (which could be partially a result of selling an A321 in that build slot instead of an A320)... why wouldn't they?

If that A220-500 sale means Boeing didn't sell a 737, why on earth wouldn't they?
...

Why?
Think about it again calmly.

VV wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

VV wrote:

Just to add something. I believe they should do something about the C Series landing performance.

Just saying.

Why? 1387m at MLW for A220-100
1509m for A220-300

1240 m E2-190
1412 m E2-195

Lightsaber

Why?
Well you will know perhaps one day.

The A220-300 MLW has good margin, the plane could land lighter with good payload.

The 1509m of the A220-300 can be made LCY compliant by sticking to 145 pax or less.

The A220-100 is the clear winner for takeoff and landing if range is needed. The 9% lower wing loading will help for all conditions vs. E2-195.

MLW of A220-300 58.74 tons
MLW of E2-195 53.75
MLW of A220-100 52.4 (note, lighter than E2 empty).

I arbitrarily calculated empty weight+ nominal payload, + 4 tons to calculate surplus weight ratiod to 50t empty+pax weight

A223 has 2.68 tons surplus landing weight, so definitely land lighter or land with more payload with 141 pax
E2-195, has 1.58 tons margin at 120 pax
A221 has 1.22 tons margin at 116 pax


A high MLW allows flexibility, but drags out landing distance. So I ask again, what is the issue, from my calculations the A223 has a conservatively high MLW. The E2-195 and A221 not very conservative landing weight. They couldn't tanker fuel, the A223 can.

Lightsaber

VV wrote:

Why?
Think about it again calmly.

You've offered no compelling argument for your case.

I expect you will continue to offer no compelling argument for your case either as to do so would show you up.

Amiga500 wrote:

VV wrote:

Why?
Think about it again calmly.

You've offered no compelling argument for your case.

I expect you will continue to offer no compelling argument for your case either as to do so would show you up.

No, I did not give any argument at all for "my case". Seriously, it is not at all my case.
Just think about it as I suggested. You are good enough to find out what I meant.