Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Babyshark
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:35 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Wasn't it just 6 months or a year ago that many posters asserted that Airbus would never allow the 500 because it would poach orders from the A320? Now, the 500 is a virtual certainty and speculation abounds about further stretches?

My, how times have changed.


The last Airbus said was the 220-500 was not happening.

The last Bombardier had to say is they're in a bad financial position due to 10B in debt:

Bloomerg 16JAN: The shares posted their biggest loss ever -- Bombardier is almost a penny stock again -- and bonds tumbled after the company said it was reassessing the A220 jet program with Airbus. Costs for the new plane are rising, and the goal of breaking even may come later than expected, likely prompting a writedown when Bombardier reports earnings next month.

“The joke continues,” said John O’Connell, chief executive officer of Toronto-based Davis Rea Ltd. “This company has been a disaster my whole career and I’m almost ready to retire.”

The possible retreat from the A220 program, formerly known as the C Series, could be another blow to Bombardier’s efforts to increase cash flow to help pay down its $10 billion debt load. The company has already sold assets in recent years to tackle its debt, including pending deal for its CRJ jet unit with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.
...
But the latest financial plan calls for more cash to support the ramp-up, pushes out the break-even timeline, and generates a lower return over the life of the program, Bombardier said in a statement Thursday.


I don't see an appetite by Airbus to stretch a poorly developed oddball 220 to compete with the cornerstone of their entire company.
Last edited by Babyshark on Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Slash787
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:37 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:43 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Just gonna drop it here:


Can you make one for 900 too?
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:44 pm

Babyshark wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Wasn't it just 6 months or a year ago that many posters asserted that Airbus would never allow the 500 because it would poach orders from the A320? Now, the 500 is a virtual certainty and speculation abounds about further stretches?

My, how times have changed.


The last Airbus said was the 220-500 was not happening.

The last Bombardier had to say is they're in a bad financial position due to 10B in debt.

I don't see an appetite by Airbus or BBD to stretch a poorly developed oddball 220 to compete with the cornerstone of their entire company.


What was that old Carly Simon song......"anticipation"

I've never been more certain of anything in aviation in my life.

I guess we all have our opinions.
 
silentbob
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:06 pm

It's only logical, and prudent business practice, to determine the limits and limitations of the airframe. Airbus would be derelict in their duties if they didn't at least run the numbers to see what he results of such stretches would be and to then see if those variants had any market potential. There's a huge difference between running the numbers and planning to build.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:03 pm

Slash787 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Just gonna drop it here:


Can you make one for 900 too?


Yep. Here they are:


Image
 
ewt340
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:05 pm

A220-500 is easily doable.

A220-700 could be done with some minor modifications to achieve decent range and payload. But I don't see -900 being done without some Major modifications.
 
NiMar
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:08 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:06 pm

Wouldn't that -900 take a long time to load single door? That is long!
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:29 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Slash787 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Just gonna drop it here:


Can you make one for 900 too?


Yep. Here they are:


Image


Wow, the 900 could only rotate roughy 141/172 or 80% of the -500 unless the taper begins early. Not Happening.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:52 pm

NiMar wrote:
Wouldn't that -900 take a long time to load single door? That is long!


Well if you think about it, other long aircraft like A321neo and B757-200 also use a single door for boarding. It has the same door number as A321neo.

One of the big difference is the fact that A220 only have 5 seats per row compared to the A321neo or B757-200. In terms of number of passengers, A220-900 would have similar number of passengers boarding the aircraft even though its fuselage is longer by 5m-8m.

The main reason why airlines have problems with B757-300 was because it's long and carry close to 300 passengers at maximum capacity.

Other alternative which actually make quite a lot of sense is to install the L/R2 in front of the wing instead of aft wing. Which is the same configuration as some B757-200, this would allow airlines to get passengers boarding from the L/R2 instead of the L/R1 door instead:

Image
 
ewt340
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:29 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Slash787 wrote:

Can you make one for 900 too?


Yep. Here they are:


Image


Wow, the 900 could only rotate roughy 141/172 or 80% of the -500 unless the taper begins early. Not Happening.


What Airbus could probably do is to install an extension on the main gear like what Boeing did on MAX10. This would only extend during take off and landing when the plane start to rotate or during the initial touchdown. The other thing they could do is actually to shift some of the frame to the front of the plane to get better clearance during rotation. This front heavy fuselage tend to be common on longer stretched plane like A350-1000, B757-300, B767-400ER and B777-300ER. In this rendering bellow, I shift 4 frames from the aft fuselage to the front of the fuselage between L/R1 and L/R2 to get the maximum clearance.

Image
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:52 pm

If you look at the 737, A320, DC9/MD families, the longest versions differed around ~45% with shortests versions. If that means anything, a similar longer term development of the A220 could move lenght towards 50m, theoretically. In which they case they might consider a bigger GTF too.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:05 am

ewt340 wrote:
Image

I got a good laugh out of the 900. I doubt it would ever be that long. Huge MTOW increases would overload that small wing.

I think we would see much smaller increments in fuselage lengths like the 737-8/9/10. The big advanatage the 737 has is airlines can purchase the exact length to get to 200 seats with the required seating density demanded by the airlines.

For instance an ultra low cost carrier can jam 200 seats into the 737-8. A mainline carrier can fit 200 seats into the 737-9 with a very decent pitch. Or an airline can fit 200 seats with a few rows of recliners in the 737-10.

The problem with the A320 is it is too smaller to fit 200 seats and too big to fit 150 seats. Thus the A320.5 idea.

Air Canada has 137 seats in the A220-300. A 2-3 row stretch for the A220-500 would be great for premium airlines as they could run 150 passengers in 2 class.

It would be very hard to get the A220 up to 200 seats without resorting to a very tight 27inch pitch.

Any 700/900 would be less than a 2m stretch.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:25 am

RJMAZ wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Image

I got a good laugh out of the 900. I doubt it would ever be that long. Huge MTOW increases would overload that small wing.

I think we would see much smaller increments in fuselage lengths like the 737-8/9/10. The big advanatage the 737 has is airlines can purchase the exact length to get to 200 seats with the required seating density demanded by the airlines.

For instance an ultra low cost carrier can jam 200 seats into the 737-8. A mainline carrier can fit 200 seats into the 737-9 with a very decent pitch. Or an airline can fit 200 seats with a few rows of recliners in the 737-10.

The problem with the A320 is it is too smaller to fit 200 seats and too big to fit 150 seats. Thus the A320.5 idea.

Air Canada has 137 seats in the A220-300. A 2-3 row stretch for the A220-500 would be great for premium airlines as they could run 150 passengers in 2 class.

It would be very hard to get the A220 up to 200 seats without resorting to a very tight 27inch pitch.

Any 700/900 would be less than a 2m stretch.


Agree those very long fuselages look out of proportion, stiffness, weight, single aisle ground clearance, runwaylenght. You feel there's limits, there's a reason aircraft aren't build like this. Just not feasible, almost.

https://www.skytamer.com/1.2/2011/20111008-053.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JonesNL
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:50 am

keesje wrote:
If you look at the 737, A320, DC9/MD families, the longest versions differed around ~45% with shortests versions. If that means anything, a similar longer term development of the A220 could move lenght towards 50m, theoretically. In which they case they might consider a bigger GTF too.

Image


Could they also put an Leap engine on an possible bigger A22x variant? This would give it an engine commonality with the A32x, not sure how much that is worth though...
 
astuteman
Posts: 7131
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:02 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I got a good laugh out of the 900. I doubt it would ever be that long. Huge MTOW increases would overload that small wing.


Agree. An A220-500 is about all we will see

RJMAZ wrote:
The problem with the A320 is it is too smaller to fit 200 seats and too big to fit 150 seats. Thus the A320.5 idea.


Splitting hairs a bit - it fits 194 on a 28" pitch, and seems to compete just fine with that

RJMAZ wrote:
It would be very hard to get the A220 up to 200 seats without resorting to a very tight 27inch pitch.


At 28" pitch, the A220-500 would need to be 44.2m long to fit 200 seats, which sounds doable.

Moderating ambition a bit, 190 seats at 28" pitch should be easily doable on a 42.8m long A220-500
Which is a fairly similar length increment from the A220-300 as the A220-300 is from the A220-100

The issue with these sizes is that at the current 69.8t MTOW, you'd be lucky to get
2,000Nm out of the 44.2m long plane, and
2,250Nm out of the 42.8m long plane, with these payloads

At more "nominal" payloads (175 seats for the 44.25m and 165 seats for the 42.8m) you should get around 2,400Nm and 2,600Nm respectively at the current MTOW.

I think such a variant would need an MTOW of 72t - 73t.
This should allow c. 3,000Nm ranges to be achievable - especially with the 165 seat 42.8m variant

Rgds
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 2659
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:10 pm

astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I got a good laugh out of the 900. I doubt it would ever be that long. Huge MTOW increases would overload that small wing.


Agree. An A220-500 is about all we will see

RJMAZ wrote:
The problem with the A320 is it is too smaller to fit 200 seats and too big to fit 150 seats. Thus the A320.5 idea.


Splitting hairs a bit - it fits 194 on a 28" pitch, and seems to compete just fine with that

RJMAZ wrote:
It would be very hard to get the A220 up to 200 seats without resorting to a very tight 27inch pitch.


At 28" pitch, the A220-500 would need to be 44.2m long to fit 200 seats, which sounds doable.

Moderating ambition a bit, 190 seats at 28" pitch should be easily doable on a 42.8m long A220-500
Which is a fairly similar length increment from the A220-300 as the A220-300 is from the A220-100

The issue with these sizes is that at the current 69.8t MTOW, you'd be lucky to get
2,000Nm out of the 44.2m long plane, and
2,250Nm out of the 42.8m long plane, with these payloads

At more "nominal" payloads (175 seats for the 44.25m and 165 seats for the 42.8m) you should get around 2,400Nm and 2,600Nm respectively at the current MTOW.

I think such a variant would need an MTOW of 72t - 73t.
This should allow c. 3,000Nm ranges to be achievable - especially with the 165 seat 42.8m variant

Rgds


Thanks for making an actual stab at the ranges.

So 43.4m and 175 seats (6 row stretch at 31" Pitch) to give you A320 Capacity at similar density would be about 2,500NM?

That seems perfect and very efficient at the existing MTOW and covers probably 90%+ of SA missions. Although they could do an ER model later with higher MTOW a thrust bump with probably not that much effort.
 
TObound
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:41 pm

They aren't going to design the 225 to move 200 pax. They don't have the manufacturing capacity to supply hundreds of 225s to LCCs. The 225 has to a mainline focused aircraft which creates room for the 320.5 to be the LCC aircraft. And makes any rewing effort along with tha stretched 321, more cost effective and efficient.
 
LSGL
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:23 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:08 pm

Polot wrote:
Palumboism wrote:
Utah744 wrote:
Answer to the OP. Long, longer, and ridiculously long.


This is the most probable case. Remember, half of the A220 program is owned by Bombardier investors who are looking for a return on their investment.


Bombardier does not own half the A220 program. Airbus owns the majority stake of 50.01% that it got for free, the remaining is shared between Bombardier which owns 31% and the province of Québec which owns 19%.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2563
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:47 pm

One thing to keep in mind is that stretching the A220 doesn't affect the embark/disembark time that much due to the 2+3 configuration. There are fewer people for each row, hence not as crowded. And the aisle is already fairly wide.

There's no reason the A220 should not be capable of a stretch to the size of an MD-90 with similar 2+3 config.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 2659
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:02 pm

TObound wrote:
They aren't going to design the 225 to move 200 pax. They don't have the manufacturing capacity to supply hundreds of 225s to LCCs. The 225 has to a mainline focused aircraft which creates room for the 320.5 to be the LCC aircraft. And makes any rewing effort along with tha stretched 321, more cost effective and efficient.


Agreed - A220-500 at 43.4m'ish with A320 Capacity (175 seats - 31" pitch, 2,500NM - about 193-195 at 28"), A320.5 Rewing (200 Seats - 4-5 row A320 Stretch, 31" pitch, 4,500 NM Range (Custom Parts/gear with lower MTOW than A322), A322 Rewing - A few Rows longer than A321 (3M Longer) - ( Call it 240 Seats at 31" Pitch- Higher MTOW - 5,000NM Range

It would be a really nice lineup.

Charge a premium for the Rewings and keep the existing A320/A321 in production for as long as demand warrants at a few of the FAL's.

Then no need to an Airbus NMA really and the A330 can wind down over time. You could probably get close to 270 seats into an A322 at 28" pitch.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:25 pm

astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I got a good laugh out of the 900. I doubt it would ever be that long. Huge MTOW increases would overload that small wing.


Agree. An A220-500 is about all we will see

RJMAZ wrote:
The problem with the A320 is it is too smaller to fit 200 seats and too big to fit 150 seats. Thus the A320.5 idea.


Splitting hairs a bit - it fits 194 on a 28" pitch, and seems to compete just fine with that

RJMAZ wrote:
It would be very hard to get the A220 up to 200 seats without resorting to a very tight 27inch pitch.


At 28" pitch, the A220-500 would need to be 44.2m long to fit 200 seats, which sounds doable.

Moderating ambition a bit, 190 seats at 28" pitch should be easily doable on a 42.8m long A220-500
Which is a fairly similar length increment from the A220-300 as the A220-300 is from the A220-100

The issue with these sizes is that at the current 69.8t MTOW, you'd be lucky to get
2,000Nm out of the 44.2m long plane, and
2,250Nm out of the 42.8m long plane, with these payloads

At more "nominal" payloads (175 seats for the 44.25m and 165 seats for the 42.8m) you should get around 2,400Nm and 2,600Nm respectively at the current MTOW.

I think such a variant would need an MTOW of 72t - 73t.
This should allow c. 3,000Nm ranges to be achievable - especially with the 165 seat 42.8m variant

Rgds


I don't think maximum seating at 194 would be logical for them. In terms of exit limit of 2 pairs of doors and 2 pairs of windows exit. It would only allowed them 189 maximum seats inside the cabin.

In order to get 194 seats, they have to install an extra pair of doors between the fuselage for 5 extra seats which would be quite redundant.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7131
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:57 pm

ewt340 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I got a good laugh out of the 900. I doubt it would ever be that long. Huge MTOW increases would overload that small wing.


Agree. An A220-500 is about all we will see

RJMAZ wrote:
The problem with the A320 is it is too smaller to fit 200 seats and too big to fit 150 seats. Thus the A320.5 idea.


Splitting hairs a bit - it fits 194 on a 28" pitch, and seems to compete just fine with that

RJMAZ wrote:
It would be very hard to get the A220 up to 200 seats without resorting to a very tight 27inch pitch.


At 28" pitch, the A220-500 would need to be 44.2m long to fit 200 seats, which sounds doable.

Moderating ambition a bit, 190 seats at 28" pitch should be easily doable on a 42.8m long A220-500
Which is a fairly similar length increment from the A220-300 as the A220-300 is from the A220-100

The issue with these sizes is that at the current 69.8t MTOW, you'd be lucky to get
2,000Nm out of the 44.2m long plane, and
2,250Nm out of the 42.8m long plane, with these payloads

At more "nominal" payloads (175 seats for the 44.25m and 165 seats for the 42.8m) you should get around 2,400Nm and 2,600Nm respectively at the current MTOW.

I think such a variant would need an MTOW of 72t - 73t.
This should allow c. 3,000Nm ranges to be achievable - especially with the 165 seat 42.8m variant

Rgds


I don't think maximum seating at 194 would be logical for them. In terms of exit limit of 2 pairs of doors and 2 pairs of windows exit. It would only allowed them 189 maximum seats inside the cabin.

In order to get 194 seats, they have to install an extra pair of doors between the fuselage for 5 extra seats which would be quite redundant.


I suspect we are at cross-purposes - An A320NEO can absolutely fit 194 seats - ask Cebu Pacific.

A proposed A220-500? 190 seats sounds absolutely spot on to me :)

I wouldn't hold my breath though.

I'm convinced it will happen, but suspect there are some pre-conditions that apply, such as:-

1. Resolution of the ownership of CSALP
2. Airbus having time to plan the ramp-down of the A320NEO and ramp up of A321NEO that inevitably accompanies it
3. Airbus having a clear view of what Boeing intend in narrowbody space
4. The volume of A220's in service, and thus their supporting infrastructure, being much greater
5. Production volumes being well ramped up.

I can't see a decision to proceed in much less than 3 years, and hence I don't see an EIS before about 2028
99% certain it will happen though :thumbsup:

Rgds
 
TObound
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:02 pm

morrisond wrote:
TObound wrote:
They aren't going to design the 225 to move 200 pax. They don't have the manufacturing capacity to supply hundreds of 225s to LCCs. The 225 has to a mainline focused aircraft which creates room for the 320.5 to be the LCC aircraft. And makes any rewing effort along with tha stretched 321, more cost effective and efficient.


Agreed - A220-500 at 43.4m'ish with A320 Capacity (175 seats - 31" pitch, 2,500NM - about 193-195 at 28"), A320.5 Rewing (200 Seats - 4-5 row A320 Stretch, 31" pitch, 4,500 NM Range (Custom Parts/gear with lower MTOW than A322), A322 Rewing - A few Rows longer than A321 (3M Longer) - ( Call it 240 Seats at 31" Pitch- Higher MTOW - 5,000NM Range

It would be a really nice lineup.

Charge a premium for the Rewings and keep the existing A320/A321 in production for as long as demand warrants at a few of the FAL's.

Then no need to an Airbus NMA really and the A330 can wind down over time. You could probably get close to 270 seats into an A322 at 28" pitch.


I'm thinking more like 170 seats at 31" pitch is their sweet spot. Bombardier was probably originally intending the 225 at 165. Look at the current line at 31" pitch: 221 with 125 seats and 223 with 145 seats. So a 20-25 seat extension makes sense to me. That would make a 225 hold 180 seats in a 28-29" pitch configuration.

This let's them move the 320.5 to a solid 198 (33 rows) at 30-31" pitch, somewhere on the lower end between a Max 8 and Max 9, but with better operating economics than a MAX 10. And done with a rewing, new landing gear and possibly new (or resized and re-optimized) engines, that enable a stretched 321 with 240-250 seats (40-42 rows) at 30-31", enabling both a real 240 seat medium range hauler and a solid 200 seat TATL aircraft (LR version) complete with 20 lie-flats in the front. Think of TAP's 321LR with 200 seats including 20J, 30Y+ and 150Y.

All of the above can be developed and executed properly so that most of the current backlog isn't threatened. EIS the 225 in 2025, the 320.5 in 2027 and the 321+ in 2028 and they would get very little change in the order book. The LCC operators would mostly take 320NEOs until they could take up 320.5s. 321NEO/LR/XLR customers would keep taking those aircraft until they could take the 321.5. And if a recession does happen in there, Airbus will have new products ready on the other side. The upsized lineup would also be huge an Asia set to become a substantially larger market for airframers in the years to come.
 
TObound
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:14 pm

Something to keep in mind on A225 sizing. The 320/321CEO were listed at 164 and 199 at 32" pitch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family

So [email protected]" pitch would make the A225 about the same size as the current A320. And a 198 seat (33 rows) at 31" would put a hypothetical 320.5 at just a bit shorter than the 321.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:25 pm

astuteman wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
astuteman wrote:

Agree. An A220-500 is about all we will see



Splitting hairs a bit - it fits 194 on a 28" pitch, and seems to compete just fine with that



At 28" pitch, the A220-500 would need to be 44.2m long to fit 200 seats, which sounds doable.

Moderating ambition a bit, 190 seats at 28" pitch should be easily doable on a 42.8m long A220-500
Which is a fairly similar length increment from the A220-300 as the A220-300 is from the A220-100

The issue with these sizes is that at the current 69.8t MTOW, you'd be lucky to get
2,000Nm out of the 44.2m long plane, and
2,250Nm out of the 42.8m long plane, with these payloads

At more "nominal" payloads (175 seats for the 44.25m and 165 seats for the 42.8m) you should get around 2,400Nm and 2,600Nm respectively at the current MTOW.

I think such a variant would need an MTOW of 72t - 73t.
This should allow c. 3,000Nm ranges to be achievable - especially with the 165 seat 42.8m variant

Rgds


I don't think maximum seating at 194 would be logical for them. In terms of exit limit of 2 pairs of doors and 2 pairs of windows exit. It would only allowed them 189 maximum seats inside the cabin.

In order to get 194 seats, they have to install an extra pair of doors between the fuselage for 5 extra seats which would be quite redundant.


I suspect we are at cross-purposes - An A320NEO can absolutely fit 194 seats - ask Cebu Pacific.

A proposed A220-500? 190 seats sounds absolutely spot on to me :)

I wouldn't hold my breath though.

I'm convinced it will happen, but suspect there are some pre-conditions that apply, such as:-

1. Resolution of the ownership of CSALP
2. Airbus having time to plan the ramp-down of the A320NEO and ramp up of A321NEO that inevitably accompanies it
3. Airbus having a clear view of what Boeing intend in narrowbody space
4. The volume of A220's in service, and thus their supporting infrastructure, being much greater
5. Production volumes being well ramped up.

I can't see a decision to proceed in much less than 3 years, and hence I don't see an EIS before about 2028
99% certain it will happen though :thumbsup:

Rgds


Oh geez, didn't realize they squeezed that many seats on their A320neo. How did they get the regulators to approved that? Last time I checked A320neo only allowed to carry maximum of either 189 or 192 seats.

Although it's not delivered yet through.
Last edited by ewt340 on Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:25 pm

astuteman wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
astuteman wrote:

Agree. An A220-500 is about all we will see



Splitting hairs a bit - it fits 194 on a 28" pitch, and seems to compete just fine with that



At 28" pitch, the A220-500 would need to be 44.2m long to fit 200 seats, which sounds doable.

Moderating ambition a bit, 190 seats at 28" pitch should be easily doable on a 42.8m long A220-500
Which is a fairly similar length increment from the A220-300 as the A220-300 is from the A220-100

The issue with these sizes is that at the current 69.8t MTOW, you'd be lucky to get
2,000Nm out of the 44.2m long plane, and
2,250Nm out of the 42.8m long plane, with these payloads

At more "nominal" payloads (175 seats for the 44.25m and 165 seats for the 42.8m) you should get around 2,400Nm and 2,600Nm respectively at the current MTOW.

I think such a variant would need an MTOW of 72t - 73t.
This should allow c. 3,000Nm ranges to be achievable - especially with the 165 seat 42.8m variant

Rgds


I don't think maximum seating at 194 would be logical for them. In terms of exit limit of 2 pairs of doors and 2 pairs of windows exit. It would only allowed them 189 maximum seats inside the cabin.

In order to get 194 seats, they have to install an extra pair of doors between the fuselage for 5 extra seats which would be quite redundant.


I suspect we are at cross-purposes - An A320NEO can absolutely fit 194 seats - ask Cebu Pacific.

A proposed A220-500? 190 seats sounds absolutely spot on to me :)

I wouldn't hold my breath though.

I'm convinced it will happen, but suspect there are some pre-conditions that apply, such as:-

1. Resolution of the ownership of CSALP
2. Airbus having time to plan the ramp-down of the A320NEO and ramp up of A321NEO that inevitably accompanies it
3. Airbus having a clear view of what Boeing intend in narrowbody space
4. The volume of A220's in service, and thus their supporting infrastructure, being much greater
5. Production volumes being well ramped up.

I can't see a decision to proceed in much less than 3 years, and hence I don't see an EIS before about 2028
99% certain it will happen though :thumbsup:

Rgds

You make good conditions.
1. Airbus needs to have a business case. So they will buy more out.
2. I agree Airbus needs to plan the A320 to A321 transition. In particular Tolouse.
3. Too late. By the time Boeing broadcasts what they are doing, Airbus missed an opportunity to grow.
4. Agreed. Moreso that in service i
ssues are resolved more than volume in service.
5. Volumes matter. That means more automation and Mobile.

I'm a huge fan of the A220, but this is a business case.

The end goal is commoditize -8 pricing. As the A225 has subsystem and weight advantages (per my estimate), it will thrive. But first, a business case.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:08 pm

Airlines like AF commiting to a new fleet have serious discussions with the manufacturer on the aircraft type.

Because you are investing for th next 25 yrs you need to have an idea what comng up 5-10 years later.

I remember seeing a fleetplan including abig trijet that included a stretched version in various long term network scenarios / simulations.

Airbus no doubt had to show AF, DL and Jetblue some realistic longer term type strategies, before they signed up.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
beechnut
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:28 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I got a good laugh out of the 900. I doubt it would ever be that long.


Have people already forgotten the DC8-61/63?

Beech
 
astuteman
Posts: 7131
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:07 am

lightsaber wrote:
astuteman wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

I don't think maximum seating at 194 would be logical for them. In terms of exit limit of 2 pairs of doors and 2 pairs of windows exit. It would only allowed them 189 maximum seats inside the cabin.

In order to get 194 seats, they have to install an extra pair of doors between the fuselage for 5 extra seats which would be quite redundant.


I suspect we are at cross-purposes - An A320NEO can absolutely fit 194 seats - ask Cebu Pacific.

A proposed A220-500? 190 seats sounds absolutely spot on to me :)

I wouldn't hold my breath though.

I'm convinced it will happen, but suspect there are some pre-conditions that apply, such as:-

1. Resolution of the ownership of CSALP
2. Airbus having time to plan the ramp-down of the A320NEO and ramp up of A321NEO that inevitably accompanies it
3. Airbus having a clear view of what Boeing intend in narrowbody space
4. The volume of A220's in service, and thus their supporting infrastructure, being much greater
5. Production volumes being well ramped up.

I can't see a decision to proceed in much less than 3 years, and hence I don't see an EIS before about 2028
99% certain it will happen though :thumbsup:

Rgds

You make good conditions.
1. Airbus needs to have a business case. So they will buy more out.
2. I agree Airbus needs to plan the A320 to A321 transition. In particular Tolouse.
3. Too late. By the time Boeing broadcasts what they are doing, Airbus missed an opportunity to grow.
4. Agreed. Moreso that in service i
ssues are resolved more than volume in service.
5. Volumes matter. That means more automation and Mobile.

I'm a huge fan of the A220, but this is a business case.

The end goal is commoditize -8 pricing. As the A225 has subsystem and weight advantages (per my estimate), it will thrive. But first, a business case.

Lightsaber


Regarding point 3 -
For clarity, I don't expect Airbus to "stop growing" whilst waiting for clearer resolution on Boeing's narrowbody policy.
On the contrary, I fully expect both A320 series deliveries and A220 series deliveries to continue to grow apace pretty much throughout the decade.
I also expect them to continue to position "spoiler" derivatives (such as the A321XLR) in places that a) are technically easy, and b) continue to limit Boeing's choices

It's clear though that the ball is in Boeing's court as far as narrowbody strategy goes.
I can't see the MAX going away in the short term - the issues people are seeing are driven by lack of trust, not lack of solutions.
And there are too many orders in backlog, especially for the MAX-8

Smart money seems to be on a new single-aisle positioned roughly in the range of MAX-9 to 757-200 size to take on the A321, and cover off what is left of MOM space
I don't want to divert this into being an NSA/NMA thread - the point is that I think Airbus will want to see what the Boeing solution looks like, before concluding their own strategy for A320 NEO family development/replacement, and thus exactly where they would want an A220-500 to fit in underneath.

c. 3 years from now feels about right for that.
And some of the other dependencies we listed will not be concluded any quicker.

I don't see an A220-500 launch decision coming until 2022 at the earliest.
That it WILL come is not in doubt in my mind.

A 72t-73t MTOW, 42.9m long, 165-190 seat A220-500, with 3,250Nm range with 165 pax, and 2,750Nm range with 190 pax, eminently capable of full load transcons, is just too good an opportunity to miss. As well as replacing the A320NEO, it could make a right mess of the 737-8MAX and thus Boeing's overall small aircraft strategy.

Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:17 am

I don't want to divert this into being an NSA/NMA thread - the point is that I think Airbus will want to see what the Boeing solution looks like, before concluding their own strategy for A320 NEO family development/replacement, and thus exactly where they would want an A220-500 to fit in underneath.


Scott(Leeham news) feels Boeing is no longer in a leadership position.
That could be translated into Airbus taking strategic decisions and Boeing forced into a follower role..

Image
https://leehamnews.com/2020/01/20/ponti ... -strategy/

In that is the case, Airbus launching the A220-500 and a suitable A320 stretch would be market strategy (airline) driven,
not responsing on what Boeing might / might not want to do.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
TObound
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:46 am

keesje wrote:
I don't want to divert this into being an NSA/NMA thread - the point is that I think Airbus will want to see what the Boeing solution looks like, before concluding their own strategy for A320 NEO family development/replacement, and thus exactly where they would want an A220-500 to fit in underneath.


Scott(Leeham news) feels Boeing is no longer in a leadership position.
That could be translated into Airbus taking strategic decisions and Boeing forced into a follower role..

Image
https://leehamnews.com/2020/01/20/ponti ... -strategy/

In that is the case, Airbus launching the A220-500 and a suitable A320 stretch would be market strategy (airline) driven,
not responsing on what Boeing might / might not want to do.


I agree with this. Boeing doesn't look at all to be competitive going forward. Their board is on autopilot because they know they'll get at least 40% of the market by default thanks to the duopoly. This is why they don't want to invest in new types and have decided to max out (pun intended) on derivatives of every type. They can do that while the military sector is booming.

Airbus doesn't have a large defence sector. So it can't do that. They have had to spend more on R&D because of it. The A220 is a massive multi-billion dollar gift from this perspective. Bombardier spent billions developing it. Airbus got half for a dollar. It won't spend more than $2 billion getting the rest. That is a multi-billion dollar and multi-year advantage that Airbus would be foolish not to wield against Boeing.


astuteman wrote:
I don't see an A220-500 launch decision coming until 2022 at the earliest.
That it WILL come is not in doubt in my mind.

A 72t-73t MTOW, 42.9m long, 165-190 seat A220-500, with 3,250Nm range with 165 pax, and 2,750Nm range with 190 pax, eminently capable of full load transcons, is just too good an opportunity to miss. As well as replacing the A320NEO, it could make a right mess of the 737-8MAX and thus Boeing's overall small aircraft strategy.

Rgds


Absolutely agree.

The 225 is inevitable at this point imho. Just because of how little it would cost Airbus and the damage they could do to Boeing's plans. Bracketing the Max 8 with the 225 and 320.5 is going to be devastatingly expensive for Boeing to counter. And will put substantial pressure on their margins for the Max sales they do get.

Timing is everything though. Don't see any point in an EIS for the 225 before 2025. And a date that isn't within 2 years of the 320.5. Airbus has probably mapped out that plan and updates it regularly.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:51 pm

As for the -900. I do see other possibility. Maybe the -700 and the -900 are meant to compete directly with the MAX instead of replacing A321neo or A321XLR. Which mean the plane would be destined for shorter missions. Range for these types would be between 2,000nmi to 3,000nmi at most. If we look at MAX10 or A321-200. Both aircraft are certified to carry only 230-236 seats (only possible with 28" pitch). So the -900 might follow this limit instead of reaching 240-250 seats that A321neo and B757-200 could achieve. This would bring the aircraft maximum length to just bellow 50m. Which would probably be doable.

Image
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2563
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:50 pm

TObound wrote:
keesje wrote:
I don't want to divert this into being an NSA/NMA thread - the point is that I think Airbus will want to see what the Boeing solution looks like, before concluding their own strategy for A320 NEO family development/replacement, and thus exactly where they would want an A220-500 to fit in underneath.


Scott(Leeham news) feels Boeing is no longer in a leadership position.
That could be translated into Airbus taking strategic decisions and Boeing forced into a follower role..

Image
https://leehamnews.com/2020/01/20/ponti ... -strategy/

In that is the case, Airbus launching the A220-500 and a suitable A320 stretch would be market strategy (airline) driven,
not responsing on what Boeing might / might not want to do.


I agree with this. Boeing doesn't look at all to be competitive going forward. Their board is on autopilot because they know they'll get at least 40% of the market by default thanks to the duopoly. This is why they don't want to invest in new types and have decided to max out (pun intended) on derivatives of every type. They can do that while the military sector is booming.

Airbus doesn't have a large defence sector. So it can't do that. They have had to spend more on R&D because of it. The A220 is a massive multi-billion dollar gift from this perspective. Bombardier spent billions developing it. Airbus got half for a dollar. It won't spend more than $2 billion getting the rest. That is a multi-billion dollar and multi-year advantage that Airbus would be foolish not to wield against Boeing.


astuteman wrote:
I don't see an A220-500 launch decision coming until 2022 at the earliest.
That it WILL come is not in doubt in my mind.

A 72t-73t MTOW, 42.9m long, 165-190 seat A220-500, with 3,250Nm range with 165 pax, and 2,750Nm range with 190 pax, eminently capable of full load transcons, is just too good an opportunity to miss. As well as replacing the A320NEO, it could make a right mess of the 737-8MAX and thus Boeing's overall small aircraft strategy.

Rgds


Absolutely agree.

The 225 is inevitable at this point imho. Just because of how little it would cost Airbus and the damage they could do to Boeing's plans. Bracketing the Max 8 with the 225 and 320.5 is going to be devastatingly expensive for Boeing to counter. And will put substantial pressure on their margins for the Max sales they do get.

Timing is everything though. Don't see any point in an EIS for the 225 before 2025. And a date that isn't within 2 years of the 320.5. Airbus has probably mapped out that plan and updates it regularly.


In light of all this, Boeing declining Bombardier's offer to buy into the C-Series program is possibly the most stupid decision I've seen in the aviation industry. Airbus bought 50.01% stake in the program for the symbolic sum of €1.

We know Bombardier approached Boeing first. They declined. Now Airbus has two single aisle aircraft programs perfectly situated above and below each other.

Boeing has none.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2563
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:55 pm

ewt340 wrote:
As for the -900. I do see other possibility. Maybe the -700 and the -900 are meant to compete directly with the MAX instead of replacing A321neo or A321XLR. Which mean the plane would be destined for shorter missions. Range for these types would be between 2,000nmi to 3,000nmi at most. If we look at MAX10 or A321-200. Both aircraft are certified to carry only 230-236 seats (only possible with 28" pitch). So the -900 might follow this limit instead of reaching 240-250 seats that A321neo and B757-200 could achieve. This would bring the aircraft maximum length to just bellow 50m. Which would probably be doable.

Image


I would not be surprised if the Airbus long term strategy was to stretch the -300 into the -500 and possibly -700. Then launch a new NMA/MOM aircraft in the 200-300 pax segment. The NMA/MOM would have commonality with the A220 series, and the A320 series would continue production alongside the others (but scaling down) until no more orders were to be fulfilled. But I'm thinking this is a 10 year strategy.

It would fit in with the recent thread about Airbus plan for the 2020s.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:00 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
In light of all this, Boeing declining Bombardier's offer to buy into the C-Series program is possibly the most stupid decision I've seen in the aviation industry. Airbus bought 50.01% stake in the program for the symbolic sum of €1.

We know Bombardier approached Boeing first. They declined. Now Airbus has two single aisle aircraft programs perfectly situated above and below each other.

Boeing has none.


Actually, Airbus got it for much cheaper than that!!

BBD are on the hook for $225+350+350m USD between 2018-2021. Which of course Airbus can make them pay because they control the program and hence the ramp associated with the program.

So Airbus got the program for (minus) $924,999,999 USD.

Not bad eh?
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2563
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:06 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
In light of all this, Boeing declining Bombardier's offer to buy into the C-Series program is possibly the most stupid decision I've seen in the aviation industry. Airbus bought 50.01% stake in the program for the symbolic sum of €1.

We know Bombardier approached Boeing first. They declined. Now Airbus has two single aisle aircraft programs perfectly situated above and below each other.

Boeing has none.


Actually, Airbus got it for much cheaper than that!!

BBD are on the hook for $225+350+350m USD between 2018-2021. Which of course Airbus can make them pay because they control the program and hence the ramp associated with the program.

So Airbus got the program for (minus) $924,999,999 USD.

Not bad eh?


It's absolutely insane. Especially when you take into account the fact that Boeing were forcing Bombardier's hand - and causing their desperation with the massive tax put on aircraft built outside the US. So they basically drove them towards a sale. And Airbus had manufacturing capabilities inside the US. Now the tax is gone, but I certainly believe it had an effect.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:12 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
In light of all this, Boeing declining Bombardier's offer to buy into the C-Series program is possibly the most stupid decision I've seen in the aviation industry. Airbus bought 50.01% stake in the program for the symbolic sum of €1.

We know Bombardier approached Boeing first. They declined. Now Airbus has two single aisle aircraft programs perfectly situated above and below each other.

Boeing has none.


Actually, Airbus got it for much cheaper than that!!

BBD are on the hook for $225+350+350m USD between 2018-2021. Which of course Airbus can make them pay because they control the program and hence the ramp associated with the program.

So Airbus got the program for (minus) $924,999,999 USD.

Not bad eh?


It's absolutely insane. Especially when you take into account the fact that Boeing were forcing Bombardier's hand - and causing their desperation with the massive tax put on aircraft built outside the US. So they basically drove them towards a sale. And Airbus had manufacturing capabilities inside the US. Now the tax is gone, but I certainly believe it had an effect.


Airbus has been investing large sums of money in the A220 and is not making making profits for some time. Still it seems a good investment. They could have done it themselves ..

Image

or bought into the 728 program a long time ago.

Image

But the CSeries had customers, a TC and established supply chain. It saved a lot of time and risk.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:14 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Actually, Airbus got it for much cheaper than that!!
BBD are on the hook for $225+350+350m USD between 2018-2021. So Airbus got the program for (minus) $924,999,999 USD.
Not bad eh?

Well, we have to recall that those funds provides non-voting preferred CSLP shares (providing a little 2% annual dividends) to BBD.

FWIW, if they went into the trouble of creating that new share category, there must be some kind of preset value / buy back priority embedded in them.
("Non-voting" as Airbus did not want to dilute its 50.01% majority ownership).
 
Umbra55
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:51 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:51 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I would not be surprised if the Airbus long term strategy was to stretch the -300 into the -500 and possibly -700. Then launch a new NMA/MOM aircraft in the 200-300 pax segment. The NMA/MOM would have commonality with the A220 series, and the A320 series would continue production alongside the others (but scaling down) until no more orders were to be fulfilled. But I'm thinking this is a 10 year strategy.

Indeed, stretching the A220, allows Airbus to replace both the A320 Neo and the A330 Neo by a single new plane. Furthermore, the A220 stretched beyond 190 passengers should be very competitive against the Comac 919. Since there is no real urgency to replace the A320 Neo and the A330 Neo, that leaves Airbus plenty of time to take advantage of all the newest materials and production techniques. Having both the fuselage and wings in composite, the new plane could be the largest single aisle. (Composite allows higher length/width ratio) That way, the largest single aisle would automatically become the cheapest plane per mile-passenger. Obviously the new plane should also be available in LR and XLR versions. Airbus would then cover the whole spectrum from 100 to 400 passengers with only 3 planes. Boeing would have to finance both the 737 and 757 replacement and still keep the 787 and 777. Finally, Boeing would have to replace the 777X by a version with composite fuselage to keep up. Looks like Airbus is the clear winner here!
 
Sokes
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:34 pm

Why should an A320 capacity plane be 5 abreast?
On the other side:
Now that many A330-200s get retired, an A220-900 may be needed. It may also be a great plane for pure business, London to Paris.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Umbra55
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:51 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:46 pm

Sokes wrote:
Why should an A320 capacity plane be 5 abreast?
A composite fuselage allows longer and thinner airplanes: thinner airplanes are always more aerodynamic than wide bodies. Longer airplanes are also automatically more aerodynamic than the shorter version of the same airplane. However, they become also heavier (more than proportionally). Composite fuselages allow a higher length/width ratio than aluminum. Hence, up to 190-220 passengers, 5 seats abreast will become the norm. For the same reason, 6 abreast in composite fuselage will allow more passengers in a single aisle than the current record of 290 passengers (Boeing 757). Needles to say that dual aisles waste more space and weight than single aisle (on top of the aerodynamic disadvantage).
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:10 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
TObound wrote:
keesje wrote:

Scott(Leeham news) feels Boeing is no longer in a leadership position.
That could be translated into Airbus taking strategic decisions and Boeing forced into a follower role..

Image
https://leehamnews.com/2020/01/20/ponti ... -strategy/

In that is the case, Airbus launching the A220-500 and a suitable A320 stretch would be market strategy (airline) driven,
not responsing on what Boeing might / might not want to do.


I agree with this. Boeing doesn't look at all to be competitive going forward. Their board is on autopilot because they know they'll get at least 40% of the market by default thanks to the duopoly. This is why they don't want to invest in new types and have decided to max out (pun intended) on derivatives of every type. They can do that while the military sector is booming.

Airbus doesn't have a large defence sector. So it can't do that. They have had to spend more on R&D because of it. The A220 is a massive multi-billion dollar gift from this perspective. Bombardier spent billions developing it. Airbus got half for a dollar. It won't spend more than $2 billion getting the rest. That is a multi-billion dollar and multi-year advantage that Airbus would be foolish not to wield against Boeing.


astuteman wrote:
I don't see an A220-500 launch decision coming until 2022 at the earliest.
That it WILL come is not in doubt in my mind.

A 72t-73t MTOW, 42.9m long, 165-190 seat A220-500, with 3,250Nm range with 165 pax, and 2,750Nm range with 190 pax, eminently capable of full load transcons, is just too good an opportunity to miss. As well as replacing the A320NEO, it could make a right mess of the 737-8MAX and thus Boeing's overall small aircraft strategy.

Rgds


Absolutely agree.

The 225 is inevitable at this point imho. Just because of how little it would cost Airbus and the damage they could do to Boeing's plans. Bracketing the Max 8 with the 225 and 320.5 is going to be devastatingly expensive for Boeing to counter. And will put substantial pressure on their margins for the Max sales they do get.

Timing is everything though. Don't see any point in an EIS for the 225 before 2025. And a date that isn't within 2 years of the 320.5. Airbus has probably mapped out that plan and updates it regularly.


In light of all this, Boeing declining Bombardier's offer to buy into the C-Series program is possibly the most stupid decision I've seen in the aviation industry. Airbus bought 50.01% stake in the program for the symbolic sum of €1.

We know Bombardier approached Boeing first. They declined. Now Airbus has two single aisle aircraft programs perfectly situated above and below each other.

Boeing has none.


Boeing once owned the preseason to BBD in the ‘80s, likely had enough experience then to want to repeat it.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10501
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:15 pm

Umbra55 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Why should an A320 capacity plane be 5 abreast?
A composite fuselage allows longer and thinner airplanes: thinner airplanes are always more aerodynamic than wide bodies. Longer airplanes are also automatically more aerodynamic than the shorter version of the same airplane. However, they become also heavier (more than proportionally). Composite fuselages allow a higher length/width ratio than aluminum. Hence, up to 190-220 passengers, 5 seats abreast will become the norm. For the same reason, 6 abreast in composite fuselage will allow more passengers in a single aisle than the current record of 290 passengers (Boeing 757). Needles to say that dual aisles waste more space and weight than single aisle (on top of the aerodynamic disadvantage).


You realize that the A220 does not have a composite fuselage right?

What you are suggesting is that Airbus replace their relatively new A220, A320neo, and A330neo programs with completely new and expensive planes that will not have commonality with at least one of the old establishedplanes (A220, A320, or A330), and yet Boeing is the only loser in this?
 
Umbra55
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:51 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:29 pm

Polot wrote:
You realize that the A220 does not have a composite fuselage right?
What you are suggesting is that Airbus replace their relatively new A220, A320neo, and A330neo programs with completely new and expensive planes that will not have commonality with at least one of the old established planes (A220, A320, or A330), and yet Boeing is the only loser in this?

Sorry, I should have said “advanced lightweight materials, including composites, titanium, Aluminum-Lithium...)” Nowhere did I suggest to replace the A220. This thread is about stretching the A220! If you read me correctly, you would have understood that by stretching the A220, Airbus could replace both the A320 and the A330 by a SINGLE new airplane, ending up having 3 modern lightweight aircraft covering the whole 100-400 seat spectrum. No need to hurry though! The current lineup is fine, proven by the order book.
Last edited by Umbra55 on Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:04 am

Slightly off-topic question which I deemed unfit of a completely new thread;

Is it possible to put the LEAP-1b(or other variant) under the stretched A220? Due to the grounding of the MAX, GE has massive over capacity in engine production and usually the engine has been the bottleneck for higher output of the A220 FAL's. It would make for an great offer from Airbus to have engine options on a stretched A220.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:36 am

JonesNL wrote:
Slightly off-topic question which I deemed unfit of a completely new thread;

Is it possible to put the LEAP-1b(or other variant) under the stretched A220? Due to the grounding of the MAX, GE has massive over capacity in engine production and usually the engine has been the bottleneck for higher output of the A220 FAL's. It would make for an great offer from Airbus to have engine options on a stretched A220.


Good question. Though I do think if the engine bottleneck would be adressed, you bump into the next bottleneck. So this would probably be more useful as part of a bigger effort to significantly increase the production rate.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:09 pm

JonesNL wrote:
Slightly off-topic question which I deemed unfit of a completely new thread;

Is it possible to put the LEAP-1b(or other variant) under the stretched A220? Due to the grounding of the MAX, GE has massive over capacity in engine production and usually the engine has been the bottleneck for higher output of the A220 FAL's. It would make for an great offer from Airbus to have engine options on a stretched A220.


It is physically possible to fit it there, sure.

But the amount of work needed to integrate and certify means that it would never stand up financially.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:26 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Slightly off-topic question which I deemed unfit of a completely new thread;

Is it possible to put the LEAP-1b(or other variant) under the stretched A220? Due to the grounding of the MAX, GE has massive over capacity in engine production and usually the engine has been the bottleneck for higher output of the A220 FAL's. It would make for an great offer from Airbus to have engine options on a stretched A220.


It is physically possible to fit it there, sure.

But the amount of work needed to integrate and certify means that it would never stand up financially.


So, the extra sales it would create are not worth the effort. Shame, the LEAP is one of the best engines out there in big numbers (100+/month).
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:45 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Slightly off-topic question which I deemed unfit of a completely new thread;

Is it possible to put the LEAP-1b(or other variant) under the stretched A220? Due to the grounding of the MAX, GE has massive over capacity in engine production and usually the engine has been the bottleneck for higher output of the A220 FAL's. It would make for an great offer from Airbus to have engine options on a stretched A220.


It is physically possible to fit it there, sure.

But the amount of work needed to integrate and certify means that it would never stand up financially.


Agree. PW has all the cards. They can scale up. The PW1000G has a respecticle diversity already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26 ... ifications

They would build on lessons learned over the last decade, new hot section materials being matured over te years.
Hard to get in there / best that by a third party. https://youtu.be/BTCoua5pGuI?t=63
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: What could a Potential A220-500/700/900 look like?

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:30 pm

JonesNL wrote:
So, the extra sales it would create are not worth the effort. Shame, the LEAP is one of the best engines out there in big numbers (100+/month).


The LEAP is an excellent engine, with what looks on the face of it better reliability than the Pratt.

I don't know if it would sell (m)any more aircraft though - and I have the feeling that over the next 10 years, as Pratt get their reliability in order the GTF has more potential to unlock, so there could be a bit of a divergence in TSFC.

[i.e. there is less to stop P&W integrating more advanced metallurgy onto the GTF and improving the hot section whereas its pretty hard for CFM to put a gearbox on the Leap]

Who is online

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