Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PHXWRLD
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:49 pm

A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:03 pm

I was wonder what the real world range of the A220-100 and A220-300 are. Can the A221 do transcons? Also, I heard Moxy was getting their A223s with extra fuel tanks. How far does that push the range?
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:19 pm

AirBaltic operates the A220-300 from Riga to Abu Dhabi (I think as a Winter seasonal route).

Thats 2.359nm or 4.369km -- 6:35hr westbound. Thats even further than JFK-SFO for example, and operated by the -300, which has a little bit less range than the -100.
So if Moxy gets the -300 with Aux Tank even a good portion more than these 2.359nm should be possible in real world.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
PHXWRLD
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:49 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:28 pm

Does the A221 actually have more range than the A223? If so, how? In general, larger variants have more range (788 vs 789, 762 vs 763, A320 vs A321).
 
beechnut
Posts: 927
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:45 pm

PHXWRLD wrote:
Does the A221 actually have more range than the A223? If so, how? In general, larger variants have more range (788 vs 789, 762 vs 763, A320 vs A321).


Not necessarily. Early version of the 727-200 come to mind and early generation A320/321 as well. The A220-100 and -300 have almost exactly the same standard fuel capacity. Given that the 100 is lighter, and carries fewer passengers, it means it will fly farther and the max payload range will be farther as well.

Beech
 
PHXWRLD
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:49 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:49 pm

beechnut wrote:
PHXWRLD wrote:
Does the A221 actually have more range than the A223? If so, how? In general, larger variants have more range (788 vs 789, 762 vs 763, A320 vs A321).


Not necessarily. Early version of the 727-200 come to mind and early generation A320/321 as well. The A220-100 and -300 have almost exactly the same standard fuel capacity. Given that the 100 is lighter, and carries fewer passengers, it means it will fly farther and the max payload range will be farther as well.

Beech


What about the 787? Why does the -9 have more range than the -8 but the -10 has less range then both?
 
TouchdownTom9
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:55 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:34 pm

I'm new to the site but have been an aviation fan for a while, but the A223LR is a really interesting question.

Perhaps the Moxy A220s having extra range might be in reference to the MTOW increase that Airbus announced a few months back. But the A220 is a remarkable aircraft and I think that it could be wildly successful in running long and thin routes across the US. One thing to note is that with the increased MTOW announced by Airbus, the amount in increased range of the -300 implies that fuel tanks are at full capacity, so an ER or LR would require adding more tanks or other modifications to get it to handle the increased range.

One thing worth noting is that Airbus is currently looking to cut manufacturing cost on the A220 while also developing some performance improvements as well. Regarding future variants, the -500 stretch seems inevitable and first on the docket.

My question is, would it make sense to consider having a new wing for the long range models? While it might not make sense ($-wise) for just the -300, a -500 stretch would likely benefit considerably from a long range wing in order to negate some of the reduced range that would come along with the stretch. Would the A223/5 really benefit from it? Curious to know about what the better informed aviation experts here think.

You could offer the regular wing for those planning to use the aircraft on shorter routes and the larger wing for those planning to make full use of the additional range. This would also come in handy when Airbus plans to replace the A320neo family with a clean sheet in 10 or so years, as the a320 replacement will likely utilize a very similar wing given its size. While Airbus likely wants to avoid serious overlap, I think with the right tweaks and improvements the A220-500 can replace the a320neo if you arent counting cost savings due to fleet commonality with the A321 etc.
 
beechnut
Posts: 927
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:57 pm

PHXWRLD wrote:

What about the 787? Why does the -9 have more range than the -8 but the -10 has less range then both?


From what I can gather on Wikipedia, all three variants have almost exactly the same fuel capacity. However the -9 features active boundary-layer control on the tail to reduce drag. The -10 of course is bigger and heavier so for the same fuel capacity it can't fly as far (by about 1000 n.m.)

Beech
 
argentinevol98
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:40 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:35 pm

beechnut wrote:

From what I can gather on Wikipedia, all three variants have almost exactly the same fuel capacity. However the -9 features active boundary-layer control on the tail to reduce drag. The -10 of course is bigger and heavier so for the same fuel capacity it can't fly as far (by about 1000 n.m.)

Beech



I understand the 789s greater range over the 788 more as a result of a higher MTOW. Higher relative to OEW as well. The 78J has the same MTOW as the 789 but with a higher OEW, hence less range.
"He sospechado alguna vez que la única cosa sin misterio es la felicidad, porque se justifica por sí sola"-Jorge Luis Borges
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:39 pm

PHXWRLD wrote:
I was wonder what the real world range of the A220-100 and A220-300 are. Can the A221 do transcons? Also, I heard Moxy was getting their A223s with extra fuel tanks. How far does that push the range?

Neeleman has said 4,000 nm with the aux tank.

https://aeronewsglobal.com/airbus-a220- ... -pipeline/
 
Jomar777
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:43 pm

An A223 doing transcon? What use? Extremely thin routes? or Business Class only (like BA's LCY-JFK...)? Would it turn out profitable?
I personally see no point unless if we would have a A220ACJ... or maybe a competitor to the Embraer Lineage 1000e...
 
beechnut
Posts: 927
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:51 pm

I think a lot of routes will be "extremely thin" for a while. In any case one of the planned routes for the Air Canada A220-300 is (was?) Montreal-Seattle, definitely a transcontinental route at 2284 s.m. (almost the same as YUL-YVR)! Air Canada has also done some fairly lengthy stages with the E190. When you think "long and thin", think Canada with its low population density.

Beech
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8068
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:04 pm

beechnut wrote:
I think a lot of routes will be "extremely thin" for a while. In any case one of the planned routes for the Air Canada A220-300 is (was?) Montreal-Seattle, definitely a transcontinental route at 2284 s.m. (almost the same as YUL-YVR)! Air Canada has also done some fairly lengthy stages with the E190. When you think "long and thin", think Canada with its low population density.

Beech


It's not like Canada's population is evenly distributed across the territory. Population density doesn't matter - traffic on airport pairs does (and the ability to aggregate traffic on either end, which for AC is zero in SEA and moderate in YUL).
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5679
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:32 pm

Jomar777 wrote:

An A223 doing transcon? What use? Extremely thin routes? or Business Class only (like BA's LCY-JFK...)? Would it turn out profitable?
I personally see no point unless if we would have a A220ACJ... or maybe a competitor to the Embraer Lineage 1000e...


Well, Breeze's (Moxy's) stated purpose was to serve airports/markets with NO competition, at least originally. Much speculation on here such as PVD/ISP/BDL-BUR/ONT and things like that. So Breeze would need transcon range for some of the suggested routes. Their whole game plan may have changed since then, we'll find out in 2021. :scratchchin:
"True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain." -Mercutio
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1469
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:34 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
beechnut wrote:
I think a lot of routes will be "extremely thin" for a while. In any case one of the planned routes for the Air Canada A220-300 is (was?) Montreal-Seattle, definitely a transcontinental route at 2284 s.m. (almost the same as YUL-YVR)! Air Canada has also done some fairly lengthy stages with the E190. When you think "long and thin", think Canada with its low population density.

Beech


It's not like Canada's population is evenly distributed across the territory. Population density doesn't matter - traffic on airport pairs does (and the ability to aggregate traffic on either end, which for AC is zero in SEA and moderate in YUL).

I am supposed to fly YYT-LHR this summer, and it is scheduled for a Max8, but as other airlines had those removed from the schedules beyond then, I am hoping that they change it to an A220. I think that would be the perfect route for it, just about the seating capacity of the A319 that used to fly the route.

(Now, I'm just hoping the flight doesn't get canceled all together.)
 
PHXWRLD
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:49 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:35 pm

So, how far can the current A221 go? JFK-SFO? JFK-DUB? JFK-LHR? What about the A223 (non LR)? Can it do the same as the A221?
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:35 pm

A220-100 can do transcons. Range is nominally 3400nmi while JFK-LAX is <2200nmi so loads of margin even with winds. Currently, A220-300 is advertised with a nominal (50nmi) range reduction over the -100 at 3350nm, but this is fuel volume limited in a typical dual-class config. There is an aux tank mod (Airbus might call it an ACT as they do on the A321, who knows) that is being discussed for availability in 2021 that should add a few miles though - perhaps 300-500nmi or so.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:06 pm

PHXWRLD wrote:
So, how far can the current A221 go? JFK-SFO? JFK-DUB? JFK-LHR? What about the A223 (non LR)? Can it do the same as the A221?

An A221 (demonstrator I think?) flew LCY-JFK nonstop with a load representative of 42 business class seats.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20029
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:53 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
PHXWRLD wrote:
I was wonder what the real world range of the A220-100 and A220-300 are. Can the A221 do transcons? Also, I heard Moxy was getting their A223s with extra fuel tanks. How far does that push the range?

Neeleman has said 4,000 nm with the aux tank.

https://aeronewsglobal.com/airbus-a220- ... -pipeline/


This A223LR is a fascinating. Depending on short field performance, I think it could do very well.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
argentinevol98
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:40 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:17 am

Is there any chance we could see very thin TATL routes on the A223? Not necessarily from Breeze/Moxy but anyone? The 73GER and the A319LR never really sold. (I think between the two it may be less than ten units) and to my knowledge there was only one brief TATL route on either of them (I think it may have been a BBJ technically) serving CPH-BOS in all J. This said, the A223 certainly appears to have superior operating economics than than either of those two so it might be more possible than before.

I should be clear that I see it as relatively unlikely other than some route like YYT-LHR (which may not need the aux tank anyway) but could it make some very secondary routes possible? or perhaps augment frequency on some existing 752 or future A321LR/XLR routes?
"He sospechado alguna vez que la única cosa sin misterio es la felicidad, porque se justifica por sí sola"-Jorge Luis Borges
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:27 am

PHXWRLD wrote:
beechnut wrote:
PHXWRLD wrote:
Does the A221 actually have more range than the A223? If so, how? In general, larger variants have more range (788 vs 789, 762 vs 763, A320 vs A321).


Not necessarily. Early version of the 727-200 come to mind and early generation A320/321 as well. The A220-100 and -300 have almost exactly the same standard fuel capacity. Given that the 100 is lighter, and carries fewer passengers, it means it will fly farther and the max payload range will be farther as well.

Beech


What about the 787? Why does the -9 have more range than the -8 but the -10 has less range then both?


The 787-8 is pretty different from the 787-9 and 787-10. The 787-9 has a much higher MTOW than the 787-8 with around the same fuel capacity but its a bit lighter per feet as well.
The 787-9 is 19.500Ib heavier than the -8 (OEW), but MTOW is 57.500Ib higher, that leaves 38.000Ib for more payload or fuel (but not more fuel than 787-8 due to fuel capacity) or both. The 787-8 can fly almost as far as the 787-8, but due to the lower MTOW it can take not nearly as much payload with it on such a long route -- so no Airline would fly the plane that far because it would hardly be economical.
The 787-9 on the other hand can fly even a bit further with more payload.

The 787-10 on the other hand (unlike 787-8 -> 787-9) is "just" a simple stretch of the -9 but without a MTOW bump. This means it has less range because of it being heavier due to the stretch and same fuel capacity. You could maybe fly the -10 almost as far as the -9 but with much less payload, theres no point in doing that. The strenght of the -10 is that it can fly a good portion of more payload on shorter longhaul routes (like up to 10-11 hours, which is enough for the majority of the longhaul routes). I am pretty sure the -10 has most of its sucess still ahead, so many 777-200s still need to be replaced, and a lot of Airlines do not need the range of the A350-900.

PHXWRLD wrote:
Does the A221 actually have more range than the A223? If so, how? In general, larger variants have more range (788 vs 789, 762 vs 763, A320 vs A321).


Not really. The 767-200ER has a lot more range than the 767-300ER. Also the Standard A320ceo has more range than the A321ceo.
Its the A321neo that has more range, but this is due to Aux Tanks and much bigger MTOW bumps.

TouchdownTom9 wrote:
You could offer the regular wing for those planning to use the aircraft on shorter routes and the larger wing for those planning to make full use of the additional range. This would also come in handy when Airbus plans to replace the A320neo family with a clean sheet in 10 or so years, as the a320 replacement will likely utilize a very similar wing given its size. While Airbus likely wants to avoid serious overlap, I think with the right tweaks and improvements the A220-500 can replace the a320neo if you arent counting cost savings due to fleet commonality with the A321 etc.


The A220-300 is the base model and the -100 is a shrink. AFAIK due to this fact the Wing is more than capable for a -500 or longer range versions.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:15 am

argentinevol98 wrote:
Is there any chance we could see very thin TATL routes on the A223?

If an A220-300 with auxiliary fuel tanks exceeds the range of an A321XLR, why not?
range A220-300: 3350 nm
range A321XLR: 4700 nm

Maybe A220-100 with auxiliary fuel tanks is more realistic. Business and premium economy only.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20029
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:59 pm

Sokes wrote:
argentinevol98 wrote:
Is there any chance we could see very thin TATL routes on the A223?

If an A220-300 with auxiliary fuel tanks exceeds the range of an A321XLR, why not?
range A220-300: 3350 nm
range A321XLR: 4700 nm

Maybe A220-100 with auxiliary fuel tanks is more realistic. Business and premium economy only.

2nd half of 2020 is expected to see delivery of early MTOW increase:

https://onemileatatime.com/airbus-a220- ... provement/

Moxie/Breeze asked for, and Airbus promised 4000nm A223. For say JetBlue, that is enough for near TATL. Boston to Spain, France, UK, and a few more destinations.

https://aeronews.ro/airbus-a220-300lr-x ... -pipeline/

I would expect AirBaltic to look into the LR version of the A223.

There is no plausible way for the A223LR to exceed A321xLR range, nor any need.

This creates a near TATL plane that is excellent for BOS or JFK to EU or DUB, LHR/LGW, or Scandinavian to US. Or for AirBaltic, RIX-DEL.

For the ME3, the A223LR has tremendous potential. All of EU, most of China, additional Africa.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13960
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:31 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Sokes wrote:
argentinevol98 wrote:
Is there any chance we could see very thin TATL routes on the A223?

If an A220-300 with auxiliary fuel tanks exceeds the range of an A321XLR, why not?
range A220-300: 3350 nm
range A321XLR: 4700 nm

Maybe A220-100 with auxiliary fuel tanks is more realistic. Business and premium economy only.

2nd half of 2020 is expected to see delivery of early MTOW increase:

https://onemileatatime.com/airbus-a220- ... provement/

Moxie/Breeze asked for, and Airbus promised 4000nm A223. For say JetBlue, that is enough for near TATL. Boston to Spain, France, UK, and a few more destinations.

https://aeronews.ro/airbus-a220-300lr-x ... -pipeline/

I would expect AirBaltic to look into the LR version of the A223.

There is no plausible way for the A223LR to exceed A321xLR range, nor any need.

This creates a near TATL plane that is excellent for BOS or JFK to EU or DUB, LHR/LGW, or Scandinavian to US. Or for AirBaltic, RIX-DEL.

For the ME3, the A223LR has tremendous potential. All of EU, most of China, additional Africa.

Lightsaber



No doubt Breeze would probably stuff their A220-300 with up to ~160-165 seats.

Doing transcon with such a payload & headwind, plus southern Leisure destinations were probably more a consideration than crossing the Atlantic.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zululima
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:21 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:38 pm

keesje wrote:
No doubt Breeze would probably stuff their A220-300 with up to ~160-165 seats.


Well is is "no doubt" or "probably"? Can't be both. Here's a hint: it will be neither. The A223 has max seating of 160 and Neelman has stated they won't be configured for max density.
I didn't get a 'Harumph' outta that guy!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13960
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:45 pm

zululima wrote:
keesje wrote:
No doubt Breeze would probably stuff their A220-300 with up to ~160-165 seats.


Well is is "no doubt" or "probably"? Can't be both. Here's a hint: it will be neither. The A223 has max seating of 160 and Neelman has stated they won't be configured for max density.


Add 3 rows to this & it''s stuffed. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Swiss ... -300_A.php
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:35 pm

keesje wrote:
zululima wrote:
keesje wrote:
No doubt Breeze would probably stuff their A220-300 with up to ~160-165 seats.


Well is is "no doubt" or "probably"? Can't be both. Here's a hint: it will be neither. The A223 has max seating of 160 and Neelman has stated they won't be configured for max density.


Add 3 rows to this & it''s stuffed. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Swiss ... -300_A.php

As per the TCDS, the maximum occupancy of the BD-500-1A11 (a.k.a. A220-300) is 153:
- 1 Pilot;
- 1 Co-pilot;
- 1 Observer;
- 3 Cabin Crew minimum;
- 145 passengers.
It's interesting that Airbus states the maximum seating is 160; why the difference?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13960
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:55 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
keesje wrote:
zululima wrote:

Well is is "no doubt" or "probably"? Can't be both. Here's a hint: it will be neither. The A223 has max seating of 160 and Neelman has stated they won't be configured for max density.


Add 3 rows to this & it''s stuffed. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Swiss ... -300_A.php

As per the TCDS, the maximum occupancy of the BD-500-1A11 (a.k.a. A220-300) is 153:
- 1 Pilot;
- 1 Co-pilot;
- 1 Observer;
- 3 Cabin Crew minimum;
- 145 passengers.
It's interesting that Airbus states the maximum seating is 160; why the difference?


Amazing, even Bombardier always said 160. Also 28 inch. Stuffed in my opinion. 2-3 rows less and a crew members less is probably how most airlines would use it. https://image.slidesharecdn.com/bombard ... 1431963867
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
FWAERJ
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:23 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:35 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
keesje wrote:
zululima wrote:

Well is is "no doubt" or "probably"? Can't be both. Here's a hint: it will be neither. The A223 has max seating of 160 and Neelman has stated they won't be configured for max density.


Add 3 rows to this & it''s stuffed. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Swiss ... -300_A.php

As per the TCDS, the maximum occupancy of the BD-500-1A11 (a.k.a. A220-300) is 153:
- 1 Pilot;
- 1 Co-pilot;
- 1 Observer;
- 3 Cabin Crew minimum;
- 145 passengers.
It's interesting that Airbus states the maximum seating is 160; why the difference?


145 passengers is the FAA maximum with 1 set of overwing exits on the A223.

Airbus offers a dual-set overwing exit option for the A223, much like the A319, to make the A220 family more appealing to ULCC customers (where Airbus is the market leader, though the option was originally offered in the CSeries days). The 160 figure is with dual-set overwing exits, and the second set can be retrofitted.

However, no A220 operator has ordered new A223s with the second set factory-fresh from Airbus, nor have any been retrofitted.
B721/722/731/732/733/735/73G/738/739/742/752/753/762/763, A300/319/320, DC-9/10, MD-82/83/88/90, ERJ-140/145, CRJ-200/700, Q200, SF340, AS350
 
marcogr12
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:53 pm

It would have been a nice replacement for Easyjet's A319s which are config for 156 pax...They could choose a 150 pax config. with 30'' and no need for more than 3 FAs or 155pax with 29'', almost the same as the current A319s..Sadly, Easyjet has set a goal to standardize its fleet around the A320s n A321s..Post-COVID19 though a lot of routes that already couldn't handle sth larger than a 319, esp. during winter, how are they gonna cope with a bigger A320? The A223 is lighter and more economical to operate than the A319 on short/medium-haul thin routes..I dont think though they have any intention of even considering a possible lease of the type
Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:35 pm

FWAERJ wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
keesje wrote:

Add 3 rows to this & it''s stuffed. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Swiss ... -300_A.php

As per the TCDS, the maximum occupancy of the BD-500-1A11 (a.k.a. A220-300) is 153:
- 1 Pilot;
- 1 Co-pilot;
- 1 Observer;
- 3 Cabin Crew minimum;
- 145 passengers.
It's interesting that Airbus states the maximum seating is 160; why the difference?


145 passengers is the FAA maximum with 1 set of overwing exits on the A223.

Airbus offers a dual-set overwing exit option for the A223, much like the A319, to make the A220 family more appealing to ULCC customers (where Airbus is the market leader, though the option was originally offered in the CSeries days). The 160 figure is with dual-set overwing exits, and the second set can be retrofitted.

However, no A220 operator has ordered new A223s with the second set factory-fresh from Airbus, nor have any been retrofitted.


AirBaltic's order originally included the second set of exits despite them not having taken any, and renderings of Macquarie's house livery on the CS300 had the second set included as well. But I think you're right, no one is pushing Airbus to certify it.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:50 pm

DLHAM wrote:
AirBaltic operates the A220-300 from Riga to Abu Dhabi (I think as a Winter seasonal route).

Thats 2.359nm or 4.369km -- 6:35hr westbound. Thats even further than JFK-SFO for example, and operated by the -300, which has a little bit less range than the -100.
So if Moxy gets the -300 with Aux Tank even a good portion more than these 2.359nm should be possible in real world.


Thats also more north/south route where they are not fighting east/west headwinds. So the figure is not really matched to the route type.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:58 pm

PHXWRLD wrote:
Does the A221 actually have more range than the A223? If so, how? In general, larger variants have more range (788 vs 789, 762 vs 763, A320 vs A321).


ATR-43 to ATR-72
146/RJ series each larger version shorter range.
737Max-7 3800nm, 737Max-8 & 9 3550nm & 737Max-10 3300nm
787-10

So must disagree. Many stretches over the years had shorter ranges.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3584
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:38 am

What routes are there that would require more than 3300 nmi on the BCS3, but could not be profitably be flown with another aircraft type, such as the A321neo? Even at an airline like easyJet, I couldn't see them flying this model as they have up-gauged to the A320/A20N and A21N. (The idea is that I can't see anyone going above 150 seats...I'm surprised that easyJet went for 156 seats on the A319, meaning a fourth FA was needed.

There is a heavier version coming out, but likely with more fuel capacity and one that is limited in range by fuel tanks. With airport constraints at major airfields, there aren't many routes where a plane of a BCS3 route would work for routes longer than 5-6 hours.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:10 am

I would think that airlines would want Airbus focusing on reliability improvements instead of range increases

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1441801

Image

Source https://airinsight.com/deltas-a220s-schedule-struggle/

The reliability of the A220 is dreadful for Delta. Flights at all times of the day were averaging 15+ minute delays in 2019. It was the worst performing airplane in the Delta fleet despite being used across the whole network. I would think airlines will demand reliability fixes before they order more.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20029
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:57 am

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I would think that airlines would want Airbus focusing on reliability improvements instead of range increases

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1441801

Image

Source https://airinsight.com/deltas-a220s-schedule-struggle/

The reliability of the A220 is dreadful for Delta. Flights at all times of the day were averaging 15+ minute delays in 2019. It was the worst performing airplane in the Delta fleet despite being used across the whole network. I would think airlines will demand reliability fixes before they order more.

Other threads are discussing. Quick answer is Airbus is doing both.

The engines had several known issues that are being fixed. The big issue was a resonance in the engine control software (unstable). Bad, but fixed, blamed for 4 in flight shut downs:

http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main. ... 2fc5862599

There has also been issues with the compressors that limits high altitude thrust and combustor durability. The new combustor isn't available until late this year.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... iddle-east

We had a thread on the compressors, I speculated a coating or other material issue. However, as I noted then, I need more information to discuss further:

Pratt & Whitney reduces life limits for A220, E190/E195-E2 ...
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1423813


I am a huge fan of the A220. However, to sell more requires this to be a top notch program.

For Pratt, fix the issues consuming spares.
For Airbus, spend to have enough spares and fix the issues consuming spares on the aircraft.

The engine issues require full up flight testing, hence why a fix later this year for the combustor. I speculate the compressor problem will not be fixed in 2020.

But by 3Q 2020 I expect dramatic improvements in reliability.

Delta ordered more A220, so they have gone into this eyes wide open. I fully expect them to not only excercise all options, but to order more. When is a cash flow analysis that is off topic.

I expect AirBaltic to also order more.

Eventually LH group too.

And new customers. But little action in 2020.

Maybe I'm biased. I lead teams to fix these sort of issues. If I were Airbus or Pratt, I would be fixing issues.

But as I noted in a prior thread, this will take 24 months to get to A320/737 levels of maturity.

Once there, I expect the focus to switch to more performance enhancing PiPs. We already know about the later this year increase in MTOW. The planned MLW increase (for ULCC airlines), the LR PiP (more MTOW, I think more of interest to ULCCs).

The A220, in particular A223, will be in a great position once airlines are ready to order again.

But on thread, first promises to fix issues. I believe the PiP timeline was disclosed to JetBlue and Moxie/Breeze and influenced when.

JetBlue later this year:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/07/ ... s-emb.aspx

Moxie/Breeze April 2021:
https://simpleflying.com/moxy-airbus-a220-delivery/

Recall Airbus is investigating over $500 million USD into the A220 (could be more). https://lfpress.com/transportation/airl ... b9f896c888

So I see the real issues being addressed.

I believe the MLW and MTOW increases are the minimum for high density configurations.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:20 am

FWAERJ wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
keesje wrote:

Add 3 rows to this & it''s stuffed. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Swiss ... -300_A.php

As per the TCDS, the maximum occupancy of the BD-500-1A11 (a.k.a. A220-300) is 153:
- 1 Pilot;
- 1 Co-pilot;
- 1 Observer;
- 3 Cabin Crew minimum;
- 145 passengers.
It's interesting that Airbus states the maximum seating is 160; why the difference?


145 passengers is the FAA maximum with 1 set of overwing exits on the A223.

Airbus offers a dual-set overwing exit option for the A223, much like the A319, to make the A220 family more appealing to ULCC customers (where Airbus is the market leader, though the option was originally offered in the CSeries days). The 160 figure is with dual-set overwing exits, and the second set can be retrofitted.

However, no A220 operator has ordered new A223s with the second set factory-fresh from Airbus, nor have any been retrofitted.

Thanks, makes sense.
So, basically, current A220-300 is 145 pax max; if you want 160 pax, you need to wait for Airbus to certify it.
 
argentinevol98
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:40 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:17 pm

With my previous question fairly well answered I started wondering whether there was a chance that an A223LR could open up some TATL routes out of runway-length limited airports. I am aware that the A223s take-off run is relatively short. I am not sure how much runway it would take up with a full pax/bag load with full tanks (including aux tank) but it could be interesting. Would some TATL routes out of LTN (for example) be made possible? I know there were a few briefly operated routes on 752s which had the take-off performance to pull them off (I'd imagine the A321LR and XLR couldn't do it and it could most certainly not be done on a possible 737-9/-10ER). Maybe even flights out of TTN or ISP? DCA and LGA would be natural choices but are of course out of question for other reasons.

I have no idea who would want to operate these flights that is buying the right equipment but it is interesting to imagine. Any thoughts?
"He sospechado alguna vez que la única cosa sin misterio es la felicidad, porque se justifica por sí sola"-Jorge Luis Borges
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13960
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Thu Apr 09, 2020 8:30 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
FWAERJ wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
As per the TCDS, the maximum occupancy of the BD-500-1A11 (a.k.a. A220-300) is 153:
- 1 Pilot;
- 1 Co-pilot;
- 1 Observer;
- 3 Cabin Crew minimum;
- 145 passengers.
It's interesting that Airbus states the maximum seating is 160; why the difference?


145 passengers is the FAA maximum with 1 set of overwing exits on the A223.

Airbus offers a dual-set overwing exit option for the A223, much like the A319, to make the A220 family more appealing to ULCC customers (where Airbus is the market leader, though the option was originally offered in the CSeries days). The 160 figure is with dual-set overwing exits, and the second set can be retrofitted.

However, no A220 operator has ordered new A223s with the second set factory-fresh from Airbus, nor have any been retrofitted.

Thanks, makes sense.
So, basically, current A220-300 is 145 pax max; if you want 160 pax, you need to wait for Airbus to certify it.


Hard to justify an A220-300LR when A320/A321LR/XLRs are mass produced.

Interestingly 160 seats doesn't look like a good idea on the A220-300. You have to pay for structure and weight of the addition exits (that takes 10 inch pitch from a row too) and for flight safety reasons you have to have an extra crew member on every flight The 10 extra passengers margin has to pay for him/her, that is if you a 100% load factor.. Not suprisingly nobody opts for the extra exit/ seat rows.

You would need to have 4-5 addition rows to make it worth, an A220-500. IMO large A220 wing, the second exit option and MTOW bump are waiting to be used on a A220-500. Such a type would finally make possible a potent A320/737-less fleet; A220-100, -300, -500s + A321XLR's, covering 100-230 seats, 500NM-4700NM.

Image
source keesje / airbus video
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
marcogr12
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Thu Apr 09, 2020 9:37 pm

keesje wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
FWAERJ wrote:

145 passengers is the FAA maximum with 1 set of overwing exits on the A223.

Airbus offers a dual-set overwing exit option for the A223, much like the A319, to make the A220 family more appealing to ULCC customers (where Airbus is the market leader, though the option was originally offered in the CSeries days). The 160 figure is with dual-set overwing exits, and the second set can be retrofitted.

However, no A220 operator has ordered new A223s with the second set factory-fresh from Airbus, nor have any been retrofitted.

Thanks, makes sense.
So, basically, current A220-300 is 145 pax max; if you want 160 pax, you need to wait for Airbus to certify it.


Hard to justify an A220-300LR when A320/A321LR/XLRs are mass produced.

Interestingly 160 seats doesn't look like a good idea on the A220-300. You have to pay for structure and weight of the addition exits (that takes 10 inch pitch from a row too) and for flight safety reasons you have to have an extra crew member on every flight The 10 extra passengers margin has to pay for him/her, that is if you a 100% load factor.. Not suprisingly nobody opts for the extra exit/ seat rows.

You would need to have 4-5 addition rows to make it worth, an A220-500. IMO large A220 wing, the second exit option and MTOW bump are waiting to be used on a A220-500. Such a type would finally make possible a potent A320/737-less fleet; A220-100, -300, -500s + A321XLR's, covering 100-230 seats, 500NM-4700NM.

Image
source keesje / airbus video


And yet Easyjet did the same thing with the A319s for just one row...
Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
 
TObound
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:07 pm

marcogr12 wrote:
keesje wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Thanks, makes sense.
So, basically, current A220-300 is 145 pax max; if you want 160 pax, you need to wait for Airbus to certify it.


Hard to justify an A220-300LR when A320/A321LR/XLRs are mass produced.

Interestingly 160 seats doesn't look like a good idea on the A220-300. You have to pay for structure and weight of the addition exits (that takes 10 inch pitch from a row too) and for flight safety reasons you have to have an extra crew member on every flight The 10 extra passengers margin has to pay for him/her, that is if you a 100% load factor.. Not suprisingly nobody opts for the extra exit/ seat rows.

You would need to have 4-5 addition rows to make it worth, an A220-500. IMO large A220 wing, the second exit option and MTOW bump are waiting to be used on a A220-500. Such a type would finally make possible a potent A320/737-less fleet; A220-100, -300, -500s + A321XLR's, covering 100-230 seats, 500NM-4700NM.

Image
source keesje / airbus video


And yet Easyjet did the same thing with the A319s for just one row...


LCCs operate on ridiculously thin margins and rely on rather high load factors. That is going to bite a lot of them in the rear post Covid. Air Baltic is going to do well coming out of this because the have the perfect aircraft for this era.
 
f4f3a
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

Re: A220 range and A223LR

Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:12 pm

Worth noting easyJet were hoping for alleviation by caa of the fourth crew member . They actually found extra six paid way over the costs over the year .
I really think the a220 could be the plane to have right now if reliability can be improved.
With the reduced demand and operating economics of 220 it seems it could do well at Delta .
Depending on how this epedemic effects demand we might see more airlines converting to this smaller jet

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