If this has been discussed, please delete the thread.

According to the Airport Planning document (click here), the MTOW of the A220-300 can go up to 156,300 lb.

Airbus' web page for A220-300 still mentions an MTOW of 154,000 lb (click here).

Does anyone know which information is the right one.

If an MTOW of 156,3000 lb is the right one then can anyone please tell us when it changed and why it changed?

Thank you very much for your help.

Sorry, but your first link is corrupt. And is it perhaps behind a Log In, so with limited access?

We are sorry, we cannot find the content you were looking for! (BA404)
If the problem persists, please contact the Support team and mention the error code above.

Please note, your first link is from Bombardier, so now outdated.

T4thH wrote:

Sorry, but your first link is corrupt. And is it perhaps behind a Log In?

We are sorry, we cannot find the content you were looking for! (BA404)
If the problem persists, please contact the Support team and mention the error code above.

Please note, your first link is from Bombardier, so now outdated.

It still work for me.

Yes, that the other question I wanted to ask. Why are Airbus Canada's documents are still hosted by Bombardier?

Does it show anything?

I see a pdf file. It says it has been updated a few days ago, about that MTOW increase.

I would guess Airbus has increased the MTOW to help payload/range, it's very common, the A330 has been getting MTOW increase after MTOW increase for example.

Aesma wrote:

I see a pdf file. It says it has been updated a few days ago, about that MTOW increase.

I would guess Airbus has increased the MTOW to help payload/range, it's very common, the A330 has been getting MTOW increase after MTOW increase for example.

It is very intriguing considering the fact the range stated in Airbus' web page is 3,350 nm with an MTOW of 154,000 lb.

Who would need more than 3,350 nm for such a small aircraft?
Is there any A220-300 VIP aircraft?

Something is fishy there.

Aesma wrote:

I see a pdf file. It says it has been updated a few days ago, about that MTOW increase.

I would guess Airbus has increased the MTOW to help payload/range, it's very common, the A330 has been getting MTOW increase after MTOW increase for example.

The LCCs (Air Baltic) and KE were keen on more MTOW. KE wanted for low cost long haul. AirBaltic for their 145 cabin for longer routes.

As these MTOW increases are sold as an extra cost option, this allows more revenue to be generated from existing customers who find a need for more range.

The 3,350nm range is for a 2-class with light fittings.

There is always some customer who is not hauling all the desired payload who wants more MTOW.

Eventually I expect an ACT, but more likely on the A220-100. Then again, there are proposals for a business jet:

https://www.businessjetinteriorsinterna ... ncept.html

Lightsaber

So, someone now has seen the document with the increased MTOW.

Now, my question is why the hell the airport planning documents of the A220 are still hosted by bombardier.com whereas the other Airbus aircraft's ACAP are hosted by airbus.com.
https://eservices.aero.bombardier.com/w ... BIS9nQSEh/

Does it mean Airbus does not want to fully take care of the A220?

Is the A220 part of the Airbus family or is it just an orphan?

This detail about how the airport planning (ACAP) document is dealt with shows something incoherent is happening.

The discourse about the A220 being part of the Airbus family does not stand the straight face test.

What is going on?

VV wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Who would need more than 3,350 nm for such a small aircraft?

To illustrate how things have developed since the start of the "Jet Age", the pax capacity and range of the A220-300 is not that much different than Air Canada's original DC8-43s. Those were used on YUL-Western Europe non-stop flights for years. And had much worse fuel consumption from the narrow bypass RR Conways.

I'm sure that in a meagre post-COVID world, the additional flexibility will be welcomed.

Beech

This increase us a bit early the promise was 2H2020:

https://onemileatatime.com/airbus-a220- ... provement/
The A220-100 will have a maximum range of 3,400nm
The A220-300 will have a maximum range of 3,350nm

So this MTOW increase was required for the 3,350nm range.
I noted:
and increasing existing fuel volume capacity.

Obviously Airbus hopes that this increased range will result in more orders for the plane. Airbus points out that this increased range will allow airlines to operate new routes from Western Europe to the Middle East, or from Southeast Asia to Australia.

I wonder if this is part of the QF sales campaign.

Lightsaber

beechnut wrote:

VV wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Who would need more than 3,350 nm for such a small aircraft?

To illustrate how things have developed since the start of the "Jet Age", the pax capacity and range of the A220-300 is not that much different than Air Canada's original DC8-43s. Those were used on YUL-Western Europe non-stop flights for years. And had much worse fuel consumption from the narrow bypass RR Conways.

I'm sure that in a meagre post-COVID world, the additional flexibility will be welcomed.

Beech

I am very skeptical about it.
I am afraid the A220-300 with such payload-range capability means it is targeted for something that is not very well defined.

I know, people will say that the aircraft has already hundreds of orders, but I still have some doubts about its prospect. The aircraft seems to be over-designed now.

VV wrote:

So, someone now has seen the document with the increased MTOW.

Now, my question is why the hell the airport planning documents of the A220 are still hosted by bombardier.com whereas the other Airbus aircraft's ACAP are hosted by airbus.com.
https://eservices.aero.bombardier.com/w ... BIS9nQSEh/

Does it mean Airbus does not want to fully take care of the A220?

Is the A220 part of the Airbus family or is it just an orphan?

This detail about how the airport planning (ACAP) document is dealt with shows something incoherent is happening.

The discourse about the A220 being part of the Airbus family does not stand the straight face test.

What is going on?

Absolute hooey! Until just a few months ago, it’s was a Airbus/BBD partnership, changing over the servers and the IP doesn’t happen overnight. There’s still a lot of interaction between the two companies.

Wow VV calm down!!! It’s take months and regulatory approval to change things from one manufacturer to another. This New MTOW has just appeared more information regarding payload and range will become available soon.

VV wrote:

beechnut wrote:

VV wrote:

To illustrate how things have developed since the start of the "Jet Age", the pax capacity and range of the A220-300 is not that much different than Air Canada's original DC8-43s. Those were used on YUL-Western Europe non-stop flights for years. And had much worse fuel consumption from the narrow bypass RR Conways.

I'm sure that in a meagre post-COVID world, the additional flexibility will be welcomed.

Beech

I am very skeptical about it.
I am afraid the A220-300 with such payload-range capability means it is targeted for something that is not very well defined.

I know, people will say that the aircraft has already hundreds of orders, but I still have some doubts about its prospect. The aircraft seems to be over-designed now.

CFRP is cheap in cost and weight to over-design.

There is a goal for TATL LCY operations and this brings us closer. Efficiency is empty weight divided by passengers (pax):

E2-190 72,752 lb 114 pax max or 638 lb/pax
A220-100 77,650 lb 135 pax max or 575 lb/pax
E2-195 78,705 lb 146 pax max or 539 lb/pax
A220-300 81,750 lb 160 pax max or 510 lb/pax
A320NEO 97,700 lb, 195 pax or lb/pax or 501 lb (with 186 pax it is 525 lb/pax, which I believe is more comparable)

So despite being small, the A220 line looks to be incredibly efficient. Considering it has more modern secondary systems, which are heavy, it will keep selling.

Lightsaber

Late edit, there is good weight, increased wingspan, wing area (fly through less dense air), higher bypass engines, electrical subsystems (more weight, less fuel burn, lower maintenance with predictive maintenance reducing missed dispatches).

lightsaber wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I see a pdf file. It says it has been updated a few days ago, about that MTOW increase.

I would guess Airbus has increased the MTOW to help payload/range, it's very common, the A330 has been getting MTOW increase after MTOW increase for example.

The LCCs (Air Baltic) and KE were keen on more MTOW. KE wanted for low cost long haul. AirBaltic for their 145 cabin for longer routes.

As these MTOW increases are sold as an extra cost option, this allows more revenue to be generated from existing customers who find a need for more range.

The 3,350nm range is for a 2-class with light fittings.

There is always some customer who is not hauling all the desired payload who wants more MTOW.

Eventually I expect an ACT, but more likely on the A220-100. Then again, there are proposals for a business jet:

https://www.businessjetinteriorsinterna ... ncept.html

Lightsaber

According German news (aero telegraph)/interview with Airbus staff/spokesman/official statements by Airbus after request by aero telegraph, Airbus is now considering an A220 ACJ business jet. Considering in this case means "just considering", so they are just discussing/surveys on-going and no decision has been done now.
Use Google translator e.g.
https://www.aerotelegraph.com/airbus-naehert-sich-einem-vip-a220

So it has changed from -we know, customers are interested- a year to half a year ago in two interviews/statements to now: -there are running surveys by Airbus-

But it is also stated by Airbus spokesman...correct, spokeswomen...-as common, these surveys have not to end up in a product.-

T4thH wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I see a pdf file. It says it has been updated a few days ago, about that MTOW increase.

I would guess Airbus has increased the MTOW to help payload/range, it's very common, the A330 has been getting MTOW increase after MTOW increase for example.

The LCCs (Air Baltic) and KE were keen on more MTOW. KE wanted for low cost long haul. AirBaltic for their 145 cabin for longer routes.

As these MTOW increases are sold as an extra cost option, this allows more revenue to be generated from existing customers who find a need for more range.

The 3,350nm range is for a 2-class with light fittings.

There is always some customer who is not hauling all the desired payload who wants more MTOW.

Eventually I expect an ACT, but more likely on the A220-100. Then again, there are proposals for a business jet:

https://www.businessjetinteriorsinterna ... ncept.html

Lightsaber

According German news (aero telegraph)/interview with Airbus staff/spokesman/official statements by Airbus after request by aero telegraph, Airbus is now considering an A220 ACJ business jet. Considering in this case means "just considering", so they are just discussing/surveys on-going and no decision has been done now.
Use Google translator e.g.
https://www.aerotelegraph.com/airbus-naehert-sich-einem-vip-a220

So it has changed from -we know, customers are interested- a year to half a year ago in two interviews/statements to now: -there are running surveys by Airbus-

But it is also stated by Airbus spokesman...correct, spokeswomen...-as common, these surveys have not to end up in a product.-

I posted a link on another company doing the A220 business jet. It is possible they might start the market. Although, the skeptic in me notes no sales anounced.

The number of ACJs delivered per year is tiny.

https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/ ... y-outlook/

Picking the latest
2006 1 (an A340)
2007 1 (an A330)
2008 1 (an A330)
2009 1 (an A330)
2010 14 (1 A330, bunch of A32x)
2011 10 (1 A330, bunch of A32x)
2012 9 (1 A330, bunch of A32x)
2013 6 (All A32x)
2014 5 (All A32x)
2015 4 (All A32x)
2016 1, an A321
2017 none
2018 1, an A320CEO
2019 6, 2 A319NEO and 4 A320NEO

The airliner based corporate jet market is tiny. I hope to see an A220 based corporate jet (Airbus or another company), but unless the conversion and overhaul costs are brought down we'll see small numbers. Nothing like Gulfstream production volumes.

Lightsaber

My speculation is that a customer requested the MTOW change as a result of running test flights in their performance computers.

Manufacturers are notable for posting bogus range numbers. Totally bogus in real life. I have personally seen this over and over in my career. By the time you add real world routing issues, cruise flight levels that are less than optimum for turbulence avoidance, a tricked out cabin due to wanting to have all the bells and whistles (higher OEW), problems getting off the runway due to high summer temps and/or runway cutbacks, driftdown limiting weights over mountainous terrain, and other limitations, the airplanes don't have anywhere near the promised range. Airbus and Boeing don't operate these airplanes, the operators do. Imho, no topic is more misunderstood among many people who are otherwise quite knowledgeable about the industry. For example, how many posts have there been about whether the A350 could fly LAX-SYD for airline X? But the people arguing didn't have access to all the relevant information (the specific constraints for the airline in question) to make a good argument. All they could say is that airline Y flies the A350 on longer city pairs.

The question is which customer wanted this increase, and where do they want to fly? And the good news is that this raises the limits on the basic structure for when the 500 comes along.....which Covid-19 no doubt has pushed back.

VV wrote:

So, someone now has seen the document with the increased MTOW.

Now, my question is why the hell the airport planning documents of the A220 are still hosted by bombardier.com whereas the other Airbus aircraft's ACAP are hosted by airbus.com.
https://eservices.aero.bombardier.com/w ... BIS9nQSEh/

Does it mean Airbus does not want to fully take care of the A220?

Is the A220 part of the Airbus family or is it just an orphan?

This detail about how the airport planning (ACAP) document is dealt with shows something incoherent is happening.

The discourse about the A220 being part of the Airbus family does not stand the straight face test.

What is going on?

It is clear the A220 is an orphan and Airbus wants nothing to do with it. It's not just the ACAP. Look at the cockpit. Totally different to the rest of the lineup. And the windshield frame is not black, like the rest of the Airbus aircraft. What's that about? And what is the deal with the winglets, why is the A220 not getting sharklets? Obviously Airbus just doesn't care about this aircraft...

VV wrote:

I am very skeptical about it.
I am afraid the A220-300 with such payload-range capability means it is targeted for something that is not very well defined.

I know, people will say that the aircraft has already hundreds of orders, but I still have some doubts about its prospect. The aircraft seems to be over-designed now.

A220-500 anyone?

Right now and in the immediate post-Covid world, the A220-100 and 300 are just right for the market, however paper weight increases are relatively easy and cheap to do and keep in the "back pocket". Mid-decade, I could see Airbus moving to an A220-1/3/500 family along with an A321/A322 family to cover the 100 to 250 seat range.

Having said that, I'm sure we'll see some airlines taking this option and using the payload/range capability on markets that used to be A320/737-dominated not long ago.

VV wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I see a pdf file. It says it has been updated a few days ago, about that MTOW increase.

I would guess Airbus has increased the MTOW to help payload/range, it's very common, the A330 has been getting MTOW increase after MTOW increase for example.

It is very intriguing considering the fact the range stated in Airbus' web page is 3,350 nm with an MTOW of 154,000 lb.

Who would need more than 3,350 nm for such a small aircraft?
Is there any A220-300 VIP aircraft?

Something is fishy there.

Fishy? What about an increase in MTOW be described as "fishy"?

VV wrote:

If this has been discussed, please delete the thread.

According to the Airport Planning document (click here), the MTOW of the A220-300 can go up to 156,300 lb.

Airbus' web page for A220-300 still mentions an MTOW of 154,000 lb (click here).

Does anyone know which information is the right one.

If an MTOW of 156,3000 lb is the right one then can anyone please tell us when it changed and why it changed?

Thank you very much for your help.

If Airbus says it's 154K? Then I might tend to believe them. Unless there is a weight variant that's not published as Airbus does have a LOT of weight variants in most of their Airplanes. I've never understood exactly why though. Boeing tends to shoot their best shot coming out of the gate and publish what they recommend you do with the airplane by series. The 777-200 had a weight, the 777-200ER and LR had weights, the 777-300ER has a weight and the 777-8X and 9X will have their max weights. But there's no variants or sub models.

RickNRoll wrote:

VV wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I see a pdf file. It says it has been updated a few days ago, about that MTOW increase.

I would guess Airbus has increased the MTOW to help payload/range, it's very common, the A330 has been getting MTOW increase after MTOW increase for example.

It is very intriguing considering the fact the range stated in Airbus' web page is 3,350 nm with an MTOW of 154,000 lb.

Who would need more than 3,350 nm for such a small aircraft?
Is there any A220-300 VIP aircraft?

Something is fishy there.

Fishy? What about an increase in MTOW be described as "fishy"?

Airbus takes A WAIT AND SEE type of program based on what the Airline wants to push the Airframe to actually Do. And they seem to base it on Damage tolerance,
Which tells me? They really don't Know what the airframe is really capable of. If you seek to increase the Max Gross or Max zero fuel weight and you don't snap off the wings and Crash? Then I guess it's OK.

lightsaber wrote:

I wonder if this is part of the QF sales campaign.

Lightsaber

I know that Alan Joyce has stated in a few discussions (Executive Traveller comes to mind), that the A220 would be the perfect replacement for the 717s and the F100s. However he also said at the time they would review it in more detail when the pricing was more favourable.

And that was before CoVid became the problem it is now. As much as I’d like to see the Red Roo flying A220s, I don’t expect it anytime soon.

RickNRoll wrote:

VV wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I see a pdf file. It says it has been updated a few days ago, about that MTOW increase.

I would guess Airbus has increased the MTOW to help payload/range, it's very common, the A330 has been getting MTOW increase after MTOW increase for example.

It is very intriguing considering the fact the range stated in Airbus' web page is 3,350 nm with an MTOW of 154,000 lb.

Who would need more than 3,350 nm for such a small aircraft?
Is there any A220-300 VIP aircraft?

Something is fishy there.

Fishy? What about an increase in MTOW be described as "fishy"?

There's only one place this is fishy. Unless... maybe this is for the sales campaign at Icelandair? It all fits.

kaneporta1 wrote:

It is clear the A220 is an orphan and Airbus wants nothing to do with it. It's not just the ACAP. Look at the cockpit. Totally different to the rest of the lineup. And the windshield frame is not black, like the rest of the Airbus aircraft. What's that about? And what is the deal with the winglets, why is the A220 not getting sharklets? Obviously Airbus just doesn't care about this aircraft...

Airbus is clearly regretting its decision.

strfyr51 wrote:

VV wrote:

If this has been discussed, please delete the thread.

According to the Airport Planning document (click here), the MTOW of the A220-300 can go up to 156,300 lb.

Airbus' web page for A220-300 still mentions an MTOW of 154,000 lb (click here).

Does anyone know which information is the right one.

If an MTOW of 156,3000 lb is the right one then can anyone please tell us when it changed and why it changed?

Thank you very much for your help.

If Airbus says it's 154K? Then I might tend to believe them. Unless there is a weight variant that's not published as Airbus does have a LOT of weight variants in most of their Airplanes. I've never understood exactly why though. Boeing tends to shoot their best shot coming out of the gate and publish what they recommend you do with the airplane by series. The 777-200 had a weight, the 777-200ER and LR had weights, the 777-300ER has a weight and the 777-8X and 9X will have their max weights. But there's no variants or sub models.

Boeing does weight variants as well. Many of the Singapore Airlines 777-200s had a reduced MTOW because they only plied the regional network.

Why? Because airports landing fees, handling costs and overflight fees are typically based on MTOW, so if you don't need the full range, you can save a lot of money with a paper de-rating.

I mean looking at Airbus past behaviour, they always spending money on minor improvements for all their aircrafts. From A320, A330 to A350.

It would be weird if they didn't working on improvements on their newest products. Maybe it's a framework for future stretch?

lightsaber wrote:

T4thH wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The LCCs (Air Baltic) and KE were keen on more MTOW. KE wanted for low cost long haul. AirBaltic for their 145 cabin for longer routes.

As these MTOW increases are sold as an extra cost option, this allows more revenue to be generated from existing customers who find a need for more range.

The 3,350nm range is for a 2-class with light fittings.

There is always some customer who is not hauling all the desired payload who wants more MTOW.

Eventually I expect an ACT, but more likely on the A220-100. Then again, there are proposals for a business jet:

https://www.businessjetinteriorsinterna ... ncept.html

Lightsaber

According German news (aero telegraph)/interview with Airbus staff/spokesman/official statements by Airbus after request by aero telegraph, Airbus is now considering an A220 ACJ business jet. Considering in this case means "just considering", so they are just discussing/surveys on-going and no decision has been done now.
Use Google translator e.g.
https://www.aerotelegraph.com/airbus-naehert-sich-einem-vip-a220

So it has changed from -we know, customers are interested- a year to half a year ago in two interviews/statements to now: -there are running surveys by Airbus-

But it is also stated by Airbus spokesman...correct, spokeswomen...-as common, these surveys have not to end up in a product.-

I posted a link on another company doing the A220 business jet. It is possible they might start the market. Although, the skeptic in me notes no sales anounced.

The number of ACJs delivered per year is tiny.

https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/ ... y-outlook/

Picking the latest
2006 1 (an A340)
2007 1 (an A330)
2008 1 (an A330)
2009 1 (an A330)
2010 14 (1 A330, bunch of A32x)
2011 10 (1 A330, bunch of A32x)
2012 9 (1 A330, bunch of A32x)
2013 6 (All A32x)
2014 5 (All A32x)
2015 4 (All A32x)
2016 1, an A321
2017 none
2018 1, an A320CEO
2019 6, 2 A319NEO and 4 A320NEO

The airliner based corporate jet market is tiny. I hope to see an A220 based corporate jet (Airbus or another company), but unless the conversion and overhaul costs are brought down we'll see small numbers. Nothing like Gulfstream production volumes.

Lightsaber

Pretty sure, you are right, that the demand for passenger jets as ACJ/business/corporate jet is limited.

But also regular the margin per jet shall be higher than for a regular passenger jet. Also smaller passenger jets of a family (like B73X or A32X) sell regular in higher numbers as business jets (we are not talking about jets in governmental use) as the bigger members of a family. So for the A320 family, the A319, as also the A318 sold pretty well (of 80 A318, 20 sold as ACJ) as ACJ/business jets; in comparison, the A320 sold less but still OK and the A321 did not sell well.
I expect, that the A220 family will be the right size for a business passenger jet, only the range is little bit short. As Airbus seems to have promised Jet Blue to develop an Extended Range version of the A220 with an fast to build in/replaceable extra fuel tank; perhaps we will see a parallel development of an ER version and extra fuel tank ACJ version. Then an A220 ER ACJ shall sell pretty well and it will be unique in size for business jets. It will not have any competitor, (as A220-100, less as A220-300) next in size will be an A319 Neo and an B737 Max 7 business jets.

T4thH wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

T4thH wrote:

According German news (aero telegraph)/interview with Airbus staff/spokesman/official statements by Airbus after request by aero telegraph, Airbus is now considering an A220 ACJ business jet. Considering in this case means "just considering", so they are just discussing/surveys on-going and no decision has been done now.
Use Google translator e.g.
https://www.aerotelegraph.com/airbus-naehert-sich-einem-vip-a220

So it has changed from -we know, customers are interested- a year to half a year ago in two interviews/statements to now: -there are running surveys by Airbus-

But it is also stated by Airbus spokesman...correct, spokeswomen...-as common, these surveys have not to end up in a product.-

I posted a link on another company doing the A220 business jet. It is possible they might start the market. Although, the skeptic in me notes no sales anounced.

The number of ACJs delivered per year is tiny.

https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/ ... y-outlook/

Picking the latest
2006 1 (an A340)
2007 1 (an A330)
2008 1 (an A330)
2009 1 (an A330)
2010 14 (1 A330, bunch of A32x)
2011 10 (1 A330, bunch of A32x)
2012 9 (1 A330, bunch of A32x)
2013 6 (All A32x)
2014 5 (All A32x)
2015 4 (All A32x)
2016 1, an A321
2017 none
2018 1, an A320CEO
2019 6, 2 A319NEO and 4 A320NEO

The airliner based corporate jet market is tiny. I hope to see an A220 based corporate jet (Airbus or another company), but unless the conversion and overhaul costs are brought down we'll see small numbers. Nothing like Gulfstream production volumes.

Lightsaber

Pretty sure, you are right, that the demand for passenger jets as ACJ/business/corporate jet is limited.

But also regular the margin per jet shall be higher than for a regular passenger jet. Also smaller passenger jets of a family (like B73X or A32X) sell regular in higher numbers as business jets (we are not talking about jets in governmental use) as the bigger members of a family. So for the A320 family, the A319, as also the A318 sold pretty well (of 80 A318, 20 sold as ACJ) as ACJ/business jets; in comparison, the A320 sold less but still OK and the A321 did not sell well.
I expect, that the A220 family will be the right size for a business passenger jet, only the range is little bit short. As Airbus seems to have promised Jet Blue to develop an Extended Range version of the A220 with an fast to build in/replaceable extra fuel tank; perhaps we will see a parallel development of an ER version and extra fuel tank ACJ version. Then an A220 ER ACJ shall sell pretty well and it will be unique in size for business jets. It will not have any competitor, (as A220-100, less as A220-300) next in size will be an A319 Neo and an B737 Max 7 business jets.

Looking back, the smaller business jets based off comment jets sell in decent numbers. People here probably get tired of me talking economy if scale. But the A220 already has it (for commercial) and could support a tiny number of business jets. For example, a friend works for a company where they hire Delta to pilot, crew, and maintain their 757 based business jet, including engines.

So I could see DL or Netjets getting into supporting an A220 based ACJ (or someone else does the conversion, like the PierreJean I linked to before in this thread).

The A220 definitely needed a MTOW boost for the business jet market.

I do see limited demand in the commercial market. There is always that next set of missions that requires more range.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Eventually I expect an ACT, but more likely on the A220-100. Then again, there are proposals for a business jet:

T4thH wrote:

Then an A220 ER ACJ shall sell pretty well and it will be unique in size for business jets. It will not have any competitor, (as A220-100

It will sell in trickles but possibly more than its heavy, late lamented A318CJ "stablemate" if the price is right! In this climate, a sale is more than just a sale...it'd take a determined first customer to issue an RFP and a motivated sales team to see the deal through.

lightsaber wrote:

So I could see DL or Netjets getting into supporting an A220 based ACJ (or someone else does the conversion, like the PierreJean I linked to before in this thread).

The A220 definitely needed a MTOW boost for the business jet market.

There are also Comlux, Lufthansa Technik and Bombardier themselves (or a subcon) among others, who could accomplish a simpler, not so-luxuriously appointed completion.

And the sales remain somewhat dismal. What airplane do airlines really want?

TARTRESED wrote:

And the sales remain somewhat dismal. What airplane do airlines really want?

600+ sales is god awful. I think a low MTOW 787-10 would be the best option.

VV wrote:

If this has been discussed, please delete the thread.

According to the Airport Planning document (click here), the MTOW of the A220-300 can go up to 156,300 lb.

Airbus' web page for A220-300 still mentions an MTOW of 154,000 lb (click here).

Does anyone know which information is the right one.

If an MTOW of 156,3000 lb is the right one then can anyone please tell us when it changed and why it changed?

Thank you very much for your help.

The current correct information is contained in the latest TCDS dated May 5th.

The main changes are the passenger capacity has been increased to 149 passengers.
Certified MTOW is 149,000 lb which has not increased since 2016.

As for the ownership issues you are so worked up about
From the TCDS

Type Certificate Holder:
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership
13100 Henri-Fabre Blvd.
Mirabel, Quebec
J7N 3C6

Models
BD-500-lAlO (Marketing name A220-100)
BD-500-lAll (Marketing name A220-300)

Note 3
Type Certificate Holder History:
• Initial type certification with Bombardier Inc. December 17, 2015.
• Transferred from Bombardier Inc. to C Series Aircraft Limited
Partnership on October 2, 2017.
• Transferred from C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership to Airbus
Canada Limited Partnership on June 1, 2019.

Note 4
The A220-100 (previously known as the CSlOO) is a marketing designation of the
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership aircraft model BD-500-lAlO.
The A220-300 (previously known as the CS300) is a marketing designation of the
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership aircraft model BD-500-lAll.

https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... d_num=2062

There is nothing unusual about this, you will still see McDonald Douglas on many document even that Boeing bought them years ago. When it comes to certified products there are their certificates in place, like production certificates, and continuing airworthiness.

VSMUT wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

VV wrote:

If this has been discussed, please delete the thread.

According to the Airport Planning document (click here), the MTOW of the A220-300 can go up to 156,300 lb.

Airbus' web page for A220-300 still mentions an MTOW of 154,000 lb (click here).

Does anyone know which information is the right one.

If an MTOW of 156,3000 lb is the right one then can anyone please tell us when it changed and why it changed?

Thank you very much for your help.

If Airbus says it's 154K? Then I might tend to believe them. Unless there is a weight variant that's not published as Airbus does have a LOT of weight variants in most of their Airplanes. I've never understood exactly why though. Boeing tends to shoot their best shot coming out of the gate and publish what they recommend you do with the airplane by series. The 777-200 had a weight, the 777-200ER and LR had weights, the 777-300ER has a weight and the 777-8X and 9X will have their max weights. But there's no variants or sub models.

Boeing does weight variants as well. Many of the Singapore Airlines 777-200s had a reduced MTOW because they only plied the regional network.

Why? Because airports landing fees, handling costs and overflight fees are typically based on MTOW, so if you don't need the full range, you can save a lot of money with a paper de-rating.

Yes, Boeing does weight variants too. Their ACAP documents don't show it very well, but often you can piece together the information from the TCDS. The Airbus ACAPs are different and show lots of weight variants.

I think it's the same process with both companies. You place your money on a scale, and wherever the needle stops is what your weights are written up for.

By the way, the latest airport planning document for the A220-300 (issue 21 of 16 July 2020) states 149,000 lb MTOW.
The previous issue (issue 20 of 18 June 2020) has the MTOW at 156,300 lb.

So it went up from 149,000 lb and then went down again to 149,000 lb. The interesting point is that Airbus web site gives you an MTOW of 154,000 lb.

It is very likely the highest MTOW of 156,300 lb is an option for the two A220-300 orders for VIP aircraft.
With such high MTOW, there is not much range benefit unless the fuel capacity is also increased.

It is quite intriguing that Airbus Canada spends development money for just two VIP aircraft when the partnership is struggling to make profit. There must be a strong reason. Perhaps those VIP aircraft are related to a bigger deal that is already signed.

Anyway, it is interesting to note that A220 main weight unit is pound whereas all other Airbus aircraft main weight unit is kg.

VV wrote:

There must be a strong reason. Perhaps those VIP aircraft are related to a bigger deal that is already signed.

an A220-500 is sort of obvious answer to that.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

There must be a strong reason. Perhaps those VIP aircraft are related to a bigger deal that is already signed.

an A220-500 is sort of obvious answer to that.
...

Would you mind to elaborate your statement please?

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

There must be a strong reason. Perhaps those VIP aircraft are related to a bigger deal that is already signed.

an A220-500 is sort of obvious answer to that.
...

Would you mind to elaborate your statement please?

It would have higher empty weight, and more seats aka payload. It would change the A220 from being fuel volume limited to being weight limited. Payload is already enough to lift 175/180 passengers, but that would need 3-4 extra rows, 2.5~3m fuse length more. That would likely limit fuel load to ~11t, with volume for 5t more left, and just short of whats needed for US/Canada transcon flying and a few kpounds of TOW restore that ability.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

an A220-500 is sort of obvious answer to that.
...

Would you mind to elaborate your statement please?

It would have higher empty weight, and more seats aka payload. It would change the A220 from being fuel volume limited to being weight limited. Payload is already enough to lift 175/180 passengers, but that would need 3-4 extra rows, 2.5~3m fuse length more. That would likely limit fuel load to ~11t, with volume for 5t more left, and just short of whats needed for US/Canada transcon flying and a few kpounds of TOW restore that ability.

Although a stretch of the A220-300 is relatively easy to do and would become the most economical narrowbody to operate for routes up to 2,500 nm, recently one Airbus executive dismissed the idea to start such development.

I guess Airbus Canada will have to finance the development by itself, but the partnership is not making money as yet.

If the development starts, it would be nice if they send people from Europe to Mirabel (Montreal). They can use the resource better to do some development there since there is no major new aircraft development in Toulouse in the next two years.

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

Would you mind to elaborate your statement please?

It would have higher empty weight, and more seats aka payload. It would change the A220 from being fuel volume limited to being weight limited. Payload is already enough to lift 175/180 passengers, but that would need 3-4 extra rows, 2.5~3m fuse length more. That would likely limit fuel load to ~11t, with volume for 5t more left, and just short of whats needed for US/Canada transcon flying and a few kpounds of TOW restore that ability.

Although a stretch of the A220-300 is relatively easy to do and would become the most economical narrowbody to operate for routes up to 2,500 nm, recently one Airbus executive dismissed the idea to start such development.

And they will continue to do so until they decided what to do with the A320 successor. Move it up one notch, or stay in the same size class. They where dismissive about an A330neo as well, until they weren't.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

...
Although a stretch of the A220-300 is relatively easy to do and would become the most economical narrowbody to operate for routes up to 2,500 nm, recently one Airbus executive dismissed the idea to start such development.

And they will continue to do so until they decided what to do with the A320 successor. Move it up one notch, or stay in the same size class. They where dismissive about an A330neo as well, until they weren't. [/quote]

So you think Airbus will launch an A320 successor some time?
When do you think it would happen? Could it be after they spent much effort to develop the A321XLR?
When it happens, do you think the A220 will be still up to date?

VV wrote:

So you think Airbus will launch an A320 successor some time?

at some time they will have to

When it happens, do you think the A220 will be still up to date?

its shelf-life should be A320 plus 20 years or so.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

So you think Airbus will launch an A320 successor some time?

at some time they will have to

When it happens, do you think the A220 will be still up to date?

its shelf-life should be A320 plus 20 years or so.

Do you really think it is reasonable to have a 5 abreast configuration for a 160 seater aircraft when the A320 replacement you mentioned happens?

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

So you think Airbus will launch an A320 successor some time?

at some time they will have to

When it happens, do you think the A220 will be still up to date?

its shelf-life should be A320 plus 20 years or so.

Do you really think it is reasonable to have a 5 abreast configuration for a 160 seater aircraft when the A320 replacement you mentioned happens?

from a passenger perspective its quite awesome, and as long it doesn´t drive up operating costs or interferes with operations no airline will have any care in the wold using 4, 5 or 6 abreast.

A 180 seat 5-abreast cabin at same pitch would be shorter than an 195E2 after all, and that seems to be just fine.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

...
A 180 seat 5-abreast cabin at same pitch would be shorter than an 195E2 after all, and that seems to be just fine.

Well, if you accept a range of 2,200 nm and a "comfortable" pitch then it is okay indeed.

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

...
A 180 seat 5-abreast cabin at same pitch would be shorter than an 195E2 after all, and that seems to be just fine.

Well, if you accept a range of 2,200 nm and a "comfortable" pitch then it is okay indeed.

Do you have an range diagram for 2200 nm with 180pax? or an source that outlines the capabilities of this plane?

JonesNL wrote:

VV wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

...
A 180 seat 5-abreast cabin at same pitch would be shorter than an 195E2 after all, and that seems to be just fine.

Well, if you accept a range of 2,200 nm and a "comfortable" pitch then it is okay indeed.

Do you have an range diagram for 2200 nm with 180pax? or an source that outlines the capabilities of this plane?

No.

It is a rough order or magnitude.
A stretch of the A220-300 will have a lot of limitations, unless Airbus invests in significant modifications relative to the current family.

Please do not think I do not know what I am talking about it.

VV wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

VV wrote:

Well, if you accept a range of 2,200 nm and a "comfortable" pitch then it is okay indeed.

Do you have an range diagram for 2200 nm with 180pax? or an source that outlines the capabilities of this plane?

No.

It is a rough order or magnitude.
A stretch of the A220-300 will have a lot of limitations, unless Airbus invests in significant modifications relative to the current family.

Please do not think I do not know what I am talking about it.

What kind of modifications? What is significant? Is MTOW increase significant?

JonesNL wrote:

VV wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Do you have an range diagram for 2200 nm with 180pax? or an source that outlines the capabilities of this plane?

No.

It is a rough order or magnitude.
A stretch of the A220-300 will have a lot of limitations, unless Airbus invests in significant modifications relative to the current family.

Please do not think I do not know what I am talking about it.

What kind of modifications? What is significant? Is MTOW increase significant?

I regret, I cannot go into specifics it would be a breach of trust.