lightsaber wrote:

I wouldn't have noted if you had not mentioned.

Mid decade had always been sort of a place holder without real commitment until it seems very recently. Reading the transcript says it all, but it was how he said it too, that gave really interesting context.

My thought is that there won't be a perfect replacement for the HAL 717, so they'll have to adapt to that reality. They were happy with how the 321neo performed inter-island. Perhaps there is a case to be made for 320neo's, maybe even 319neo's to keep things simple and mix that with 321neo. They'd just change they way they fly the market Perhaps not as robust of a schedule, thinning it a bit, but providing the same capacity, if things ever get back to pre Covid. It's that or they take a look at the A220.

Sokes wrote:

Did HA ever buy new planes?

Uh... yeah. 717s, 767s, A330s, A321neo's, 787-9 (on order in production).

Taxi645 wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Sure an A320 provides more profit per produced aircraft normally. But these are not normal circumstances. I think Airbus would do well to take and remain the A320 at 43 instead of 45 and ramp the A220 to 7/8/months instead.

I think it would be wise to just stop at the A320 provides more profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Good point.

The cash cost of doing the A220 over the 320 would be bad for Airbus.

Take into account the opportunity cost of doing the 220 over the 320 and it would exponentially worse for Airbus.

I was thinking there must be more Asia options. Who?

azjubilee wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I wouldn't have noted if you had not mentioned.

Mid decade had always been sort of a place holder without real commitment until it seems very recently. Reading the transcript says it all, but it was how he said it too, that gave really interesting context.

My thought is that there won't be a perfect replacement for the HAL 717, so they'll have to adapt to that reality. They were happy with how the 321neo performed inter-island. Perhaps there is a case to be made for 320neo's, maybe even 319neo's to keep things simple and mix that with 321neo. They'd just change they way they fly the market Perhaps not as robust of a schedule, thinning it a bit, but providing the same capacity, if things ever get back to pre Covid. It's that or they take a look at the A220.

Sokes wrote:

Did HA ever buy new planes?

Uh... yeah. 717s, 767s, A330s, A321neo's, 787-9 (on order in production).

I see more A321NEO inter-island, but not as a replacement. As traffic recovers, I see multiple options to replace the 717. In all scenarios a smaller plane helps.

Lightsaber

Babyshark wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

I think it would be wise to just stop at the A320 provides more profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Good point.

The cash cost of doing the A220 over the 320 would be bad for Airbus.

Take into account the opportunity cost of doing the 220 over the 320 and it would exponentially worse for Airbus.

The point is you could consider increasing A220 rate not only as a reduced profit, but also as an investment. If you built in a new FAL that will also compromise short term profit, but will aid long term revenue/profit. Same for doing R&D, you make expenses in order to gain future revenue/profit.

If increasing the A220 rate now is required to have a meaningful production rate, revenue and profit in the future (because you just can't ramp up by a factor 5 out of the blue), it could still be a worthwhile investment. Would it compromise short term profit because you could earn more on a A320? Quite likely yes, but any investment costs money short term.

Now that all depends of course on how profitable the A220 actually is, also compared to the A320, now and in the future. Although many here claim to know, I doubt many actually do (especially the future part). So I'm very sceptical if anyone here (including myself) would be able to say, with any certainty, if it would be a good investment or not to increase the A220 rate now.

32 years of production and 9800 units sold versus 8 years and 146. I am pretty certain one is like angels printing money and the other is... well, is like... angels not printing money? If the 320 is not profitable by now I think we would know.

Call me crazy but seems it would not be wise to heavily invest in an aircraft that didn’t sell well and was built by a financially compromised company.

Especially since it would take billions and undercut profits when you’re losing billions and the airline industry is still in free fall. Not to mention once you’re done you’re looking at a 20 year old design that doesn’t scale as Boeing rolls out something brand new.

Opportunity cost there would be astronomical.

Taxi645 wrote:

...
The point is you could consider increasing A220 rate not only as a reduced profit, but also as an investment. If you built in a new FAL that will also compromise short term profit, but will aid long term revenue/profit. Same for doing R&D, you make expenses in order to gain future revenue/profit.
...

Don't you want to increase production rate if and only if there are customers that are willing to accept delivery?

The current situation is very strange where they have two final assembly lines and very low production rate. Does it make sens to you?

The motivation for the Alabama final assembly line is not efficiency or to improve cost.
The real motivation is unclear until today.

VV wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

...
The point is you could consider increasing A220 rate not only as a reduced profit, but also as an investment. If you built in a new FAL that will also compromise short term profit, but will aid long term revenue/profit. Same for doing R&D, you make expenses in order to gain future revenue/profit.
...

Don't you want to increase production rate if and only if there are customers that are willing to accept delivery?

The current situation is very strange where they have two final assembly lines and very low production rate. Does it make sens to you?

The motivation for the Alabama final assembly line is not efficiency or to improve cost.
The real motivation is unclear until today.

Does it make more or less sense than increasing the A320 from 40 to 45/month when no one wants to take them? It all depends on the amount of future orders one expects. If you expects significant orders for the A220 in future than in that regard the situation is the same as for the A320 ramp up.

VV wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

...
The point is you could consider increasing A220 rate not only as a reduced profit, but also as an investment. If you built in a new FAL that will also compromise short term profit, but will aid long term revenue/profit. Same for doing R&D, you make expenses in order to gain future revenue/profit.
...

Don't you want to increase production rate if and only if there are customers that are willing to accept delivery?

The current situation is very strange where they have two final assembly lines and very low production rate. Does it make sens to you?

The motivation for the Alabama final assembly line is not efficiency or to improve cost.
The real motivation is unclear until today.

I believe that the Alabama FAL was to hedge USD/CAD exchange exposure and to prevent Boeing from manipulating the U.S. government to create trade barriers at the national level.

Babyshark wrote:

(Taxi645) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
-------‐-------------------------------
Good point. The cash cost of doing the A220 over the 320 would be bad for Airbus.
Take into account the opportunity cost of doing the 220 over the 320 and it would exponentially worse for Airbus.

I still see lots of potential of the A220 in the Airbus portfolio. And we're NOT talking about selling the A220 over the A320!

Airbus totally controls A220 pricings anyways. If it feels a 319neo (or a A319/A320neo pkg) could be a good fit for a particular client, it will price it accordingly (and jack up the A220 price).

Otherwise, if it sees zero potential for its 319/320, may as well sell the A220 at competitive prices - and avoid losing a sale to Boeing (or Embraer)!
SWA is good example as no ways they would ever consider the A319neo, while the A220 "could" be a good fit.

Furthermore, as the A220 is still very early in its "decreasing unit costs curve", each additional sale contributes a big deal in decreasing unit costs - plus helps getting PIPs earlier.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

(Taxi645) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
-------‐-------------------------------
Good point. The cash cost of doing the A220 over the 320 would be bad for Airbus.
Take into account the opportunity cost of doing the 220 over the 320 and it would exponentially worse for Airbus.

I still see lots of potential of the A220 in the Airbus portfolio. And we're NOT talking about selling the A220 over the A320!

Airbus totally controls A220 pricings anyways. If it feels a 319neo (or a A319/A320neo pkg) could be a good fit for a particular client, it will price it accordingly (and jack up the A220 price).

Otherwise, if it sees zero potential for its 319/320, may as well sell the A220 at competitive prices - and avoid losing a sale to Boeing (or Embraer)!
SWA is good example as no ways they would ever consider the A319neo, while the A220 "could" be a good fit.

Furthermore, as the A220 is still very early in its "decreasing unit costs curve", each additional sale contributes a big deal in decreasing unit costs - plus helps getting PIPs earlier.

I think the A220 has a long way to go to get to cash flow positive on the "decreasing unit costs curve". A220 is going from 4 to 5/month late this year. Even at 5, across 2 FAL's this thing is likely hemorrhaging cash, especially on Delta and JetBlue orders. As someone mentioned earlier, having 2 FAL's for production this low is kind of crazy. Having 2 FAL's is kind of crazy in most situations, but for a low production narrow body it is bat guano crazy. Unless the long term plan is to move all production to Mobile with much lower labor costs and none of the Quebec political drama.

lightsaber wrote:

I see more A321NEO inter-island, but not as a replacement. As traffic recovers, I see multiple options to replace the 717. In all scenarios a smaller plane helps.
Lightsaber

Yeah, that's why I suggested 319/320neo. By the time "mid decade" rolls around, HAL will be in the middle of taking delivery of the 789's. I'm wondering if bringing on two new fleet types is something they'd want to bite at. In the interest of time and logistics, perhaps striking a deal with Airbus and using current options on the book is the way to go. As I said upthread, things are just starting to roll with this, so it'll be interesting how HAL navigates the continued pandemic business struggles and the future fleet.

Jetport wrote:

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

(Taxi645) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
-------‐-------------------------------
Good point. The cash cost of doing the A220 over the 320 would be bad for Airbus.
Take into account the opportunity cost of doing the 220 over the 320 and it would exponentially worse for Airbus.

I still see lots of potential of the A220 in the Airbus portfolio. And we're NOT talking about selling the A220 over the A320!

Airbus totally controls A220 pricings anyways. If it feels a 319neo (or a A319/A320neo pkg) could be a good fit for a particular client, it will price it accordingly (and jack up the A220 price).

Otherwise, if it sees zero potential for its 319/320, may as well sell the A220 at competitive prices - and avoid losing a sale to Boeing (or Embraer)!
SWA is good example as no ways they would ever consider the A319neo, while the A220 "could" be a good fit.

Furthermore, as the A220 is still very early in its "decreasing unit costs curve", each additional sale contributes a big deal in decreasing unit costs - plus helps getting PIPs earlier.

I think the A220 has a long way to go to get to cash flow positive on the "decreasing unit costs curve". A220 is going from 4 to 5/month late this year. Even at 5, across 2 FAL's this thing is likely hemorrhaging cash, especially on Delta and JetBlue orders. As someone mentioned earlier, having 2 FAL's for production this low is kind of crazy. Having 2 FAL's is kind of crazy in most situations, but for a low production narrow body it is bat guano crazy. Unless the long term plan is to move all production to Mobile with much lower labor costs and none of the Quebec political drama.

I would agree with you if the state of Alabama ponies up the $billion+ needed to invest in a move.
Also-who said wages are lower in Alabama at a 0.78 exchange rate to say nothing of the myriad other items that contribute to efficiency (or not)? Quebec has the lowest energy costs in North America for example.

Skywatcher wrote:

Jetport wrote:

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

I still see lots of potential of the A220 in the Airbus portfolio. And we're NOT talking about selling the A220 over the A320!

Airbus totally controls A220 pricings anyways. If it feels a 319neo (or a A319/A320neo pkg) could be a good fit for a particular client, it will price it accordingly (and jack up the A220 price).

Otherwise, if it sees zero potential for its 319/320, may as well sell the A220 at competitive prices - and avoid losing a sale to Boeing (or Embraer)!
SWA is good example as no ways they would ever consider the A319neo, while the A220 "could" be a good fit.

Furthermore, as the A220 is still very early in its "decreasing unit costs curve", each additional sale contributes a big deal in decreasing unit costs - plus helps getting PIPs earlier.

I think the A220 has a long way to go to get to cash flow positive on the "decreasing unit costs curve". A220 is going from 4 to 5/month late this year. Even at 5, across 2 FAL's this thing is likely hemorrhaging cash, especially on Delta and JetBlue orders. As someone mentioned earlier, having 2 FAL's for production this low is kind of crazy. Having 2 FAL's is kind of crazy in most situations, but for a low production narrow body it is bat guano crazy. Unless the long term plan is to move all production to Mobile with much lower labor costs and none of the Quebec political drama.

I would agree with you if the state of Alabama ponies up the $billion+ needed to invest in a move.
Also-who said wages are lower in Alabama at a 0.78 exchange rate to say nothing of the myriad other items that contribute to efficiency (or not)? Quebec has the lowest energy costs in North America for example.

You are correct about energy costs in Quebec, and that is about the only low cost advantage Quebec has. Canada went from being significantly cheaper to significantly more expensive for making automobiles over the past 20 years or so vs. the US. Canadian manufacturing now has a cost problem, even with the advantageous exchange rate. Labor in SC is cheaper than Canada and cheaper than Washington State.

Sales will depend on profit, at least from the seller's perspective.
Airbus is working on break even for the A220:
https://www.worldglobal.co.uk/2021/02/1 ... in-aisles/

Asam says there is a “drive to cut costs” and that the break-even point is about 150 aircraft – although he says the company believes it can bring this “down a bit” by the mid-decade.

I assume that is per year (I'm not certain). Per this link, production could be much higher at 160 to 170 per year.
https://www.fliegerfaust.com/a220-news-2645172486.html

So this makes selling a large number a priority (or accept fate and ramp down the program). This makes the Southwest potential order for 300 a dang fascinating exercise. We are talking about a single order, with the domino effect, able to bring the program to profitability. (In my opinion.)

What isn't being mentioned is the profit from ancillary sales. The more aircraft out there, the lower the cost to manufacture because vendors are making a good profit off aftermarket support. This doesn't help Airbus as much directly (it does help, but not as much as the vendors as their business model is based on support). For example, if Pratt sells another thousand PW1500s, that means I cannot find the link right now (sorry), so take it as my opinion, but doubling production cuts the per unit costs 13%. So 1000 more engines in service means about 130 units need overhaul per year. So if production goes to 170 A220 per year, having a thousand in service cuts vendor costs. If we assume a minimum production lot of 25 (cost per unit =1), we get an equation of cost per unit=1.92*(units per year)^-.201.

So a vendor with 300 units (170 new + 130 used) has a cost 11% lower per unit than one just producing for new. This is one reason going up against the NEO and MAX is so incredibly difficult. The automation in their production is outstanding and constantly being improved to cut unit costs.

So with some new orders we not only get the production rate improvement, we get a vendor benefit for new production. Now, I don't expect vendors to cut parts costs for spares, but I would expect Airbus to eek out a new build discount. That drives up future overhauls/spare sales, so the vendors are "happy enough." (Of course they would like more profit day1, but that isn't going to happen.)

What this has to do with sales campaigns is success breeds success in aviation. Without economics of scale, every aircraft line is dead. This is why almost every business jet is an evolution of prior lines, just sold as something incredibly news, but in reality an evolution. e.g., the Cessna Latitude uses the wing, tail, engines and nacelles of the Soverign. The Longitude builds off the Latitude, utilizes an old Hawker wing, and uses Honeywell engines that are very mature from competitors' product lines.

This is why Pratt has the PW1500/PW1900/PW1200/PW815/PW812 so related. To get up those economics of scales to improve the business case.

So I think Airbus will sell the A220. I think they will go for selling the Southwest order at break even pricing as the increased economics of scale will stop the losses on other sales. With the inevitable increase in other orders post a Southwest sale, that would bring the A220 to profitability. Once a bunch are in service, and used enough to need MRO work, the vendors will be more profitable so that Airbus can extract more price concessions and we get into a virtuous cycle.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

(Taxi645) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
-------‐-------------------------------
Good point. The cash cost of doing the A220 over the 320 would be bad for Airbus.
Take into account the opportunity cost of doing the 220 over the 320 and it would exponentially worse for Airbus.

I still see lots of potential of the A220 in the Airbus portfolio. And we're NOT talking about selling the A220 over the A320!

Airbus totally controls A220 pricings anyways. If it feels a 319neo (or a A319/A320neo pkg) could be a good fit for a particular client, it will price it accordingly (and jack up the A220 price).

Otherwise, if it sees zero potential for its 319/320, may as well sell the A220 at competitive prices - and avoid losing a sale to Boeing (or Embraer)!
SWA is good example as no ways they would ever consider the A319neo, while the A220 "could" be a good fit.

Furthermore, as the A220 is still very early in its "decreasing unit costs curve", each additional sale contributes a big deal in decreasing unit costs - plus helps getting PIPs earlier.

Airbus must always consider the Embraer/Boeing competition. As much as some here want to make a big deal out of certain issues, aircraft are pretty darn fungible. One can estimate future costs pretty well. Airbus must be looking over their shoulder and not wanting the Embraer E2-190 and in particular E2-195 to achieve great economics of scale. I'm not saying Airbus will be silly,

Your reference to funding PiPs is also important. While we have seen a great improvement in A220 dispatch reliability with customers like Swiss much happier. We had another thread where I posted links on Lufthansa group having a 99.8% dispatch reliability expectation. The A220 seems to be finally meeting that high expectation
First link expectations, but 2 years ago A220 not meeting LH's requirements:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1427277

Now meeting expectations (November 2020):
https://skiesmag.com/news/airbus-a220-p ... y-turmoil/

To others:
So now more PiPs. Small improvements in maintenance, but now for efficiency or payload at range. I won't list every PiP, but for example the MTOW increases will help some customers.


So sales are needed. I think the A220 (ex C-series) has the right concept ideas. It is not to debug, improve (PiP), but mostly get down manufacturing costs. To do that Airbus must sell the type. I'm bummed no air show this year, but once they restart, I expect the A220 to improve sales and with every hundred or so sold, it will make it so that more airlines would consider the type. This is why with a potential order of 300, the Southwest order must be considered very seriously as I believe that will domino to another 200 to 300 more. Having over a thousand sold will make the vendors accept short term payout cuts to stay on a program with long term potential.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Sales will depend on profit, at least from the seller's perspective.
Airbus is working on break even for the A220:
https://www.worldglobal.co.uk/2021/02/1 ... in-aisles/

Asam says there is a “drive to cut costs” and that the break-even point is about 150 aircraft – although he says the company believes it can bring this “down a bit” by the mid-decade.

I assume that is per year (I'm not certain). Per this link, production could be much higher at 160 to 170 per year.
https://www.fliegerfaust.com/a220-news-2645172486.html


Lightsaber

Very interesting links. It would be so damn interesting to have an idea on production cost delta between the A220 and A320. With the rate numbers available and your doubling/13% you'd have a pretty good indication what's going on production cost wise.

I think I'm missing something. The pre-covid plan was to reach 14/mo (with 10/mo at YMX and 4/mo at MOB) by mid-decade, and clearly covid-19 has had a negative impact. So now we're reading that 150/year is needed for break even vs plan of 144/year by mid decade pre-covid? It seems like the benefit of being a part of Airbus's supply chain and sharing its production line expertise is not showing itself.

Revelation wrote:

I think I'm missing something. The pre-covid plan was to reach 14/mo (with 10/mo at YMX and 4/mo at MOB) by mid-decade, and clearly covid-19 has had a negative impact. So now we're reading that 150/year is needed for break even vs plan of 144/year by mid decade pre-covid? It seems like the benefit of being a part of Airbus's supply chain and sharing its production line expertise is not showing itself.

Wouldn't 10/mo and 4/mo be 168/year? Or, are there two months per year when nothing is produced?

aerolimani wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think I'm missing something. The pre-covid plan was to reach 14/mo (with 10/mo at YMX and 4/mo at MOB) by mid-decade, and clearly covid-19 has had a negative impact. So now we're reading that 150/year is needed for break even vs plan of 144/year by mid decade pre-covid? It seems like the benefit of being a part of Airbus's supply chain and sharing its production line expertise is not showing itself.

Wouldn't 10/mo and 4/mo be 168/year? Or, are there two months per year when nothing is produced?

That's what I missed, bad math before the coffee kicked in...

So, some scope to be cash positive somewhere around mid decade, maybe pushed out a bit due to CV19?

Revelation wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think I'm missing something. The pre-covid plan was to reach 14/mo (with 10/mo at YMX and 4/mo at MOB) by mid-decade, and clearly covid-19 has had a negative impact. So now we're reading that 150/year is needed for break even vs plan of 144/year by mid decade pre-covid? It seems like the benefit of being a part of Airbus's supply chain and sharing its production line expertise is not showing itself.

Wouldn't 10/mo and 4/mo be 168/year? Or, are there two months per year when nothing is produced?

That's what I missed, bad math before the coffee kicked in...

So, some scope to be cash positive somewhere around mid decade, maybe pushed out a bit due to CV19?

To get to that scale requires much more in sales.

There is some surge capacity too. But not enough.

I wonder if Easyjet has kicked the A220 tires?

Lightsaber

Jetport wrote:

Skywatcher wrote:

Jetport wrote:

I think the A220 has a long way to go to get to cash flow positive on the "decreasing unit costs curve". A220 is going from 4 to 5/month late this year. Even at 5, across 2 FAL's this thing is likely hemorrhaging cash, especially on Delta and JetBlue orders. As someone mentioned earlier, having 2 FAL's for production this low is kind of crazy. Having 2 FAL's is kind of crazy in most situations, but for a low production narrow body it is bat guano crazy. Unless the long term plan is to move all production to Mobile with much lower labor costs and none of the Quebec political drama.

I would agree with you if the state of Alabama ponies up the $billion+ needed to invest in a move.
Also-who said wages are lower in Alabama at a 0.78 exchange rate to say nothing of the myriad other items that contribute to efficiency (or not)? Quebec has the lowest energy costs in North America for example.

You are correct about energy costs in Quebec, and that is about the only low cost advantage Quebec has. Canada went from being significantly cheaper to significantly more expensive for making automobiles over the past 20 years or so vs. the US. Canadian manufacturing now has a cost problem, even with the advantageous exchange rate. Labor in SC is cheaper than Canada and cheaper than Washington State.

Where do you get your data from to make such a sweeping statement? I did some quick research and found that the avg. hourly wage in the southern USA is $22.71 US$/hr. (U.S. dept. of labor).
In Canada the average for the whole country is $27.30/hr. Cdn. or $21.29/hr US$. at current exchange rates (stats Canada). Quebec is likely lower than the Canadian average.

The real difference is that US employers have to pay healthcare for their employees which is not the case in Canada. American payroll benefits costs are far higher than in Canada/Quebec.

Your statement simply is not true.

If Southwest orders the A220-300 to replace their 737-700 fleet it's going to be a dark day in Seattle. The day will arrive when SW doesn't use 737's exclusively, is that day soon ? Airlines flying the A220 love it and so do passengers, it can fly 3,000 miles serving all the continental 48 states. Boeing is going to have to make quite a deal for SW not to order the A220, a 737 Max 7 just doesn't sound exciting. The world awaits SW decision which will sent shockwaves whichever way they decide.

The A220 is in an interesting market segment imo. People are right to ask is Airbus really interested in pushing the A220 over an A320? That is why I doubt we will ever see a -500. Right now the A320 and -300 are enough apart they can sell both. I suspect Airbus may use the A220 as an entry point to sell more A320s. I think the major issue is pilot commonality. Isnt the big sell that a pilot can fly an A318-321? If they come in and sell the A220s they lose a value add for airlines. The -500 would be a major flaw in that sales plan. And the A220 will never replace an A321. The A220 has a ceiling the A320 line doesnt.

Elementalism wrote:

The A220 is in an interesting market segment imo. People are right to ask is Airbus really interested in pushing the A220 over an A320? That is why I doubt we will ever see a -500. Right now the A320 and -300 are enough apart they can sell both. I suspect Airbus may use the A220 as an entry point to sell more A320s. I think the major issue is pilot commonality. Isnt the big sell that a pilot can fly an A318-321? If they come in and sell the A220s they lose a value add for airlines. The -500 would be a major flaw in that sales plan. And the A220 will never replace an A321. The A220 has a ceiling the A320 line doesnt.

A A320, or hypothetical A225 sale is still an Airbus sale. The argument about commonality goes both ways, what if a operator already has A221's and A223's in their fleet. The economics of a potential A225 are compelling. If anything, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a small stretch (A322) in future of the A320 family making a nice spot for a A225. A321's dominant sales in the family, besides, they sell so many 320's, I don't think they would care if the sale went to a A225.

9252fly wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

The A220 is in an interesting market segment imo. People are right to ask is Airbus really interested in pushing the A220 over an A320? That is why I doubt we will ever see a -500. Right now the A320 and -300 are enough apart they can sell both. I suspect Airbus may use the A220 as an entry point to sell more A320s. I think the major issue is pilot commonality. Isnt the big sell that a pilot can fly an A318-321? If they come in and sell the A220s they lose a value add for airlines. The -500 would be a major flaw in that sales plan. And the A220 will never replace an A321. The A220 has a ceiling the A320 line doesnt.

A A320, or hypothetical A225 sale is still an Airbus sale. The argument about commonality goes both ways, what if a operator already has A221's and A223's in their fleet. The economics of a potential A225 are compelling. If anything, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a small stretch (A322) in future of the A320 family making a nice spot for a A225. A321's dominant sales in the family, besides, they sell so many 320's, I don't think they would care if the sale went to a A225.

Right but at a lower margin. So what motivation would Airbus have to sell a product(A220) for less profits? Which presents better upward mobility when it comes to commonality for an airline? A series that tops out at 180 passengers or one that tops out at 220?

I think at this point the A220 slots in nicely for carriers like Delta to replace CRJ's, 717's and MD80's. But Delta has no plans I am aware of for the A220 to displace the A3xxx series in their fleet plans. Pilot commonality would imo have to factor into it.

Elementalism wrote:

Right but at a lower margin. So what motivation would Airbus have to sell a product(A220) for less profits? Which presents better upward mobility when it comes to commonality for an airline? A series that tops out at 180 passengers or one that tops out at 220?

With the current backlog the A320 might not be an option for some airlines. In that case I think Airbus is happy if they buy A220s instead of 737s.

lightsaber wrote:

A320B737NGCapt wrote:

Israir Airlines have expressed interest in changing over to the A220, replacing their A320s and ATRs. New of this has been picked up by Ch.aviation (behind paywall)and simpleflying. I gather they got their information from the airlines CEO when he had an interview with a Israeli newspaper. I could also see PG Bangkok Airways move over to the A220-100/300 if they survive the pandemic.

I'm glad you phrased as you did. We'll just say both Ch.aviation and SimpleFlying over-predict A220 sales. That said, the A220 has merit. While it is possible those two airlines could be added to the list, I will keep scepticism.

Due to the advanced subsystems, the maintenance reduction should be a nice inducement. Fuel burn the bonus.

Lightsaber

To keep sceptism is not a bad thing at all.
another source : https://www.scramble.nl/civil-news/new-israir-owner-plans-all-a220-fleet?fbclid=IwAR3supvtV84wWlFyML6fUJMJQYcmG156-r1fGf187ihs4s5fMh6ICLnaiFg

And than you also have the opinion of ALC`s CEO John Plueger about the future of the A220 when asked by Ron Eppstein

source : https://seekingalpha.com/article/4408112-air-lease-corporations-al-ceo-john-plueger-on-q4-2020-results-earnings-call-transcript

oldJoe wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

A320B737NGCapt wrote:

Israir Airlines have expressed interest in changing over to the A220, replacing their A320s and ATRs. New of this has been picked up by Ch.aviation (behind paywall)and simpleflying. I gather they got their information from the airlines CEO when he had an interview with a Israeli newspaper. I could also see PG Bangkok Airways move over to the A220-100/300 if they survive the pandemic.

I'm glad you phrased as you did. We'll just say both Ch.aviation and SimpleFlying over-predict A220 sales. That said, the A220 has merit. While it is possible those two airlines could be added to the list, I will keep scepticism.

Due to the advanced subsystems, the maintenance reduction should be a nice inducement. Fuel burn the bonus.

Lightsaber

To keep sceptism is not a bad thing at all.
another source : https://www.scramble.nl/civil-news/new-israir-owner-plans-all-a220-fleet?fbclid=IwAR3supvtV84wWlFyML6fUJMJQYcmG156-r1fGf187ihs4s5fMh6ICLnaiFg

And than you also have the opinion of ALC`s CEO John Plueger about the future of the A220 when asked by Ron Eppstein

source : https://seekingalpha.com/article/4408112-air-lease-corporations-al-ceo-john-plueger-on-q4-2020-results-earnings-call-transcript

I just copied the section for ease of discussion:

Ron Epstein

Got it, got it. And then maybe shifting to the other end of the spectrum, to the A220’s that you guys have, how does the market look for that? What are you hearing from customers on that platform and given you know the adjustment post pandemic, would you expect to see more demand for that size aircraft going forward?

John Plueger

Yes, no question Ron. We're seeing A319 operators that are looking at replacing their oldest A319’s. We’re looking at airlines who would have older 737-700’s; some airlines that might convert out of an E190 or E195. So we are seeing a pick-up in the last 12 months in interest in the 220. Our first deliveries are not going to be until the latter part of next year and then it starts out very modestly, but we are seeing a lot of activity across multiple continents and we've already signed agreement and those will be announced in due course when we and the airline feel that it’s appropriate timing.

And yes, a lot of airlines are looking at operating a 140 seat aircraft instead of 180 seat aircraft in certain market segments. I think Air France is a good example of that, where they will be replacing their A319’s and A320’s with 60 A220’s. We've seen Delta replace you know some of their oldest, you know their MD-88’s and MD-90’s and some of the oldest aircrafts acquired from Northwest through their merger with 220’s.

So look, it got off to a slow start because the number of air traffics they can produce in Montreal is limited. It’s only like maybe four or five aircrafts a month. Now they've got mobile production going, which is seating the U.S. carriers like Delta and JetBlue. But I think the momentum is definitely picking up, and the vast majority of our deliveries are in 2023 and 2024, so I think we're going to hit the right spot in terms of when we have available slots and what airlines we want. But it's really a replacement market more than a growth market. In fact, literally every campaign we have Ron is replacing planes that are hitting 20 to 25 years of age.

They have Some signed deals which will be announced in due time and the market is mainly driven by replacements.

TruJet from India plans to order 104 jets, 54x of the A220 family and 54x E190E2. Let us take it with a grain of salt, but...the investment company Interupts Inc is around 10 billion $ strong They have announce to spend around 9 billion $ in different airlines globally in next years. They have had tried to bid for Air India but did not get it, the money blocked for the AirIndia project shall be now used for TruJet. (1.9 billion $) So who knows.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/exclusive-heres-a-peek-at-nri-entrepreneur-laxmi-prasads-1-9-billion-plan-for-trujet-6730191.html/amp
https://www.aeroin.net/empresa-indiana-pode-ser-1-voar-jatos-embraer-e2-e-airbus-a220/
And the story regarding the Air India bid.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/laxmi-prasad-the-nri-entrepreneur-with-a-9-billion-cheque-some-of-it-is-for-air-india-6231061.html

According news, 2x A220 will go till end of next month to Nigerian IbomAir.
https://twitter.com/3bood021/status/1379817920583307266/photo/1
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/102223-nigerias-ibom-air-to-add-a220s-for-intl-growth
Likely two of the 6x GTLK A220-300, now stored in Belgium.
Three of them were already leased to Green Africa Airlines (shall receive the certificate to start soon), the 3x other were planned to be leased to Air Madagascar, before the Airline got in trouble. So likely two of these three others?

T4thH wrote:

TruJet from India plans to order 104 jets, 54x of the A220 family and 54x E190E2. Let us take it with a grain of salt, but...the investment company Interupts Inc is around 10 billion $ strong They have announce to spend around 9 billion $ in different airlines globally in next years. They have had tried to bid for Air India but did not get it, the money blocked for the AirIndia project shall be now used for TruJet. (1.9 billion $) So who knows.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/exclusive-heres-a-peek-at-nri-entrepreneur-laxmi-prasads-1-9-billion-plan-for-trujet-6730191.html/amp
https://www.aeroin.net/empresa-indiana-pode-ser-1-voar-jatos-embraer-e2-e-airbus-a220/
And the story regarding the Air India bid.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/laxmi-prasad-the-nri-entrepreneur-with-a-9-billion-cheque-some-of-it-is-for-air-india-6231061.html

According news, 2x A220 will go till end of next month to Nigerian IbomAir.
https://twitter.com/3bood021/status/1379817920583307266/photo/1
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/102223-nigerias-ibom-air-to-add-a220s-for-intl-growth
Likely two of the 6x GTLK A220-300, now stored in Belgium.
Three of them were already leased to Green Africa Airlines (shall receive the certificate to start soon), the 3x other were planned to be leased to Air Madagascar, before the Airline got in trouble. So likely two of these three others?

Trujet sounds... ambitious. Going to 3 aircraft types is risky... I'd like to see more of a plan.

I am happy some of the leasing company A220s will find homes.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

T4thH wrote:

TruJet from India plans to order 104 jets, 54x of the A220 family and 54x E190E2. Let us take it with a grain of salt, but...the investment company Interupts Inc is around 10 billion $ strong They have announce to spend around 9 billion $ in different airlines globally in next years. They have had tried to bid for Air India but did not get it, the money blocked for the AirIndia project shall be now used for TruJet. (1.9 billion $) So who knows.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/exclusive-heres-a-peek-at-nri-entrepreneur-laxmi-prasads-1-9-billion-plan-for-trujet-6730191.html/amp
https://www.aeroin.net/empresa-indiana-pode-ser-1-voar-jatos-embraer-e2-e-airbus-a220/
And the story regarding the Air India bid.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/laxmi-prasad-the-nri-entrepreneur-with-a-9-billion-cheque-some-of-it-is-for-air-india-6231061.html

According news, 2x A220 will go till end of next month to Nigerian IbomAir.
https://twitter.com/3bood021/status/1379817920583307266/photo/1
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/102223-nigerias-ibom-air-to-add-a220s-for-intl-growth
Likely two of the 6x GTLK A220-300, now stored in Belgium.
Three of them were already leased to Green Africa Airlines (shall receive the certificate to start soon), the 3x other were planned to be leased to Air Madagascar, before the Airline got in trouble. So likely two of these three others?

Trujet sounds... ambitious. Going to 3 aircraft types is risky... I'd like to see more of a plan.

I am happy some of the leasing company A220s will find homes.

Lightsaber

TruJet has a contract to operate a few routes to small airports under the Indian Government's 'Regional Connectivity Scheme', for which it needs to maintain their fleet of leased ATR72s. Is it technically possible to operate A220s out of airstrips that were meant for ATR72- sized aircraft?

If so, TruJet could replace their ATR fleet with the A220

trinidadeG wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

T4thH wrote:

TruJet from India plans to order 104 jets, 54x of the A220 family and 54x E190E2. Let us take it with a grain of salt, but...the investment company Interupts Inc is around 10 billion $ strong They have announce to spend around 9 billion $ in different airlines globally in next years. They have had tried to bid for Air India but did not get it, the money blocked for the AirIndia project shall be now used for TruJet. (1.9 billion $) So who knows.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/exclusive-heres-a-peek-at-nri-entrepreneur-laxmi-prasads-1-9-billion-plan-for-trujet-6730191.html/amp
https://www.aeroin.net/empresa-indiana-pode-ser-1-voar-jatos-embraer-e2-e-airbus-a220/
And the story regarding the Air India bid.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/laxmi-prasad-the-nri-entrepreneur-with-a-9-billion-cheque-some-of-it-is-for-air-india-6231061.html

According news, 2x A220 will go till end of next month to Nigerian IbomAir.
https://twitter.com/3bood021/status/1379817920583307266/photo/1
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/102223-nigerias-ibom-air-to-add-a220s-for-intl-growth
Likely two of the 6x GTLK A220-300, now stored in Belgium.
Three of them were already leased to Green Africa Airlines (shall receive the certificate to start soon), the 3x other were planned to be leased to Air Madagascar, before the Airline got in trouble. So likely two of these three others?

Trujet sounds... ambitious. Going to 3 aircraft types is risky... I'd like to see more of a plan.

I am happy some of the leasing company A220s will find homes.

Lightsaber

TruJet has a contract to operate a few routes to small airports under the Indian Government's 'Regional Connectivity Scheme', for which it needs to maintain their fleet of leased ATR72s. Is it technically possible to operate A220s out of airstrips that were meant for ATR72- sized aircraft?

If so, TruJet could replace their ATR fleet with the A220

The CEO off the Interupts Inc seems to be more interested to get the third big local/regional player next to IndiGo and SpiceJet.
(And to be a bad guy, none of the big Indian Airlines was really interested in the UDAN program and routes. They have some Q400 (as SpiceJet) and ATR (IndiGo) to grab some additional slots at the main airports in India).
The UDAN program is till now a fail. They will keep the ATR but most likely, they will not fly on the UDAN routes with E190E2 or A220. With UDAN, TrueJet can get some slots at the totally full main airports in India. Without UDAN routes....

Please do not post links to competing sites.

Lightsaber

A220 got 20 orders this month
https://twitter.com/airbus/status/13801 ... 20064?s=21

Opus99 wrote:

A220 got 20 orders this month
https://twitter.com/airbus/status/13801 ... 20064?s=21

Oh, that creates more questions than answers... as in who? When? We know A223...

I'm happy, but who to be happy for?
I wish I had more insight into A220 leases than is possible.



Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

A220 got 20 orders this month
https://twitter.com/airbus/status/13801 ... 20064?s=21

Oh, that creates more questions than answers... as in who? When? We know A223...

I'm happy, but who to be happy for?
I wish I had more insight into A220 leases than is possible.



Lightsaber

Unfortunately it’s unidentified

Opus99 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

A220 got 20 orders this month
https://twitter.com/airbus/status/13801 ... 20064?s=21

Oh, that creates more questions than answers... as in who? When? We know A223...

I'm happy, but who to be happy for?
I wish I had more insight into A220 leases than is possible.



Lightsaber

Unfortunately it’s unidentified

But by luck, we are allowed to guess.

IsrAir....no, they only want to have 7.
Burkina....no only 3.
Green Africa Airlines....They will proudly present it immediatily. so no. And the MOU is about 50.
Ethiopian airlines...possible. They have shown interest. Still I do no belive, it is them.
Quantas...to early, and they have to announce as they were on the stock exchange. This we will see in 2022/2023.
China...too early, the A220 has no certtification in China till now.
Other new airlines, like Wallis and Fortuna Airlines e.g. are either interested in A220-100 or mix of A220-100 and -300, but not in numbers of 20.
TruJet interested in 54x A220 jets.
Additional orders by already customers like AirFrance, LH group, Delta, Blue, Moxy, AirCanada e.g.....no.
Korean Air....there is a pending option, but they have asked for the A220-500. Who knows.
Lessor...who knows. But of most of them we would have already seen an announcement.

My bet is Air Niugini from New Guinea. They were former interested in around 20x A220 or E190E2 family members, especially they were interested in the PW1500G/1900G family and interested to build up a maintenace for them for the pacific area. Yes, this will fit.

T4thH wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Oh, that creates more questions than answers... as in who? When? We know A223...

I'm happy, but who to be happy for?
I wish I had more insight into A220 leases than is possible.



Lightsaber

Unfortunately it’s unidentified

But by luck, we are allowed to guess.

IsrAir....no, they only want to have 7.
Burkina....no only 3.
Green Africa Airlines....They will proudly present it immediatily. so no. And the MOU is about 50.
Ethiopian airlines...possible. They have shown interest. Still I do no belive, it is them.
Quantas...to early, and they have to announce as they were on the stock exchange. This we will see in 2022/2023.
China...too early, the A220 has no certtification in China till now.
Other new airlines, like Wallis and Fortuna Airlines e.g. are either interested in A220-100 or mix of A220-100 and -300, but not in numbers of 20.
TruJet interested in 54x A220 jets.
Additional orders by already customers like AirFrance, LH group, Delta, Blue, Moxy, AirCanada e.g.....no.
Korean Air....there is a pending option, but they have asked for the A220-500. Who knows.
Lessor...who knows. But of most of them we would have already seen an announcement.

My bet is Air Niugini from New Guinea. They were former interested in around 20x A220 or E190E2 family members, especially they were interested in the PW1500G/1900G family and interested to build up a maintenace for them for the pacific area. Yes, this will fit.

One interesting point I was not aware of; the A220 has no certification in China. Is it known when the certification will be given for the A220?

T4thH wrote:

Other new airlines, like Wallis and Fortuna Airlines e.g. are either interested in A220-100 or mix of A220-100 and -300, but not in numbers of 20.

Wallis and Futuna
This airline is called FlyCoralWay

nicode wrote:

T4thH wrote:

Other new airlines, like Wallis and Fortuna Airlines e.g. are either interested in A220-100 or mix of A220-100 and -300, but not in numbers of 20.

Wallis and Futuna
This airline is called FlyCoralWay

Thank you for the update. I have missed, that the Wallis and Futuna Aviation team has recently decided for the name FlyCoral way.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Airline-Company/WF-Aviation-892453231112668/

Perhaps once I will make a Pacific holiday with some island hopping. It will be a nice opportunity.

JonesNL wrote:

One interesting point I was not aware of; the A220 has no certification in China. Is it known when the certification will be given for the A220?

If I remember correctly, it is started/everything prepared? but will or can? only be finalized, when first customer from China has performed a firmed or first plane will be delivered?
There was something like this...please note, these are a little bit older news and I have never seen any news regarding certification completed for A220 and China.
So perhaps I am wrong. If I remember correctly, it is the same for Russia.
They can only get the certificate, when there is an order/delivery (as Redwing had cancelled, it was not finalized)?

Opus99 wrote:

A220 got 20 orders this month
https://twitter.com/airbus/status/13801 ... 20064?s=21

Kenya Airways was a potential customer. 20 A220 would replace the whole narrow-body fleet.

lightsaber wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

A220 got 20 orders this month
https://twitter.com/airbus/status/13801 ... 20064?s=21

Oh, that creates more questions than answers... as in who? When? We know A223...

I'm happy, but who to be happy for?
I wish I had more insight into A220 leases than is possible.



Lightsaber

I'm going to venture to guess it's going to be DL and it'll be announced at their quarterly call this week. This would offset the 717s that will be out the door soon.

I don't want to take the position that it's impossible this is a DL order, but it strikes me as odd that they would order more so quickly after major A220 deferments.

viewtopic.php?t=1457783

changes from 12/31/19 to 12/31/20:

A220-100, pushed 3 from 2020 into 2021; pushed 4 from 2020 into 2022

A220-300, cut 2021 from 12 to 5; cut 2022 from 18 to 7; what had been 14 for later than 2022 is now 33

I suppose one could argue that needing to order more is the cost for obtaining such a large-scale deferment.

T4thH wrote:

Likely two of the 6x GTLK A220-300, now stored in Belgium.
Three of them were already leased to Green Africa Airlines (shall receive the certificate to start soon), the 3x other were planned to be leased to Air Madagascar, before the Airline got in trouble. So likely two of these three others?

Air Manas is taking from the six. According to this story, training is underway through Lufthansa and Airbus Canada with delieries from GTLK to occur shortly. Link shows one in livery and with an interior picture:
http://www.ato.ru/content/kirgizskaya-a ... irbus-a220
A comment posted below the latest A220 update on https://www.lesailesduquebec.com/bourdo ... e_vignette indicates 3 to Air Manas with 55072 registered as EX-22002

It looks as if the 20 undisclosed orders from end of March could be attributed to Breeze:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-04-26/

Breeze would be the second A220 operator behind Delta.

Airbus now have an interactive ACJ TwoTwenty Configurator that enables prospective customers to more easily articulate and visualize their desired cabin layouts which should greatly help in sales campaigns of the VIP version.....

https://www.acj.airbus.com/

Azimuth Airlines from Russia wants 6 A220-300. Order or Lease is unknown !?

source in German : https://www.aerotelegraph.com/superjet-airline-holt-sich-airbus-a220

oldJoe wrote:

Azimuth Airlines from Russia wants 6 A220-300. Order or Lease is unknown !?

source in German : https://www.aerotelegraph.com/superjet-airline-holt-sich-airbus-a220

This story also circulated in Sept 2019. Use Google Translate for this rusaviainsider story:
http://www.rusaviainsider.com/russias-s ... -a220-300/

We heard from an Airbus exec that Airbus Canada continues to lose money until 2025 or 2026.

Do you think it means all future A220 deals will have to be profitable?
If it is the case then do you think it is a kind of hurdle to get more A220 orders?

VV wrote:

We heard from an Airbus exec that Airbus Canada continues to lose money until 2025 or 2026.

Do you think it means all future A220 deals will have to be profitable?
If it is the case then do you think it is a kind of hurdle to get more A220 orders?

I don't think near future deals can be profitable, but they eventually have to be or Airbus is just burning cash in perpetuity. My guess is that is why we have seen few recent order for A220's, Airbus it trying to sell them at a profit. Which is a very tough sell against the A320/A319 and 737-7.

Airbus is currently selling A220's at a loss, essentially subsidizing the airlines buying them. On the other hand, Airbus is making very good profits on the A320NEO. This is why the cost reduction program Airbus has going for the A220 is everything and will determine if this program survives. If a smaller aircraft like the A220 costs more to make than the next larger competing aircraft, it will need some crazy good operating economics to survive long term. And no, having a CASM advantage in fuel burn over the A320/A319 and 737-7 are not enough to make this program successful. Commonality savings and extra revenue potential if you already have A32X or 737 family aircraft likely are worth more than the CASM fuel burn advantage of the A220-300. The A220-300 needs to be cheaper to make and buy than the A320/A319 and 737-7. We don't know for sure what Airbus is selling the A220-300 for, but we can be very confident from statements directly from Airbus that it costs significantly more to manufacture than the A320/A319 and 737-7. I am honestly surprised Airbus is even trying to sell A220-300's, since they are probably cannibalizing A319/A320 sales by doing so. So with every A220-300 sale, Airbus not only loses money on the sale, they also lose the potential profit from an A320/A319 sale. The only reason I can think of for Airbus pushing the A220 is that they are playing a very long game and plan to replace the A320/A319 eventually with the A220 series. Most for-profit companies wouldn't commit to burn cash for 5 or more additional years on a program that entered service almost 5 years ago like the A220 did. Airbus obviously has very patient capital, because if I was an owner I would demand to see a plan for long term ROI on their current loss leader, the A220. Especially when it is also cannibalizing profits on another very efficient low cost production line. The A220 program will need to make a lot of money in the late 2020's and 2030's to justify Airbus's current plans.