Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:10 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I errored (majorly) in summing up the costs for adding a new aircraft, so starting again:
Slide 9 goes into the costs for JetBlue (I believe I had a typo before)
http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

$95 to $125 million the first year for JetBlue
Then $130 to $185million in later years, or $225 to $310 million to add a new type.

Yet despite that, the airplane makes an estimated $4 to $5 million per aircraft per year (slide 7 of that link).

So once Jetblue goes to 60+ aircraft, their payback is < 18 months. (They have 80 on firm order).

So this is one reason I am excited about the mid-size orders. They are what I consider the minimum for a well managed airline (50+ aircraft) to order due to the costs of multiple types.

However, the A220 will save money vs. an A319NEO or -7MAX.

$95 to $125 million the first year for JetBlue
Then $130 to $185million in later years, or $225 to $310 million to add a new type.

Yet despite that, the airplane makes an estimated $4 to $5 million per aircraft per year (slide 7 of that link).

JetBlue could have chosen to go all A320NEO at the time (I'm sure larger aircraft were analyzed to simplify the fleet).
Spirit decided an order for 47 A319NEOs was the better option for it. (Although, those A319s can, in part, be upgauged at a later date).

So is it work changing for say only 15 aircraft? No.
But JetBlue had a model for 60 and there, at the low end in 18 months they are ahead. My math says 47 is worth defecting, but NK said otherwise.

This old blog post notes the high weight difference A319NEO to A220-300.
https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/airbus-a220-300/

My "back of the envelope math" says the A220-300 will save after purchase price $3 to $3.5 million per year over the A319NEO in variable costs. So taking the higher end that it would have added say $300 million to NK's costs, for 47 aircraft payback would be at $141 million per year. So within 30 months they would be ahead. Using a 17% MRR, break even in 3 years and well ahead and by year 10 there is a present value benefit equal to the cost of inducting the new fleet. Yet with more airlines adopting the A220, the cost to adopt should go down.

Doing more math, I come up with an estimate that a mere fleet of 25 is worth adopting a new type. If less are needed, buy A319NEO or skip the size category (both are viable options).

As to the A220-500, I am a big fan, but I do not think we'll hear about it for a few years.

Lightsaber


But what about all those who said "fleet standardization" over and over til it hurt? Delta was SO wrong to have all those fleets and Southwest was SO correct. I, personally, believe that the 737-7 is a huge mistake for Southwest. It's just that their other advantages cover it up.

The reality is that after deregulation, the domestic 747s went by the wayside. It took 20 more years for the tri jets to be pushed aside. Then the 767 domestic was gone. Now, we're talking about A321 and 73M as the large domestic US airplanes. The cotinual downsizing has been readily apparent. There is a market for the A220. They're easier to fill, and you can still move them around from market to market as needed, increasing or decreasing frequencies as necessary. And you can use them to fill up all the landing slots at high revenue slot constrained airports.
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 4:53 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
Jetport wrote:
Alright, one more try and then I give up, airlines are in business to make money, not to agitate/upset mainline pilots and A220 fans. We will use Delta as an example. If the fully loaded cost per trip for Delta's 109 seat A220-100 was close to, or even in the same ballpark as the 76 seat contracted E175/CRJ900 Delta would be ordering A220-100's as fast as possible and ending contracts for outsourced E175/CRJ900 flying as fast as possible. The fact that Delta has only 4 additional A220-100's on order (old orders) and uses their full scope clause limit of 76 seaters proves beyond any doubt that the A220-100 has a much higher fully loaded cost per trip than the E175/CRJ900. If the A220-100 (or the E190E2) had trip costs even close to the E175/CRJ900, the US big 3 would be buying them like crazy and phasing out the E175/CRJ900. All they would need to do is sell a few more seats above 76 and the A220-100/E190E2 would make more financial sense than the E175/CRJ900. The fact the US big 3 have only Delta's 4 A220-100/E190E2 on order and maxed out fleets of 76 seaters allowed by scope clauses definitively proves the A220-100/E190E2 have much higher per trip costs than the 76 seat jets. This argument has been absurd from the start.


You make repeated references to trip cost but I think you mean CASM. If carriers wanted to minimize trip costs they would fly CR2s everywhere they had the range. There's nothing (jet) cheaper per trip. Striving for lower costs per seat moves carriers to mainline large narrowbodies. There's a DL investor presentation from ~4 years ago charting the step function down in costs per seat CR2>large RJ>small mainline narrowbody>medium mainline narrowbody>large narrowbody. If you can both fill the seats at decent fares and meet demands for frequency (a key component of yield), then large narrowbody is the way to go. Think 15x 757 ATL-MCO. (If I could find that presentation quickly I would link it.)

Your point comparing 2-class RJs to A220-100s is valid on a CASM basis. DL has ordered a lot of planes since the first order for CS100s - and hasn't ordered any more of that type - there was a conversion of A220-100s to -300s, and then small incremental orders for -300s. That confirms, where the rubber meets the runway, that DL wants large RJs over A220-100s. That may tip when the large RJs wear out and DL needs to expand scope to make E2s compliant, but that's not happening right away.


No, I meant trip costs. Several posters I was responding to insisted that the A220-100 and even the A220-300 had similar trip costs to the E175/CRJ900, which is as I said, absurd.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:30 am

I see a lot of optimism on the fate of A220-100 and I admire people with such optimism.
For them it is always about the prospect of sales in the future.

I have a little bit different way of looking into it. Let's make the following observations.

First, the CS100 (now A220-100) was launched in 2008 or about thirteen years ago.
Second, during all this time about 90 CS100 (A220-100) garnered 90 orders, of which some are very shaky.
in other words there have been on average about 7 orders per year.

It is very difficult to say that an aircraft that was launched thirteen years ago is "popular" if the order intake rate is so low.

I can understand that people hope there will be radical changes in the way airline fulfill the demand for air transport, but very honestly I do not think the air transport landscape would change very quickly. It always takes some time before a change is palpable.

So, if there is any radical change on the demand for A220-100, it would not happen fortnight. It also means when it happens, if it happens, it would be years from now and the A220-100 would already be outdated.

I am really sorry, but I do not believe the A220-100 will suddenly become popular. I would even say that Delta made a mistake ordering so many of them. The A220-100 will get outpaced by the traffic growth (when it comes back) very quickly and Delta will have to use bigger aircraft.

In my opinion, Airbus Canada should pause the production of the A220-100 as soon as the next ten to fifteen A220-100 are delivered.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:35 am

tphuang wrote:
....
Delta definitely favored a220 during covid time.


Please do not expect "covid time" will last forever.

It is a very exceptional situation.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:20 am

Jetport wrote:
...
No, I meant trip costs. Several posters I was responding to insisted that the A220-100 and even the A220-300 had similar trip costs to the E175/CRJ900, which is as I said, absurd.


You are lucky no one compared the trip cost of the DC3 against that of the A220.
 
Strato2
Posts: 626
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:30 am

VV wrote:
In my opinion, Airbus Canada should pause the production of the A220-100 as soon as the next ten to fifteen A220-100 are delivered.


There are even now 40 undelivered A220-100's what do you think should be done with the 25-30 aircraft that would be left undelivered and Airbus would have to compensate the customer for a breach of contract. Mind you your fixation with the A221 is strange. It is part of the family and comes from the same line as A223 so there is very little cost to Airbus to keep it on offer. It does not make any sense to stop A221.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:45 am

Strato2 wrote:
VV wrote:
In my opinion, Airbus Canada should pause the production of the A220-100 as soon as the next ten to fifteen A220-100 are delivered.


There are even now 40 undelivered A220-100's what do you think should be done with the 25-30 aircraft that would be left undelivered and Airbus would have to compensate the customer for a breach of contract. Mind you your fixation with the A221 is strange. It is part of the family and comes from the same line as A223 so there is very little cost to Airbus to keep it on offer. It does not make any sense to stop A221.


Some of the orders, like the one from Odyssey are a little bit shaky.

So there might be any need to do anything, but to let those "orders" lingering in the order book forever until the airlines cancel them.

Negotiate the conversion of A220-100 to A220-300 is also a possibility.
Perhaps Air Vanuatu are willing to convert the 2 orders for A220-100 to A220-300 since they are already operating two of them.

The undisclosed customer might well accept to become known and convert the A220-100 to A220-300 too.

As for the two leasing companies, Nordic Aviation Capital and LCI, they would certainly be willing to convert their A220-100 to A220-300 if there are airlines that are happy to rent A220-300 instead of A220-100.
In addition, Airbus Canada can earn more revenue by negotiating the conversion to the bigger and more expensive model.

In the meantime they can pause the production of the A220-100.

So yes, those remaining A220-100 in the order book might not be so firm after all.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 1:45 pm

VV wrote:
I see a lot of optimism on the fate of A220-100 and I admire people with such optimism.
For them it is always about the prospect of sales in the future.

I have a little bit different way of looking into it. Let's make the following observations..


The observation that you are missing is that they both roll of the same production lines, and that the A220-100 is certified.

There is no on-cost to Airbus in continuing to offer the A220-100, any more than there is of Boeing offering the 737-7MAX or Airbus in offering the A330-800.
The production mechanism is there. Get an order? stick it in the production sequence.
Simples.....

How many will actually sell? Doesn't matter really

Rgds
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 22722
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 2:28 pm

astuteman wrote:
VV wrote:
I see a lot of optimism on the fate of A220-100 and I admire people with such optimism.
For them it is always about the prospect of sales in the future.

I have a little bit different way of looking into it. Let's make the following observations..


The observation that you are missing is that they both roll of the same production lines, and that the A220-100 is certified.

There is no on-cost to Airbus in continuing to offer the A220-100, any more than there is of Boeing offering the 737-7MAX or Airbus in offering the A330-800.
The production mechanism is there. Get an order? stick it in the production sequence.
Simples.....

How many will actually sell? Doesn't matter really

Rgds

I'll further the optimism.

I see the Two Twenty engineering the centerline tanks for both the A221 and A223. If any of the airlines I consider likely to start long thin service buy it, sales:
JetBlue
IAG
LH
QR

As astuteman noted, there is no cost. Depending on the range, I might add TK or ET to the list.

Lightsaber

Late edit, depending on RJ negotiations, I could also see AA order and DL top off
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 2:48 pm

astuteman wrote:
VV wrote:
I see a lot of optimism on the fate of A220-100 and I admire people with such optimism.
For them it is always about the prospect of sales in the future.

I have a little bit different way of looking into it. Let's make the following observations..


The observation that you are missing is that they both roll of the same production lines, and that the A220-100 is certified.

There is no on-cost to Airbus in continuing to offer the A220-100, any more than there is of Boeing offering the 737-7MAX or Airbus in offering the A330-800.
The production mechanism is there. Get an order? stick it in the production sequence.
Simples.....

How many will actually sell? Doesn't matter really

Rgds


That is exactly the same argument that is repeated again and again and yet it is still there.

However when someone advances the argument about the revenue (pricing) it is canned, so I would not repeat it again.

By the way, I checked the number of A220-100 orders of August 2020 and June 2021.
It looks like the total orders of this very popular aircraft went down from 94 to 90.
Gulfair indeed cancelled its order for 10 A220-100 and then there were six orders for the A220-100 ACJ.
 
oldJoe
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:04 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 3:56 pm

VV wrote :
Perhaps Air Vanuatu are willing to convert the 2 orders for A220-100 to A220-300 since they are already operating two of them.


:?: :?: :?: Check O&D from Airbus June 2021 and you can see NO A220 for Air Vanuatu delivered yet. On top of that only one is even build.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:09 pm

oldJoe wrote:
VV wrote :
Perhaps Air Vanuatu are willing to convert the 2 orders for A220-100 to A220-300 since they are already operating two of them.


:?: :?: :?: Check O&D from Airbus June 2021 and you can see NO A220 for Air Vanuatu delivered yet. On top of that only one is even build.



Oops! My bad!
Indeed, Air Vanuatu has not taken any delivery until the end of June.

I have a summary file that follows the evolution of A220 orders and deliveries (exclusively A220) month by month based on the O&D spreadsheet.
Air Vanuatu is just below Air Tanzania in that file. I took Air Tanzania's A220-300 for Air Vanuatu.
Sorry for that.

Wait! Is Air Vanuatu going to take delivery of those aircraft? I think they are not in a very good financial situation these days.

I Googled Air Vanuatu and found the following.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... deal-probe
The Government of Vanuatu has agreed to provide an additional VUV200 million vatus (USD1.8 million) to Air Vanuatu (NF, Port Vila) to help the state-owned carrier meet its obligations to Airbus (AIB, Toulouse Blagnac) for the planned purchase of four A220s. However, the government also wants to probe the order and trim it down to two units.

Wait! What?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 8:41 pm

VV wrote:
astuteman wrote:
VV wrote:
I see a lot of optimism on the fate of A220-100 and I admire people with such optimism.
For them it is always about the prospect of sales in the future.

I have a little bit different way of looking into it. Let's make the following observations..


The observation that you are missing is that they both roll of the same production lines, and that the A220-100 is certified.

There is no on-cost to Airbus in continuing to offer the A220-100, any more than there is of Boeing offering the 737-7MAX or Airbus in offering the A330-800.
The production mechanism is there. Get an order? stick it in the production sequence.
Simples.....

How many will actually sell? Doesn't matter really

Rgds


That is exactly the same argument that is repeated again and again and yet it is still there..


And what, exactly? It's a reality.
I have no issue that an A220-300 generates greater revenue, but whilst the lines are running below capacity, I'm not sure that matters.
Should Boeing cancel the 787-9 because it generates less revenue than the 787-10?
Dumb argument in my view

Rgds
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 9:22 pm

astuteman wrote:
VV wrote:
astuteman wrote:

The observation that you are missing is that they both roll of the same production lines, and that the A220-100 is certified.

There is no on-cost to Airbus in continuing to offer the A220-100, any more than there is of Boeing offering the 737-7MAX or Airbus in offering the A330-800.
The production mechanism is there. Get an order? stick it in the production sequence.
Simples.....

How many will actually sell? Doesn't matter really

Rgds


That is exactly the same argument that is repeated again and again and yet it is still there..


And what, exactly? It's a reality.
I have no issue that an A220-300 generates greater revenue, but whilst the lines are running below capacity, I'm not sure that matters.
Should Boeing cancel the 787-9 because it generates less revenue than the 787-10?
Dumb argument in my view

Rgds



I understand very well that the production cost of A220-100 is similar to that of the A220-300. That's it the point.
The point is that the A220-100 is sold millions of US dollars lower than the A220-300.
We are not talking about the revenue of the operator here. We are talking about the revenue of Airbus Canada.


Sorry moderators, I need to repeat this again because some still misinterpret the argument.

Airbus Canada is still losing money until 2025 or 2026. They are still bleeding cash, but they need to finance themselves.
Reducing or pausing the production the A220-100 would allow to use the production system to deliver the most popular and the most expensive aircraft that is the A220-300.

It is the best way to achieve profitability faster.

They have to get to profitability sooner.
 
oldJoe
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:04 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 10:52 pm

VV wrote:
oldJoe wrote:
VV wrote :
Perhaps Air Vanuatu are willing to convert the 2 orders for A220-100 to A220-300 since they are already operating two of them.


:?: :?: :?: Check O&D from Airbus June 2021 and you can see NO A220 for Air Vanuatu delivered yet. On top of that only one is even build.



Oops! My bad!
Indeed, Air Vanuatu has not taken any delivery until the end of June.

I have a summary file that follows the evolution of A220 orders and deliveries (exclusively A220) month by month based on the O&D spreadsheet.
Air Vanuatu is just below Air Tanzania in that file. I took Air Tanzania's A220-300 for Air Vanuatu.
Sorry for that.

Wait! Is Air Vanuatu going to take delivery of those aircraft? I think they are not in a very good financial situation these days.

I Googled Air Vanuatu and found the following.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... deal-probe
The Government of Vanuatu has agreed to provide an additional VUV200 million vatus (USD1.8 million) to Air Vanuatu (NF, Port Vila) to help the state-owned carrier meet its obligations to Airbus (AIB, Toulouse Blagnac) for the planned purchase of four A220s. However, the government also wants to probe the order and trim it down to two units.

Wait! What?


Even if Air Vanautu were to cancel the two orders for the A220-100, it would not be a big deal because the ACJ will compensate for it !
As "astuteman" said that there are no additional costs, why the hell should Airbus not continue to offer this variant ? Every copy sold increases the trustworthiness of this aircraft to say at least.
And then we also have the ACJ version based on the A220-100. Does anyone really believe that Comlux is unbelievably real? I`m not !

https://www.acj.airbus.com/en/news-and-events/press-releases/2021/airbus-welcomes-first-acj-twotwenty-section-in-mirabel---canada.html

The first and best statemant of this one says :" and will be the exclusive outfitter for the first 15 aircraft." Yes 15 !!!
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 10:58 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Late edit, depending on RJ negotiations, I could also see AA order and DL top off


Honest question - what role does the A220 play in the contract - this thread has left me a bit confused. Is it contractual that more A220s = more 76-seaters or more negotiating room?
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:11 pm

Jbs : FWIW, UA had such provision for "New Small Narrowbody Aircraft" where x number of CS100 (also the E2) would allows x number of additional 76 seaters.

That's when Boeing offered B737-700 at $23M ea to UA, to cut off Bombardier from making a sale.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:38 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Jbs : FWIW, UA had such provision for "New Small Narrowbody Aircraft" where x number of CS100 (also the E2) would allows x number of additional 76 seaters.

That's when Boeing offered B737-700 at $23M ea to UA, to cut off Bombardier from making a sale.


Sorry I meant DL only; I recall this about UA, but thank you for the response! It does surprise me UA can't find a use for the A220/E2 to increase 76-seaters, especially now that we are seeing their significant drawdown of the single-class 50-seaters.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 22722
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:49 am

VV wrote:
astuteman wrote:
VV wrote:

That is exactly the same argument that is repeated again and again and yet it is still there..


And what, exactly? It's a reality.
I have no issue that an A220-300 generates greater revenue, but whilst the lines are running below capacity, I'm not sure that matters.
Should Boeing cancel the 787-9 because it generates less revenue than the 787-10?
Dumb argument in my view

Rgds



I understand very well that the production cost of A220-100 is similar to that of the A220-300. That's it the point.
The point is that the A220-100 is sold millions of US dollars lower than the A220-300.
We are not talking about the revenue of the operator here. We are talking about the revenue of Airbus Canada.


Sorry moderators, I need to repeat this again because some still misinterpret the argument.

Airbus Canada is still losing money until 2025 or 2026. They are still bleeding cash, but they need to finance themselves.
Reducing or pausing the production the A220-100 would allow to use the production system to deliver the most popular and the most expensive aircraft that is the A220-300.

It is the best way to achieve profitability faster.

They have to get to profitability sooner.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ir ... 266090.amp
This year Spirit said it would not make a profit on the A220 programme until annual production rates were about 100, which would mean a monthly rate of eight or nine.

To make a profit for vendors (in this case Spirit) or for Airbus requires more volume.
The A220-100 will be produced for the very profitable Two Twenty business jet. I'm not seeing the costs savings you are claiming in reducing. I'm quite certain it will remain on offer. I expect more A220-100 orders. If nothing else, offering the A220-100 gets the A220 into more sales campaigns and that is a good thing. It means more opportunities to win. The buyer might decide to go all A220-300, but they might have not reached out to the A220 without the A220-100.

Airbus needs volume. The cockpit, avionics, engines (except for a dongle), wing, and subsystems do not change with the A220-100 to A220-300. They have good commonality.
For LCY, in particular IAG, Airbus must offer the A220-100. In particular with the Two Twenty engineering ACTs for range further into the USA than the A318 could do with a stop in Ireland, in my opinion.
I could see, due to the way 76 scope is limited, negotiations that result in an A220-100 sale. Heck, if I recall correctly on how Delta 76 scope is written (I couldn't find a link), they will need more A220-100 to replace 717s to keep their current 76 regional fleet flying. Does anyone have a link? Since Delta has plenty of options, Airbus must provide.

I expect the pilot unions to negotiate and this will result in the A220-100 at AA and UA. When? Good question, I have no idea. Otherwise, they must cut 76 seaters if memory serves.

With the ACT, I expect much more demand for the A220-100. We can disagree. But unless there is so new information, were just going to talk past each other. Since Airbus is contractually committed to offer the Two Twenty, that size must be in production for a while until any options expire.

Lightsaber
 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 1:51 pm

lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:
astuteman wrote:

And what, exactly? It's a reality.
I have no issue that an A220-300 generates greater revenue, but whilst the lines are running below capacity, I'm not sure that matters.
Should Boeing cancel the 787-9 because it generates less revenue than the 787-10?
Dumb argument in my view

Rgds



I understand very well that the production cost of A220-100 is similar to that of the A220-300. That's it the point.
The point is that the A220-100 is sold millions of US dollars lower than the A220-300.
We are not talking about the revenue of the operator here. We are talking about the revenue of Airbus Canada.


Sorry moderators, I need to repeat this again because some still misinterpret the argument.

Airbus Canada is still losing money until 2025 or 2026. They are still bleeding cash, but they need to finance themselves.
Reducing or pausing the production the A220-100 would allow to use the production system to deliver the most popular and the most expensive aircraft that is the A220-300.

It is the best way to achieve profitability faster.

They have to get to profitability sooner.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ir ... 266090.amp
This year Spirit said it would not make a profit on the A220 programme until annual production rates were about 100, which would mean a monthly rate of eight or nine.

To make a profit for vendors (in this case Spirit) or for Airbus requires more volume.
The A220-100 will be produced for the very profitable Two Twenty business jet. I'm not seeing the costs savings you are claiming in reducing. I'm quite certain it will remain on offer. I expect more A220-100 orders. If nothing else, offering the A220-100 gets the A220 into more sales campaigns and that is a good thing. It means more opportunities to win. The buyer might decide to go all A220-300, but they might have not reached out to the A220 without the A220-100.

Airbus needs volume. The cockpit, avionics, engines (except for a dongle), wing, and subsystems do not change with the A220-100 to A220-300. They have good commonality.
For LCY, in particular IAG, Airbus must offer the A220-100. In particular with the Two Twenty engineering ACTs for range further into the USA than the A318 could do with a stop in Ireland, in my opinion.
I could see, due to the way 76 scope is limited, negotiations that result in an A220-100 sale. Heck, if I recall correctly on how Delta 76 scope is written (I couldn't find a link), they will need more A220-100 to replace 717s to keep their current 76 regional fleet flying. Does anyone have a link? Since Delta has plenty of options, Airbus must provide.

I expect the pilot unions to negotiate and this will result in the A220-100 at AA and UA. When? Good question, I have no idea. Otherwise, they must cut 76 seaters if memory serves.

With the ACT, I expect much more demand for the A220-100. We can disagree. But unless there is so new information, were just going to talk past each other. Since Airbus is contractually committed to offer the Two Twenty, that size must be in production for a while until any options expire.

Lightsaber


There's certainly no need to discontinue the A220-100. That would be daft.
I would not be surprised if it were to transpire that some of the momentum towards the A220-300 is driven by Airbus, maximising, as VV says, the revenue potential.
But then I'm pretty sure that every aircraft production line in existence will see that pressure too.

As you say, it's not just about individual revenue, but about the collective coverage of the fixed costs too.

Airbus definitely need to increase output.
I know some amongst us questioned why they didn't "win WN at any cost".
But I suspect that cost would have been greater than the gain to be made in increased volume. There will have been some valid reason.
Unlike some I'm not inclined to question the decision they made in full possession of the data, which we do not have.

What I suspect is going on is that Airbus are flowing through the changes to both the supply chain and the process that increase efficiency and lower the variable manufacturing costs.
I also suspect they are using an "LRIP" approach to this to ensure that they have got things the way they want them to be before they press the big green button.
That's the long game IMO, and with good reason

The best way to make the losses bigger than they are, rather than smaller, is to try and grow output by orders of magnitude whilst the process is still experiencing churn - ask the guys on the 787 line..... :) That's not a good look at all, and it is what I think explains Airbus's current actions on output vs pricing

Once they get to that "big green button" point, any A220-100 adds to the volume.

Rgds
 
9252fly
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:33 pm

If the road to profitability is volume, it then becomes a chicken, or egg scenario. Do they offer the A225 with the required investment, or not.
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:55 pm

lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:
astuteman wrote:

And what, exactly? It's a reality.
I have no issue that an A220-300 generates greater revenue, but whilst the lines are running below capacity, I'm not sure that matters.
Should Boeing cancel the 787-9 because it generates less revenue than the 787-10?
Dumb argument in my view

Rgds



I understand very well that the production cost of A220-100 is similar to that of the A220-300. That's it the point.
The point is that the A220-100 is sold millions of US dollars lower than the A220-300.
We are not talking about the revenue of the operator here. We are talking about the revenue of Airbus Canada.


Sorry moderators, I need to repeat this again because some still misinterpret the argument.

Airbus Canada is still losing money until 2025 or 2026. They are still bleeding cash, but they need to finance themselves.
Reducing or pausing the production the A220-100 would allow to use the production system to deliver the most popular and the most expensive aircraft that is the A220-300.

It is the best way to achieve profitability faster.

They have to get to profitability sooner.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ir ... 266090.amp
This year Spirit said it would not make a profit on the A220 programme until annual production rates were about 100, which would mean a monthly rate of eight or nine.

To make a profit for vendors (in this case Spirit) or for Airbus requires more volume.
The A220-100 will be produced for the very profitable Two Twenty business jet. I'm not seeing the costs savings you are claiming in reducing. I'm quite certain it will remain on offer. I expect more A220-100 orders. If nothing else, offering the A220-100 gets the A220 into more sales campaigns and that is a good thing. It means more opportunities to win. The buyer might decide to go all A220-300, but they might have not reached out to the A220 without the A220-100.

Airbus needs volume. The cockpit, avionics, engines (except for a dongle), wing, and subsystems do not change with the A220-100 to A220-300. They have good commonality.
For LCY, in particular IAG, Airbus must offer the A220-100. In particular with the Two Twenty engineering ACTs for range further into the USA than the A318 could do with a stop in Ireland, in my opinion.
I could see, due to the way 76 scope is limited, negotiations that result in an A220-100 sale. Heck, if I recall correctly on how Delta 76 scope is written (I couldn't find a link), they will need more A220-100 to replace 717s to keep their current 76 regional fleet flying. Does anyone have a link? Since Delta has plenty of options, Airbus must provide.

I expect the pilot unions to negotiate and this will result in the A220-100 at AA and UA. When? Good question, I have no idea. Otherwise, they must cut 76 seaters if memory serves.

With the ACT, I expect much more demand for the A220-100. We can disagree. But unless there is so new information, were just going to talk past each other. Since Airbus is contractually committed to offer the Two Twenty, that size must be in production for a while until any options expire.

Lightsaber


I would add that even Embraer is helping Airbus on gaining volume for avionics and flight controls parts. The A220 and Praetors share the same avionics and flight controls systems, with very minor differences.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:59 pm

9252fly wrote:
If the road to profitability is volume, it then becomes a chicken, or egg scenario. Do they offer the A225 with the required investment, or not.


At this time it is possible many airline executives are asking Airbus if the stretched A220-300 (often called the A220-500) will become available in the next five years.
Basically those executives can say that they are not even interested by the A220 unless the SIMPLE stretch of the A220-300 is committed.

A stretch with about 2,400 nm of range is largely enough for many airlines.

So yes, 9252fly, you are right the volume can be achieved quite easily if Airbus Canada commits to the stretched A220-300 (often called A220-500).

It might be a good idea to drop the A220-100 and develop the SIMPLE stretch of the A220-300 (A220-500) instead.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 22722
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:11 pm

Jungleneer wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:


I understand very well that the production cost of A220-100 is similar to that of the A220-300. That's it the point.
The point is that the A220-100 is sold millions of US dollars lower than the A220-300.
We are not talking about the revenue of the operator here. We are talking about the revenue of Airbus Canada.


Sorry moderators, I need to repeat this again because some still misinterpret the argument.

Airbus Canada is still losing money until 2025 or 2026. They are still bleeding cash, but they need to finance themselves.
Reducing or pausing the production the A220-100 would allow to use the production system to deliver the most popular and the most expensive aircraft that is the A220-300.

It is the best way to achieve profitability faster.

They have to get to profitability sooner.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ir ... 266090.amp
This year Spirit said it would not make a profit on the A220 programme until annual production rates were about 100, which would mean a monthly rate of eight or nine.

To make a profit for vendors (in this case Spirit) or for Airbus requires more volume.
The A220-100 will be produced for the very profitable Two Twenty business jet. I'm not seeing the costs savings you are claiming in reducing. I'm quite certain it will remain on offer. I expect more A220-100 orders. If nothing else, offering the A220-100 gets the A220 into more sales campaigns and that is a good thing. It means more opportunities to win. The buyer might decide to go all A220-300, but they might have not reached out to the A220 without the A220-100.

Airbus needs volume. The cockpit, avionics, engines (except for a dongle), wing, and subsystems do not change with the A220-100 to A220-300. They have good commonality.
For LCY, in particular IAG, Airbus must offer the A220-100. In particular with the Two Twenty engineering ACTs for range further into the USA than the A318 could do with a stop in Ireland, in my opinion.
I could see, due to the way 76 scope is limited, negotiations that result in an A220-100 sale. Heck, if I recall correctly on how Delta 76 scope is written (I couldn't find a link), they will need more A220-100 to replace 717s to keep their current 76 regional fleet flying. Does anyone have a link? Since Delta has plenty of options, Airbus must provide.

I expect the pilot unions to negotiate and this will result in the A220-100 at AA and UA. When? Good question, I have no idea. Otherwise, they must cut 76 seaters if memory serves.

With the ACT, I expect much more demand for the A220-100. We can disagree. But unless there is so new information, were just going to talk past each other. Since Airbus is contractually committed to offer the Two Twenty, that size must be in production for a while until any options expire.

Lightsaber


I would add that even Embraer is helping Airbus on gaining volume for avionics and flight controls parts. The A220 and Praetors share the same avionics and flight controls systems, with very minor differences.

You make a good point on other aircraft boosting the avionics economy of scale.

https://www.collinsaerospace.com/what-w ... ine-fusion

Looks like Gulfstream 5000/6000 and the Cessna Citations are where the volume is on avionics.

For engines, the G500/600 is helping. Alas, no small PurePower engine has broken out yet in deliveries, but the A220 has sales, with alternative platforms providing volume.

I'm not worried about avionics, Rockwell Collins has an incredible reputation for avionics support. The Global 5000/6000 needed all the capabilities I can think of needed for the A220 and Cessna has lovely volume. The Embraer volume doesn't hurt, but how many of the 7500 Citations share commonality with the A220? I don't know.

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

Lightsaber
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:16 pm

Aside from an LCY operation to USA, I'm not sure what ACT would offer. The airplane holds almost 10 hours of fuel as-is......weights are generally the limiting factor. You can't carry 39,000 lbs of gas and a full load of people on the existing airplanes.
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:18 pm

You are right. For systems, I believe that A220 is well served as their parts are used in several other platforms. Their main issue is airframe parts, but I believe that soon this will be addressed.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:26 pm

9252fly wrote:
If the road to profitability is volume, it then becomes a chicken, or egg scenario. Do they offer the A225 with the required investment, or not.


See my response above.
The road to profitability is not JUST volume - it is way more nuanced than that.
Trying to force huge amounts of volume through an unstable, immature, or changing production paradigm is a recipe for disaster.
As I said - just ask the 787 team. They will definitely tell you.

Aside from the obvious one of having the volume of orders, there are a lot of pre-requisites to achieving volume production predictably, reliably, and with costs under the strict control necessary to achieve the benefit that you guys seem to throw around like it was a given. It isn't.

That is also the context for the A220-500 chicken or egg scenario.
It's essential that there is stability in the overall system before yet another variable, like another variant is introduced.
I think the A220-500 is inevitable AT SOME POINT.
But in my opinion it is not the priority at this point.
I could be wrong, but I'll say it again - I think Airbus want to make the changes to the supply chain and the production system (some of which may even impact detailed parts design) before they let loose on the volume.

One way of having high costs is to have low volume.
But a worse way of having high costs is to have high volume that you can't execute effectively because the production system (as in the whole value chain) is unstable.
Honest :)

Rgds
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2703
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:37 pm

I also think the -500 is inevitable at some point. But I think it would benefit Airbus to stretch the A320neo by a few rows to make it compete better with the 737-8. The gab between A320neo and A321neo is very large. It would also mean a potential A220-500 would fit nicely under the A320neo in the lineup.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 22722
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:53 am

SteelChair wrote:
Aside from an LCY operation to USA, I'm not sure what ACT would offer. The airplane holds almost 10 hours of fuel as-is......weights are generally the limiting factor. You can't carry 39,000 lbs of gas and a full load of people on the existing airplanes.


Breeze has asked for the A223 to have more range:
https://mentourpilot.com/breeze-20-more ... -on-order/

I couldn't find a link, but I recall KE asking for more range.

Of course the MTOW will increase. I also see weight loss PiPs on the A220 continuing. Thus allowing more fuel. It won't just be LCY, but they are the easy example to note.

There is a rise in long haul narrowbody flying. I cannot recall the last time I flew TCON on anything but a narrowbody. I watch more and more flights to Hawaii go narrowbody. I suspect the mid-East to EU/UK and US/Mexico to South America will be two major markets for the A220 with more range. Somewhere there will be an airline I didn't think about that can use it.

Since this is being added for the Two Twenty (Business jet), it is a done deal and will help sell more.

Lightsaber

Late edit: The A220 needs volume well before there could be an A225. Thus, they need to focus on the current aircraft production costs, line efficiency, vendor efficiency, and weight reductions and I think a MTOW increase (mostly for high density sales, despite my excitement over range).
 
SA280
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:18 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:08 pm

I really don't see a A220-500 coming anytime before next decade.

Investments on this development are very high and the majority of the sales would come from canibalizing the A320neo (nowadays perceived as superior to the MAX 8 and priced accordingly).

So, it seems to me there is no favorable payback here. Basically more expenses, with little net revenue to Airbus.

If Airbus was in a position of weak product portfolio as Boeing has today, with the NEOs losing sales to the MAX and the A220 losing to the E2, I would say differently. But it is not the case.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:02 pm

SA280 wrote:
I really don't see a A220-500 coming anytime before next decade.

Investments on this development are very high and the majority of the sales would come from canibalizing the A320neo (nowadays perceived as superior to the MAX 8 and priced accordingly).

So, it seems to me there is no favorable payback here. Basically more expenses, with little net revenue to Airbus.

If Airbus was in a position of weak product portfolio as Boeing has today, with the NEOs losing sales to the MAX and the A220 losing to the E2, I would say differently. But it is not the case.


You are probably right.

So what does it mean for the A220 family of aircraft?

It looks like the A220-100 is not attracting many orders from airlines.
What does it means for A220-300's attractiveness?
Is the only way to grow from A220-300 is A320neo or 737-8?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 22722
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:49 pm

VV wrote:
SA280 wrote:
I really don't see a A220-500 coming anytime before next decade.

Investments on this development are very high and the majority of the sales would come from canibalizing the A320neo (nowadays perceived as superior to the MAX 8 and priced accordingly).

So, it seems to me there is no favorable payback here. Basically more expenses, with little net revenue to Airbus.

If Airbus was in a position of weak product portfolio as Boeing has today, with the NEOs losing sales to the MAX and the A220 losing to the E2, I would say differently. But it is not the case.


You are probably right.

So what does it mean for the A220 family of aircraft?

It looks like the A220-100 is not attracting many orders from airlines.
What does it means for A220-300's attractiveness?
Is the only way to grow from A220-300 is A320neo or 737-8?

The A223 will be the bulk of the near term orders. If we look at JetBlue's total costs, they pay it off for a fleet of sixty in one year per my math.
http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

AirFrance, for example, is the next mid-size opperator of the A220. Other airlines will make that decision. Due to continuously improving economics of scale (e.g., others posted above on going to 6/month in 2022), it will get cheaper and cheaper to adopt a subfleet (e.g., training in North America at Delta, Air Canada/Bombardier, or JetBlue until an airline has enough scale for their own training center a la AirBaltic grew beyond renting time at LH).

However, there is a reason I keep going back to ALC negotiating to increase their order (I posted enough links above). Udvar-Hazy has already placed 15. I doubt at one airline either. That will seed future growth (hence added ALC orders in work).

I see both a mix of midsize and small (leasing placements). The A225 would boost sales, yet Airbus plans to get to 168/year without it. Considering the A319, 73G, 717, 736, and A318 sales, I see it plausible.

We've already discussed turboprop operators upgauging to the A220. I see that as a huge market. In particular as there won't be any current generation turboprop, with today's longer certification times, in production before 2030; in my opinion a least a third of the turboprop market is already lost (see the Porter order thread for selection of the competing E2-195):

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1460995

I think that will be a series of competitions where availability (where leasing orders are important), short field performance, price/financing, range, and regional support will all play a role.

We've already discussed enough potential orders to significantly improve A220 volume. The question is can Airbus/A220 win SAS, Truejet, and Green Africa?
By win, get a signed order with deposits and financing. Each of those mid-size potential orders will help 2022 sales campaigns, if won.

Here is the neat thing, the A220 doesn't have to win any more orders in 2021 to be viable for sales at the air shows in 2022. The launch of service at AirFrance and Breeze is sufficient.

I am obsessed with the potential of an ALC additional order. Who did they place 15 aircraft with? GTLK placing with Air Manas is good.

Azimet and Israer will probably be lease takeups, in my opinion, which helps for future lease orders.

This is a transition year. But so far, has been a good transition year for the A220.

Lightsaber
 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:46 pm

SA280 wrote:
I really don't see a A220-500 coming anytime before next decade.

Investments on this development are very high and the majority of the sales would come from canibalizing the A320neo (nowadays perceived as superior to the MAX 8 and priced accordingly).

So, it seems to me there is no favorable payback here. Basically more expenses, with little net revenue to Airbus.

If Airbus was in a position of weak product portfolio as Boeing has today, with the NEOs losing sales to the MAX and the A220 losing to the E2, I would say differently. But it is not the case.


As an observation, in September 2015,
the A320NEO had 3,312 orders
the A321NEO had 1,052 orders

http://pdxlight.com/neomax.htm

Today, almost 6 years later...
the A320NEO had 3,853 orders
the A321NEO had 3,543 orders

So in a smidge short of 6 years,
the A320NEO has gained 541 net orders
the A321NEO had gained 2,491 net orders

I the same timeframe the A220 has gained 408 orders - not far at all behind the A320NEO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A2 ... deliveries

So whilst the NEO family is in a strong position, the A320NEO has not actually gone all that well in the last 6 years.
As has been suggested for the A220, one wonders if Airbus are looking to maximise the high value A321's on the line at the expense of A320's

One way of doing that, when the time is right, is prioritising an A220-500 over the A320.

It would be a good question to ponder whether
70 x mixed A32X NEO per month plus 10 x A220 per month
in some year down the line produces better margin than
50 x A321NEO and 30 x A220-300/500 combination....

Who knows?

Rgds
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:49 pm

lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:
SA280 wrote:
I really don't see a A220-500 coming anytime before next decade.

Investments on this development are very high and the majority of the sales would come from canibalizing the A320neo (nowadays perceived as superior to the MAX 8 and priced accordingly).

So, it seems to me there is no favorable payback here. Basically more expenses, with little net revenue to Airbus.

If Airbus was in a position of weak product portfolio as Boeing has today, with the NEOs losing sales to the MAX and the A220 losing to the E2, I would say differently. But it is not the case.


You are probably right.

So what does it mean for the A220 family of aircraft?

It looks like the A220-100 is not attracting many orders from airlines.
What does it means for A220-300's attractiveness?
Is the only way to grow from A220-300 is A320neo or 737-8?

The A223 will be the bulk of the near term orders. If we look at JetBlue's total costs, they pay it off for a fleet of sixty in one year per my math.
http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

AirFrance, for example, is the next mid-size opperator of the A220. Other airlines will make that decision. Due to continuously improving economics of scale (e.g., others posted above on going to 6/month in 2022), it will get cheaper and cheaper to adopt a subfleet (e.g., training in North America at Delta, Air Canada/Bombardier, or JetBlue until an airline has enough scale for their own training center a la AirBaltic grew beyond renting time at LH).

However, there is a reason I keep going back to ALC negotiating to increase their order (I posted enough links above). Udvar-Hazy has already placed 15. I doubt at one airline either. That will seed future growth (hence added ALC orders in work).

I see both a mix of midsize and small (leasing placements). The A225 would boost sales, yet Airbus plans to get to 168/year without it. Considering the A319, 73G, 717, 736, and A318 sales, I see it plausible.

We've already discussed turboprop operators upgauging to the A220. I see that as a huge market. In particular as there won't be any current generation turboprop, with today's longer certification times, in production before 2030; in my opinion a least a third of the turboprop market is already lost (see the Porter order thread for selection of the competing E2-195):

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1460995

I think that will be a series of competitions where availability (where leasing orders are important), short field performance, price/financing, range, and regional support will all play a role.

We've already discussed enough potential orders to significantly improve A220 volume. The question is can Airbus/A220 win SAS, Truejet, and Green Africa?
By win, get a signed order with deposits and financing. Each of those mid-size potential orders will help 2022 sales campaigns, if won.

Here is the neat thing, the A220 doesn't have to win any more orders in 2021 to be viable for sales at the air shows in 2022. The launch of service at AirFrance and Breeze is sufficient.

I am obsessed with the potential of an ALC additional order. Who did they place 15 aircraft with? GTLK placing with Air Manas is good.

Azimet and Israer will probably be lease takeups, in my opinion, which helps for future lease orders.

This is a transition year. But so far, has been a good transition year for the A220.

Lightsaber


Your enthusiasm and optimism for the A220 is quite hyperbolic. You seem to act like the competition, especially from below doesn't exist. From everything I have read both rumor and fact wise, the E195E2 is quite competitive with the A220. The E195E2 appears to be cheaper to make and more efficient up to a certain (currently unknown AFAIK) flight distance. The E2 is better for passengers (no awful middle seats) and has commonality with older E series aircraft. The 2 advantages for the A220 as I understand them thus fare are range and loss making pricing. Assuming Airbus doesn't plan to lose money on every sale forever, I assume the E195E2 will eventually get more sales because it is actually more efficient for most routes and should cost less to make, thus having a a pricing advantage at equal profit margins.

Does anyone know how big a part final assembly labor cost is of aircraft value? Embraer certainly has an advantage here vs. 2 of the highest cost manufacturing countries on earth, the US and Canada.

P.S: Does anyone have any real world fuel burn comparisons between the E195E2 and the A220-300? There are enough E195E2's flying now I would think this information would be forthcoming.
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:55 pm

astuteman wrote:

It would be a good question to ponder whether
70 x mixed A32X NEO per month plus 10 x A220 per month
in some year down the line produces better margin than
50 x A321NEO and 30 x A220-300/500 combination....

Who knows?

Rgds


Unless Airbus can perform some cost reduction miracles on the A220 line, the answer to your question is easy, 70 x mixed A32X NEO per month plus 10 x A220 per month. Cost is the reason it is the A220-300 and not the CS300.
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:03 pm

Jetport wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:

You are probably right.

So what does it mean for the A220 family of aircraft?

It looks like the A220-100 is not attracting many orders from airlines.
What does it means for A220-300's attractiveness?
Is the only way to grow from A220-300 is A320neo or 737-8?

The A223 will be the bulk of the near term orders. If we look at JetBlue's total costs, they pay it off for a fleet of sixty in one year per my math.
http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

AirFrance, for example, is the next mid-size opperator of the A220. Other airlines will make that decision. Due to continuously improving economics of scale (e.g., others posted above on going to 6/month in 2022), it will get cheaper and cheaper to adopt a subfleet (e.g., training in North America at Delta, Air Canada/Bombardier, or JetBlue until an airline has enough scale for their own training center a la AirBaltic grew beyond renting time at LH).

However, there is a reason I keep going back to ALC negotiating to increase their order (I posted enough links above). Udvar-Hazy has already placed 15. I doubt at one airline either. That will seed future growth (hence added ALC orders in work).

I see both a mix of midsize and small (leasing placements). The A225 would boost sales, yet Airbus plans to get to 168/year without it. Considering the A319, 73G, 717, 736, and A318 sales, I see it plausible.

We've already discussed turboprop operators upgauging to the A220. I see that as a huge market. In particular as there won't be any current generation turboprop, with today's longer certification times, in production before 2030; in my opinion a least a third of the turboprop market is already lost (see the Porter order thread for selection of the competing E2-195):

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1460995

I think that will be a series of competitions where availability (where leasing orders are important), short field performance, price/financing, range, and regional support will all play a role.

We've already discussed enough potential orders to significantly improve A220 volume. The question is can Airbus/A220 win SAS, Truejet, and Green Africa?
By win, get a signed order with deposits and financing. Each of those mid-size potential orders will help 2022 sales campaigns, if won.

Here is the neat thing, the A220 doesn't have to win any more orders in 2021 to be viable for sales at the air shows in 2022. The launch of service at AirFrance and Breeze is sufficient.

I am obsessed with the potential of an ALC additional order. Who did they place 15 aircraft with? GTLK placing with Air Manas is good.

Azimet and Israer will probably be lease takeups, in my opinion, which helps for future lease orders.

This is a transition year. But so far, has been a good transition year for the A220.

Lightsaber


Your enthusiasm and optimism for the A220 is quite hyperbolic. You seem to act like the competition, especially from below doesn't exist. From everything I have read both rumor and fact wise, the E195E2 is quite competitive with the A220. The E195E2 appears to be cheaper to make and more efficient up to a certain (currently unknown AFAIK) flight distance. The E2 is better for passengers (no awful middle seats) and has commonality with older E series aircraft. The 2 advantages for the A220 as I understand them thus fare are range and loss making pricing. Assuming Airbus doesn't plan to lose money on every sale forever, I assume the E195E2 will eventually get more sales because it is actually more efficient for most routes and should cost less to make, thus having a a pricing advantage at equal profit margins.

Does anyone know how big a part final assembly labor cost is of aircraft value? Embraer certainly has an advantage here vs. 2 of the highest cost manufacturing countries on earth, the US and Canada.

P.S: Does anyone have any real world fuel burn comparisons between the E195E2 and the A220-300? There are enough E195E2's flying now I would think this information would be forthcoming.


Leeham provided some estimates a couple of years ago that it would be around 10% less CASM for 195-E2 for typical 800 nem RJ missions, and that A220 would start providing better number for longer missions.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:14 pm

Jungleneer wrote:
Jetport wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The A223 will be the bulk of the near term orders. If we look at JetBlue's total costs, they pay it off for a fleet of sixty in one year per my math.
http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

AirFrance, for example, is the next mid-size opperator of the A220. Other airlines will make that decision. Due to continuously improving economics of scale (e.g., others posted above on going to 6/month in 2022), it will get cheaper and cheaper to adopt a subfleet (e.g., training in North America at Delta, Air Canada/Bombardier, or JetBlue until an airline has enough scale for their own training center a la AirBaltic grew beyond renting time at LH).

However, there is a reason I keep going back to ALC negotiating to increase their order (I posted enough links above). Udvar-Hazy has already placed 15. I doubt at one airline either. That will seed future growth (hence added ALC orders in work).

I see both a mix of midsize and small (leasing placements). The A225 would boost sales, yet Airbus plans to get to 168/year without it. Considering the A319, 73G, 717, 736, and A318 sales, I see it plausible.

We've already discussed turboprop operators upgauging to the A220. I see that as a huge market. In particular as there won't be any current generation turboprop, with today's longer certification times, in production before 2030; in my opinion a least a third of the turboprop market is already lost (see the Porter order thread for selection of the competing E2-195):

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1460995

I think that will be a series of competitions where availability (where leasing orders are important), short field performance, price/financing, range, and regional support will all play a role.

We've already discussed enough potential orders to significantly improve A220 volume. The question is can Airbus/A220 win SAS, Truejet, and Green Africa?
By win, get a signed order with deposits and financing. Each of those mid-size potential orders will help 2022 sales campaigns, if won.

Here is the neat thing, the A220 doesn't have to win any more orders in 2021 to be viable for sales at the air shows in 2022. The launch of service at AirFrance and Breeze is sufficient.

I am obsessed with the potential of an ALC additional order. Who did they place 15 aircraft with? GTLK placing with Air Manas is good.

Azimet and Israer will probably be lease takeups, in my opinion, which helps for future lease orders.

This is a transition year. But so far, has been a good transition year for the A220.

Lightsaber


Your enthusiasm and optimism for the A220 is quite hyperbolic. You seem to act like the competition, especially from below doesn't exist. From everything I have read both rumor and fact wise, the E195E2 is quite competitive with the A220. The E195E2 appears to be cheaper to make and more efficient up to a certain (currently unknown AFAIK) flight distance. The E2 is better for passengers (no awful middle seats) and has commonality with older E series aircraft. The 2 advantages for the A220 as I understand them thus fare are range and loss making pricing. Assuming Airbus doesn't plan to lose money on every sale forever, I assume the E195E2 will eventually get more sales because it is actually more efficient for most routes and should cost less to make, thus having a a pricing advantage at equal profit margins.

Does anyone know how big a part final assembly labor cost is of aircraft value? Embraer certainly has an advantage here vs. 2 of the highest cost manufacturing countries on earth, the US and Canada.

P.S: Does anyone have any real world fuel burn comparisons between the E195E2 and the A220-300? There are enough E195E2's flying now I would think this information would be forthcoming.


Leeham provided some estimates a couple of years ago that it would be around 10% less CASM for 195-E2 for typical 800 nem RJ missions, and that A220 would start providing better number for longer missions.


But the question is then why would you use such a small aircraft for longer missions.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:30 pm

Jungleneer wrote:
Jetport wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The A223 will be the bulk of the near term orders. If we look at JetBlue's total costs, they pay it off for a fleet of sixty in one year per my math.
http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

AirFrance, for example, is the next mid-size opperator of the A220. Other airlines will make that decision. Due to continuously improving economics of scale (e.g., others posted above on going to 6/month in 2022), it will get cheaper and cheaper to adopt a subfleet (e.g., training in North America at Delta, Air Canada/Bombardier, or JetBlue until an airline has enough scale for their own training center a la AirBaltic grew beyond renting time at LH).

However, there is a reason I keep going back to ALC negotiating to increase their order (I posted enough links above). Udvar-Hazy has already placed 15. I doubt at one airline either. That will seed future growth (hence added ALC orders in work).

I see both a mix of midsize and small (leasing placements). The A225 would boost sales, yet Airbus plans to get to 168/year without it. Considering the A319, 73G, 717, 736, and A318 sales, I see it plausible.

We've already discussed turboprop operators upgauging to the A220. I see that as a huge market. In particular as there won't be any current generation turboprop, with today's longer certification times, in production before 2030; in my opinion a least a third of the turboprop market is already lost (see the Porter order thread for selection of the competing E2-195):

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1460995

I think that will be a series of competitions where availability (where leasing orders are important), short field performance, price/financing, range, and regional support will all play a role.

We've already discussed enough potential orders to significantly improve A220 volume. The question is can Airbus/A220 win SAS, Truejet, and Green Africa?
By win, get a signed order with deposits and financing. Each of those mid-size potential orders will help 2022 sales campaigns, if won.

Here is the neat thing, the A220 doesn't have to win any more orders in 2021 to be viable for sales at the air shows in 2022. The launch of service at AirFrance and Breeze is sufficient.

I am obsessed with the potential of an ALC additional order. Who did they place 15 aircraft with? GTLK placing with Air Manas is good.

Azimet and Israer will probably be lease takeups, in my opinion, which helps for future lease orders.

This is a transition year. But so far, has been a good transition year for the A220.

Lightsaber


Your enthusiasm and optimism for the A220 is quite hyperbolic. You seem to act like the competition, especially from below doesn't exist. From everything I have read both rumor and fact wise, the E195E2 is quite competitive with the A220. The E195E2 appears to be cheaper to make and more efficient up to a certain (currently unknown AFAIK) flight distance. The E2 is better for passengers (no awful middle seats) and has commonality with older E series aircraft. The 2 advantages for the A220 as I understand them thus fare are range and loss making pricing. Assuming Airbus doesn't plan to lose money on every sale forever, I assume the E195E2 will eventually get more sales because it is actually more efficient for most routes and should cost less to make, thus having a a pricing advantage at equal profit margins.

Does anyone know how big a part final assembly labor cost is of aircraft value? Embraer certainly has an advantage here vs. 2 of the highest cost manufacturing countries on earth, the US and Canada.

P.S: Does anyone have any real world fuel burn comparisons between the E195E2 and the A220-300? There are enough E195E2's flying now I would think this information would be forthcoming.


Leeham provided some estimates a couple of years ago that it would be around 10% less CASM for 195-E2 for typical 800 nem RJ missions, and that A220 would start providing better number for longer missions.


I don't see how that's possible. Nobody would buy A220-300 if it's CASM is 11% higher then E2-195 for 800 nm missions. If most B6 routes for A220 are under 1200 miles and it's 10% worse in CASM on those routes than its competitor and have more seat to fill, why would they go through the cost integrating a new fleet type rather than just stay with Embraer. It makes absolutely zero sense.

If A220-330 has 29% lower CASM than E90, then E2-195 would have 36% lower CASM than E90. That would be the biggest jump in efficiency we've ever seen in aviation. That's a 2 generation improvement in CASM.

Please show real link with text for this. Otherwise, I can only assume that you are making stuff up.
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:38 pm

tphuang wrote:
Jungleneer wrote:
Jetport wrote:

Your enthusiasm and optimism for the A220 is quite hyperbolic. You seem to act like the competition, especially from below doesn't exist. From everything I have read both rumor and fact wise, the E195E2 is quite competitive with the A220. The E195E2 appears to be cheaper to make and more efficient up to a certain (currently unknown AFAIK) flight distance. The E2 is better for passengers (no awful middle seats) and has commonality with older E series aircraft. The 2 advantages for the A220 as I understand them thus fare are range and loss making pricing. Assuming Airbus doesn't plan to lose money on every sale forever, I assume the E195E2 will eventually get more sales because it is actually more efficient for most routes and should cost less to make, thus having a a pricing advantage at equal profit margins.

Does anyone know how big a part final assembly labor cost is of aircraft value? Embraer certainly has an advantage here vs. 2 of the highest cost manufacturing countries on earth, the US and Canada.

P.S: Does anyone have any real world fuel burn comparisons between the E195E2 and the A220-300? There are enough E195E2's flying now I would think this information would be forthcoming.


Leeham provided some estimates a couple of years ago that it would be around 10% less CASM for 195-E2 for typical 800 nem RJ missions, and that A220 would start providing better number for longer missions.


I don't see how that's possible. Nobody would buy A220-300 if it's CASM is 11% higher then E2-195 for 800 nm missions. If most B6 routes for A220 are under 1200 miles and it's 10% worse in CASM on those routes than its competitor and have more seat to fill, why would they go through the cost integrating a new fleet type rather than just stay with Embraer. It makes absolutely zero sense.

If A220-330 has 29% lower CASM than E90, then E2-195 would have 36% lower CASM than E90. That would be the biggest jump in efficiency we've ever seen in aviation. That's a 2 generation improvement in CASM.

Please show real link with text for this. Otherwise, I can only assume that you are making stuff up.


I am just repeating what I read. The link is here, but you must have a subscription:
https://leehamnews.com/2019/09/19/embra ... t-segment/
 
Babyshark
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:41 pm

astuteman wrote:

As an observation, in September 2015,
the A320NEO had 3,312 orders
the A321NEO had 1,052 orders

http://pdxlight.com/neomax.htm

Today, almost 6 years later...
the A320NEO had 3,853 orders
the A321NEO had 3,543 orders

So in a smidge short of 6 years,
the A320NEO has gained 541 net orders
the A321NEO had gained 2,491 net orders

I the same timeframe the A220 has gained 408 orders - not far at all behind the A320NEO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A2 ... deliveries

So whilst the NEO family is in a strong position, the A320NEO has not actually gone all that well in the last 6 years.
As has been suggested for the A220, one wonders if Airbus are looking to maximise the high value A321's on the line at the expense of A320's


Who knows?

Rgds


First I am showing 1069 net orders from 2017 to 2021 for the 320N? idk. Also, the first order for the 220 was "648" orders and 164 delivered in 13 years. Not 6.

Either way, 3800 is a ton of orders, 11K combined between 320/321/73M in short order. Maybe airlines mostly had filled their needs?
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:42 pm

tphuang wrote:
Jungleneer wrote:
Jetport wrote:

Your enthusiasm and optimism for the A220 is quite hyperbolic. You seem to act like the competition, especially from below doesn't exist. From everything I have read both rumor and fact wise, the E195E2 is quite competitive with the A220. The E195E2 appears to be cheaper to make and more efficient up to a certain (currently unknown AFAIK) flight distance. The E2 is better for passengers (no awful middle seats) and has commonality with older E series aircraft. The 2 advantages for the A220 as I understand them thus fare are range and loss making pricing. Assuming Airbus doesn't plan to lose money on every sale forever, I assume the E195E2 will eventually get more sales because it is actually more efficient for most routes and should cost less to make, thus having a a pricing advantage at equal profit margins.

Does anyone know how big a part final assembly labor cost is of aircraft value? Embraer certainly has an advantage here vs. 2 of the highest cost manufacturing countries on earth, the US and Canada.

P.S: Does anyone have any real world fuel burn comparisons between the E195E2 and the A220-300? There are enough E195E2's flying now I would think this information would be forthcoming.


Leeham provided some estimates a couple of years ago that it would be around 10% less CASM for 195-E2 for typical 800 nem RJ missions, and that A220 would start providing better number for longer missions.


I don't see how that's possible. Nobody would buy A220-300 if it's CASM is 11% higher then E2-195 for 800 nm missions. If most B6 routes for A220 are under 1200 miles and it's 10% worse in CASM on those routes than its competitor and have more seat to fill, why would they go through the cost integrating a new fleet type rather than just stay with Embraer. It makes absolutely zero sense.

If A220-330 has 29% lower CASM than E90, then E2-195 would have 36% lower CASM than E90. That would be the biggest jump in efficiency we've ever seen in aviation. That's a 2 generation improvement in CASM.

Please show real link with text for this. Otherwise, I can only assume that you are making stuff up.


You are correct, Jungleneer must have meant cost per trip or fuel burn per trip. Hey, I agree with tphuang, I should play the lottery!

Link below shows some fuel burn numbers, a lot of it doesn't make sense and seat counts are often apples to oranges comparisons. Information is also very old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:44 pm

Jetport wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Jungleneer wrote:

Leeham provided some estimates a couple of years ago that it would be around 10% less CASM for 195-E2 for typical 800 nem RJ missions, and that A220 would start providing better number for longer missions.


I don't see how that's possible. Nobody would buy A220-300 if it's CASM is 11% higher then E2-195 for 800 nm missions. If most B6 routes for A220 are under 1200 miles and it's 10% worse in CASM on those routes than its competitor and have more seat to fill, why would they go through the cost integrating a new fleet type rather than just stay with Embraer. It makes absolutely zero sense.

If A220-330 has 29% lower CASM than E90, then E2-195 would have 36% lower CASM than E90. That would be the biggest jump in efficiency we've ever seen in aviation. That's a 2 generation improvement in CASM.

Please show real link with text for this. Otherwise, I can only assume that you are making stuff up.


You are correct, Jungleneer must have meant cost per trip or fuel burn per trip. Hey, I agree with tphuang, I should play the lottery!

Link below shows some fuel burn numbers, a lot of it doesn't make sense and seat counts are often apples to oranges comparisons. Information is also very old.

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


Yeah, you maybe right. I am using my memory here, because I don’t have subscription anymore.

Oh, and remember that the E195-E2 can carry almost 40 seats more than E190 in high density.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:57 pm

Jungleneer wrote:
Jetport wrote:
tphuang wrote:

I don't see how that's possible. Nobody would buy A220-300 if it's CASM is 11% higher then E2-195 for 800 nm missions. If most B6 routes for A220 are under 1200 miles and it's 10% worse in CASM on those routes than its competitor and have more seat to fill, why would they go through the cost integrating a new fleet type rather than just stay with Embraer. It makes absolutely zero sense.

If A220-330 has 29% lower CASM than E90, then E2-195 would have 36% lower CASM than E90. That would be the biggest jump in efficiency we've ever seen in aviation. That's a 2 generation improvement in CASM.

Please show real link with text for this. Otherwise, I can only assume that you are making stuff up.


You are correct, Jungleneer must have meant cost per trip or fuel burn per trip. Hey, I agree with tphuang, I should play the lottery!

Link below shows some fuel burn numbers, a lot of it doesn't make sense and seat counts are often apples to oranges comparisons. Information is also very old.

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


Yeah, you maybe right. I am using my memory here, because I don’t have subscription anymore.

Oh, and remember that the E195-E2 can carry almost 40 seats more than E190 in high density.


Please show the actual text of what you read. E2-195 cannot carry 40 seat more than E90 in high density. That is nonsense.

For a simple comparison, take a look at azul. Yes, while I'm not Brazilian, I have flown Azul before!
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Azul_ ... er_195.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Azul_ ... er_190.php
just 12 more seats on E95 vs E90

How is E2 going to add 28 more seats upon the aircraft its replacing?

IIRC, leeham analysis came out to be E2-195 had lower CASM than A220-100, but higher CASM than A220-300. That would make sense since the lower seat count aircraft has higher CASM. In reality and based on the current state of A220 program vs E2, I'd be surprised if A220 cost has not improved vs E2 since that analysis was done.
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:02 pm

Geez, chill down.

Here are the numbers:
E195-E2 single class high density: 146 seats
E195-E2 standard single class: 132 seats (KLM has 134 and Azul 136)
https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

E190-E1 which is the same as E2:
114 seats high density
100 seats typical single class

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... jets/e190/
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:13 pm

Jungleneer wrote:
Geez, chill down.

Here are the numbers:
E195-E2 single class high density: 146 seats
E195-E2 standard single class: 132 seats (KLM has 134 and Azul 136)
https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

E190-E1 which is the same as E2:
114 seats high density
100 seats typical single class

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... jets/e190/


How do you compare 1 aircraft with 29-30 inch pitch in HD vs another one at 28 inch pitch? It's nonsense. You reduce the first one's pitch down to 28 inch, then you can fit in another 8 seats.

That HD E2-195 configuration is provided by Embraer as a sales pitch config that no airline in the real world will actually use.
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:16 pm

But it is the same comparison you are doing with the A220-300 for JetBlue. You are not considering that most of the CASM reduction for the 28% number you provided came from additional seats.
Therefore, you can expect the same CASM reduction or even better for E195-E2 with a 136 seats and 10% less trip costs than A220-300 (140 seats).
 
AaronPMI
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:20 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:21 pm

So many false figures are stated here. Btw Jet Blue stated that their A220 has 40 percent lower fuel burn per seat than their E190. I dont understand all this doom and gloom for the A220.
 
SA280
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:18 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:33 pm

tphuang wrote:
Jungleneer wrote:
Jetport wrote:

You are correct, Jungleneer must have meant cost per trip or fuel burn per trip. Hey, I agree with tphuang, I should play the lottery!

Link below shows some fuel burn numbers, a lot of it doesn't make sense and seat counts are often apples to oranges comparisons. Information is also very old.

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


Yeah, you maybe right. I am using my memory here, because I don’t have subscription anymore.

Oh, and remember that the E195-E2 can carry almost 40 seats more than E190 in high density.


Please show the actual text of what you read. E2-195 cannot carry 40 seat more than E90 in high density. That is nonsense.

For a simple comparison, take a look at azul. Yes, while I'm not Brazilian, I have flown Azul before!
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Azul_ ... er_195.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Azul_ ... er_190.php
just 12 more seats on E95 vs E90

How is E2 going to add 28 more seats upon the aircraft its replacing?

IIRC, leeham analysis came out to be E2-195 had lower CASM than A220-100, but higher CASM than A220-300. That would make sense since the lower seat count aircraft has higher CASM. In reality and based on the current state of A220 program vs E2, I'd be surprised if A220 cost has not improved vs E2 since that analysis was done.

Why A220 numbers should improve more than E2's considering the first is a much more mature program while the last is on a EIS stage?
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:37 pm

There is no doom and gloom. The A220 is with no doubt a superb aircraft. So is the E195-E2 which is downplayed as a viable competitor here. The E195-E2 can compete directly with A220-300 in terms of costs. What A220 has better is range, additional seats and reconfiguration flexibility. One will be better than the other depending on the mission and business plan. Also, the E2 is being delivered with enough profit margins since day 1. Therefore, even if the A220 delivers more frames than E2, what is going to be the case, it will not bring money for Airbus for some time. It all comes down to the whole business figures.
 
SA280
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:18 pm

Re: Airbus A220 Sales Campaign Thread - 2021

Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:42 pm

tphuang wrote:
Jungleneer wrote:
Geez, chill down.

Here are the numbers:
E195-E2 single class high density: 146 seats
E195-E2 standard single class: 132 seats (KLM has 134 and Azul 136)
https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

E190-E1 which is the same as E2:
114 seats high density
100 seats typical single class

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... jets/e190/


How do you compare 1 aircraft with 29-30 inch pitch in HD vs another one at 28 inch pitch? It's nonsense. You reduce the first one's pitch down to 28 inch, then you can fit in another 8 seats.

That HD E2-195 configuration is provided by Embraer as a sales pitch config that no airline in the real world will actually use.

Tap, Iberia, Ryanair, Wizz Air. All of them are already used to 28" pitch. And it is a matter of time before other airlines adopt it, at least in European economy class.

There might be no sales ever for the full high-density configuration with 146 seats, but it shows there are intermediate alternatives between Azul's very comfy 136-seats and this high-density one.

And as the A220-300 is certified for maximum 145, depending on the configuration requirements, A220-300's claimed seat cost advantage would eventually disappear or even become worse than the E195-E2.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos