Would a 1 tonne MTOW boost to be offered on the A220-300 midyear result in a substantial range increase for the type

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 01.article

Devilfish wrote:

Would a 1 tonne MTOW boost to be offered on the A220-300 midyear result in a substantial range increase for the type

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 01.article

Should help the A220-500 case even more I’d think, as well as the A220-300LR Neeleman has talked about.

This is an English summary of the interview of Florent Massou, Airbus VP A220 program, by the Ailes du Québec. It was released at the beginning of March. It is in French and is likely to remain largely ignored by the mainstream aerospace media for which English is the only language.

The main points from the interview are summarized below:

Program management is now mostly from Airbus, the design team is in Montreal.

Some approaches are different between Bombardier and Airbus. For instance, Bombardier subcontracted more at system level, while Airbus tends to do the integration. Most of the suppliers where already known from Airbus. One notable exception is AVIC, supplier of the center fuselage section (double source with Spirit from Belfast). Discussions were difficult with some suppliers regarding cost reduction.

Main priority is to improve production, to reduce the manufacturing costs, which are still above target. When taking over the program, Airbus found a difficult situation in production, missing parts on the FAL, suppliers delivering non quality, resulting in inefficiency and very long lead times. Major changes were introduced by Airbus in planning, supplier management, management of configuration. Significant results, non quality divided by two, a few missing parts compared to thousands. Next step is to revise the manufacturing process according to the Airbus model. A pre FAL will be put in place in Mirabel, using the surface freed by the end of the CRJ production, and will be operational from early 2022. As per the usual Airbus production model, its purpose is to have just final assembly in the main FALs (Mirabel and Mobile), which are strictly dedicated to final assembly of pre-assembled sections with all installed equipments. Further improvements will be introduced after; the objective is to have an efficient production system in 2024/25. This is a significant investment from Airbus, in the context of the current crisis.

Design evolutions; short term max take off weight to increase range, new cabins for Air France and Breeze, VIP version with additional fuel tanks, further avionics suites. A major stream of activities is and will be “design to cost” to reduce the cost of manufacturing the aircraft, with support from Airbus design offices in Europe, which have a long experience in the matter on other projects (Single Aisle). This is fundamental for the future of the program. Stretch might come later but is not launched yet, securing a viable production will come first; the PW GTF will remain the sole engine.

The emphasis is to ensure customer satisfaction and to secure the program viability by reducing production cost (design and production).

Airbus (and Boeing) war machines are their production lines; driving down cost through design and voume allows them to underbid any competition, securing more orders. Airbus is currently making the investment allowing the A220 to compete.

This is only a brief summary, the whole thing is very interesting and quite open, it lasts close to one hour, and can be accessed here: https://youtu.be/wpSAkIq4_E8

Devilfish wrote:

Would a 1 tonne MTOW boost to be offered on the A220-300 midyear result in a substantial range increase for the type

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 01.article

The article mentions a corresponding range increase of 200 nm. So, not insignificant, but not what I would describe as substantial.

armagnac2010 wrote:

This is an English summary of the interview of Florent Massou, Airbus VP A220 program, by the Ailes du Québec. It was released at the beginning of March. It is in French and is likely to remain largely ignored by the mainstream aerospace media for which English is the only language.

The main points from the interview are summarized below:

Program management is now mostly from Airbus, the design team is in Montreal.

Some approaches are different between Bombardier and Airbus. For instance, Bombardier subcontracted more at system level, while Airbus tends to do the integration. Most of the suppliers where already known from Airbus. One notable exception is AVIC, supplier of the center fuselage section (double source with Spirit from Belfast). Discussions were difficult with some suppliers regarding cost reduction.

Main priority is to improve production, to reduce the manufacturing costs, which are still above target. When taking over the program, Airbus found a difficult situation in production, missing parts on the FAL, suppliers delivering non quality, resulting in inefficiency and very long lead times. Major changes were introduced by Airbus in planning, supplier management, management of configuration. Significant results, non quality divided by two, a few missing parts compared to thousands. Next step is to revise the manufacturing process according to the Airbus model. A pre FAL will be put in place in Mirabel, using the surface freed by the end of the CRJ production, and will be operational from early 2022. As per the usual Airbus production model, its purpose is to have just final assembly in the main FALs (Mirabel and Mobile), which are strictly dedicated to final assembly of pre-assembled sections with all installed equipments. Further improvements will be introduced after; the objective is to have an efficient production system in 2024/25. This is a significant investment from Airbus, in the context of the current crisis.

Design evolutions; short term max take off weight to increase range, new cabins for Air France and Breeze, VIP version with additional fuel tanks, further avionics suites. A major stream of activities is and will be “design to cost” to reduce the cost of manufacturing the aircraft, with support from Airbus design offices in Europe, which have a long experience in the matter on other projects (Single Aisle). This is fundamental for the future of the program. Stretch might come later but is not launched yet, securing a viable production will come first; the PW GTF will remain the sole engine.

The emphasis is to ensure customer satisfaction and to secure the program viability by reducing production cost (design and production).

Airbus (and Boeing) war machines are their production lines; driving down cost through design and voume allows them to underbid any competition, securing more orders. Airbus is currently making the investment allowing the A220 to compete.

This is only a brief summary, the whole thing is very interesting and quite open, it lasts close to one hour, and can be accessed here: https://youtu.be/wpSAkIq4_E8

Good info, thanks for the summary. It will be interesting to watch the 220 progress to a viable program. It is certainly worth the investment to get it there.

Merci beaucoup, Armagnac! Fascinating indeed. Air journalists would do well to learn French

For the first time in years, I am confident about the CSeries, ahem, A220's future.

The important point is that Airbus is willing to invest in setting up / equipping a pre-FAL facility - despite this pendemic slowdown in deliveries.
It was also mentionned that the ramp up plans are now back on track (with a one year delay?).

It's good news as Airbus could have decided to just preserve cash and keep the production as is. (And move sale efforts a little more toward the 319neo).

Pour les francophones, ça vaut la peine d'écouter l'entrevue en entier. L'atmosphère y est détendu, avec quelques plaisanteries en extra.

I am curious as to how this could happen given that I thought that at this point, fuel capacity was the limiting factor. An airline like B6 or BT would be all over this. What is really needed is for someone like the Lufthansa Group to go all in on the model for a group wide order and not just LX.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

The important point is that Airbus is willing to invest in setting up / equipping a pre-FAL facility - despite this pendemic slowdown in deliveries.
It was also mentionned that the ramp up plans are now back on track (with a one year delay?).

It's good news as Airbus could have decided to just preserve cash and keep the production as is. (And move sale efforts a little more toward the 319neo).

Pour les francophones, ça vaut la peine d'écouter l'entrevue en entier. L'atmosphère y est détendu, avec quelques plaisanteries en extra.

I'm not sure it's a matter of will. They have orders they have to fill. Given the issues in this report they very well may have no choice but make the investments if they want to meet commitments.

I'm not sure it's a matter of will. They have orders they have to fill. Given the issues in this report they very well may have no choice but make the investments if they want to meet commitments.

Not sure when you got that from the report. Magic Google Translate, possibly.

The current production facilities can easily meet the backlog demand, even not considering the Covid-19 effects. The improvements in design and production will allow increasing the pressure on the competition, by allow shorter and better priced deliveries. A220s and A321XLRs will be a nice tandem, coveirng the compl;ete range from 110 to 240 seats. A cross crew qualification will be nice but I doubt this is achievable.

The pandemic is a significant issue as it delays some deliveries and thus affects cash flow, but is not the biggest problem. As expected, Boeing has no choice but to heavily discount - and this is an understatement - the Max in order to relaunch it. The first effect is annihilating Boeing operating margins for the next 10 to 15 years (thanks God everything is in order for the 787, isn't it?), but as a secondary consequence, is also affecting the complete single aisle (narrow body) market.

As already noted, a nice increase, but small. For ULCC, I think enough added missions at 160 seats to enable more sales.

Alas, we need to return to normal airtravel, which is why you will find me lately in non-Av vaccine threads.

Aircellist wrote:

Merci beaucoup, Armagnac! Fascinating indeed. Air journalists would do well to learn French

For the first time in years, I am confident about the CSeries, ahem, A220's future.

I too am thankful for the translation. It is facinating to see more depth.

Optimising is key. The pre-FAL will help as well as not having the chaos of some huge number of missing parts.

Now for sales. Oh, the A220 isn't desperate. AF, B6, Breeze and others end that discussion.

I do believe the investment only pays off with a large production rate. Hopefully this improved cost enables sales.

Ironically, that MTOW increase, new interior, and more efficient production is coming just in time for Breeze (as well as engine PiPs for reliability).

Lightsaber

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I am curious as to how this could happen given that I thought that at this point, fuel capacity was the limiting factor.

While the VIP versions would be the immediate beneficiary, the additional fuel tanks might see their way down to the airliner variants later on. I wonder if the six ordered ACJ TwoTwentys would be line-built with these improvements or retrofitted. That could make them more attractive in the dedicated VIP market.

armagnac2010 wrote:

As expected, Boeing has no choice but to heavily discount - and this is an understatement - the Max in order to relaunch it. The first effect is annihilating Boeing operating margins for the next 10 to 15 years...

Depth of margin reduction and duration is nothing but speculation on your part.

What the piece you cited does confirm is that Bombardier never tooled a cost-efficient, high volume assembly line in spite of spending $7 Billion on the project.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Depth of margin reduction and duration is nothing but speculation on your part.

TBH, pretending the contrary (that the Max is NOT currently heavily discounted) would be even more speculative...

Depth of margin reduction and duration is nothing but speculation on your part.

Speculation and logic. Those huge orders (Southwest etc.) will be at the heavily discounted price for all the airframes. And the largest the order the higher the discount the longer the effects on margins.

And then, do you really expect Mike O'Leary to accept paying more for its Maxes than SWA? The guy is quite creative when it comes to regociate and re-negociate.

What the piece you cited does confirm is that Bombardier never tooled a cost-efficient, high volume assembly line in spite of spending $7 Billion on the project.

On that one, I am with you. Bombardier totally underestimated the competition, possibly believing it will be limited to Sao Jose dos Campos and eventually Komsomolsk on Amur. Toulouse, Tianjin, Hamburg, Mobile and Renton are in a different league. How much of the 7$b were earmarked for industrialization is another question. Not enough, obviously.

It makes you wonder if ATR did prevail on de Havilland and on the others for the same reason, at least partially. Airbus and ATR are different companies, but there is so much porosity with the Airbus ecosystem that it must have some consequences. The ATR and A320 FALs are fighting for floor space in the same hall…
.

Devilfish wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I am curious as to how this could happen given that I thought that at this point, fuel capacity was the limiting factor.

While the VIP versions would be the immediate beneficiary, the additional fuel tanks might see their way down to the airliner variants later on. I wonder if the six ordered ACJ TwoTwentys would be line-built with these improvements or retrofitted. That could make them more attractive in the dedicated VIP market.

The VIP tanks are certain to make their way into the A221 and A223.

I assume this becomes a factory option.

Lightsaber

armagnac2010 wrote:

Depth of margin reduction and duration is nothing but speculation on your part.

Speculation and logic. Those huge orders (Southwest etc.) will be at the heavily discounted price for all the airframes. And the largest the order the higher the discount the longer the effects on margins.

That's true for all large orders across all manufacturers. And manufacturers plan on these discounts happening. It isn't like they expect to sell at list price.

So yes, pure a.net speculation and wishful thinking.

lightsaber wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I am curious as to how this could happen given that I thought that at this point, fuel capacity was the limiting factor.

While the VIP versions would be the immediate beneficiary, the additional fuel tanks might see their way down to the airliner variants later on. I wonder if the six ordered ACJ TwoTwentys would be line-built with these improvements or retrofitted. That could make them more attractive in the dedicated VIP market.

The VIP tanks are certain to make their way into the A221 and A223.

I assume this becomes a factory option.

Lightsaber

No reason for it not to.

Much like the a359ULR, having a variant with ability to adapt to meet different use cases at minimal cost is highly beneficial. (commercial comparison, not technical. I recognize this isn't the same as the ULR design wise)

armagnac2010 wrote:

What the piece you cited does confirm is that Bombardier never tooled a cost-efficient, high volume assembly line in spite of spending $7 Billion on the project.

On that one, I am with you. Bombardier totally underestimated the competition, possibly believing it will be limited to Sao Jose dos Campos and eventually Komsomolsk on Amur. Toulouse, Tianjin, Hamburg, Mobile and Renton are in a different league. How much of the 7$b were earmarked for industrialization is another question. Not enough, obviously.

.

It doesn't look like the industrialization/assembly line is the main issue. The fact that the suppliers are not delivering on time and with a poor quality is beyond industrialization. It has more to do with the supply chain management, not to mention the initial selection of the suppliers. What did they have in mind when they took Avic on board? Ok, Avic contributed to fund the program but still, it has been a huge burden for the program in the long run.

Airbus also intends to extract significant savings from the procurement side, again this is not related to the assembly line.

armagnac2010 wrote:

This is an English summary of the interview of Florent Massou, Airbus VP A220 program, by the Ailes du Québec. It was released at the beginning of March. It is in French and is likely to remain largely ignored by the mainstream aerospace media for which English is the only language.

The main points from the interview are summarized below: [ ... ]

Thanks Armagnac2010! A great summary.

Yeah, Ailes du Quebec is indeed an actual aviation news source. As opposed to Fliegerfaust, which is just a guy with a website.

https://www.lesailesduquebec.com/

Antarius wrote:

I recognize this isn't the same as the ULR design wise)

Inasmuch as the increased fuel capacity is basically a given for A220 models moving forward, might it take the form of the complicated fixed center tank a la A321XLR...or would Airbus deem it too much trouble and expense and just decide to give airlines the flexibility of defining their optimum requirements

Devilfish wrote:

Antarius wrote:

I recognize this isn't the same as the ULR design wise)

Inasmuch as the increased fuel capacity is basically a given for A220 models moving forward, might it take the form of the complicated fixed center tank a la A321XLR...or would Airbus deem it too much trouble and expense and just decide to give airlines the flexibility of defining their optimum requirements

The A220 VIP have removable tanks. Only when enough customers order would they optimize like with the A321xLR. The fixed center tank:
1. Reduces overall tank weight. Prior discussion was 1.2 tons less weight of tanks.
2. Increases fuel volume
3. Reduces lost cargo space, but always takes up some space.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425221

If the A220 has a lot flying far, I do not expect an A220xLR as the long haul configuration will be low density, which is pretty specialized (too few to sell).

I think we will see the A220 fly near TATL, but for longer missions, it will not displace the A321xLR.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Optimising is key. The pre-FAL will help as well as not having the chaos of some huge number of missing parts.

Now for sales. Oh, the A220 isn't desperate. AF, B6, Breeze and others end that discussion.

I do believe the investment only pays off with a large production rate. Hopefully this improved cost enables sales.

Ironically, that MTOW increase, new interior, and more efficient production is coming just in time for Breeze (as well as engine PiPs for reliability).

Lightsaber

I'm pretty sure this (amongst other things) explains why Airbus didn't "sell the crown jewels" to get the WN order.
They will want to get all the production and supply ducks in a row first to avoid taking on large quantities of loss making frames.
THEN they will want to get the rate up...

armagnac2010 wrote:

Speculation and logic. Those huge orders (Southwest etc.) will be at the heavily discounted price for all the airframes. And the largest the order the higher the discount the longer the effects on margins..

A better logic for the WN 737MAX order would probably be the huge credit discounts available due to the long grounding and the penalties accruing as a result......
Airbus rightly would not want to match that....
Don't forget the MAX will have the advantage of a much higher production rate.

Rgds

Link to Simple Flying article on same topic..

https://simpleflying.com/a220-300-increased-range/

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

A better logic for the WN 737MAX order would probably be the huge credit discounts available due to the long grounding and the penalties accruing as a result......
Airbus rightly would not want to match that....
Don't forget the MAX will have the advantage of a much higher production rate.

Rgds

And the main reason. Single fleet type.

I wonder what the new cabin would look like?

SXDFC wrote:

I wonder what the new cabin would look like?

Why would the cabin change? This is a small range increase.

Cabin should continue to be the same. It's nice already

Antarius wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

I wonder what the new cabin would look like?

Why would the cabin change? This is a small range increase.

Cabin should continue to be the same. It's nice already

armagnac2010 wrote:

Design evolutions; short term max take off weight to increase range, new cabins for Air France and Breeze

Apparently part of what Armagnac translated from the French press release that there’s a new cabin for Air France and Breeze. Perhaps it’s something like the “Airspace” interior for the A320/A330?

When Airbus took over that program it was a sad day for Bombardier but a red letter day for the CS.

Devilfish wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I am curious as to how this could happen given that I thought that at this point, fuel capacity was the limiting factor.

While the VIP versions would be the immediate beneficiary, the additional fuel tanks might see their way down to the airliner variants later on. I wonder if the six ordered ACJ TwoTwentys would be line-built with these improvements or retrofitted. That could make them more attractive in the dedicated VIP market.

1t more MTOW expand the P/R envelope by 10PAX || 250nm from 2000 to 3500nm (MTOW limited segment and not into fuel limited.
Nothing to sneer at. more tankage would eat into that gain to some part and only needed beyond 3500nm.

Antarius wrote:

astuteman wrote:

A better logic for the WN 737MAX order would probably be the huge credit discounts available due to the long grounding and the penalties accruing as a result......
Airbus rightly would not want to match that....
Don't forget the MAX will have the advantage of a much higher production rate.

Rgds

And the main reason. Single fleet type.

Is this the main reason for WN to go ahead with the MAX7, or was it the dirt cheap offer Boeing made an WN simply couldn’t refuse?

marcelh wrote:

Antarius wrote:

astuteman wrote:

A better logic for the WN 737MAX order would probably be the huge credit discounts available due to the long grounding and the penalties accruing as a result......
Airbus rightly would not want to match that....
Don't forget the MAX will have the advantage of a much higher production rate.

Rgds

And the main reason. Single fleet type.

Is this the main reason for WN to go ahead with the MAX7, or was it the dirt cheap offer Boeing made an WN simply couldn’t refuse?

There is also the idea that WN can maintain one common pilot group.

armagnac2010 wrote:

The current production facilities can easily meet the backlog demand, even not considering the Covid-19 effects. The improvements in design and production will allow increasing the pressure on the competition, by allow shorter and better priced deliveries. A220s and A321XLRs will be a nice tandem, coveirng the compl;ete range from 110 to 240 seats. A cross crew qualification will be nice but I doubt this is achievable.

The article makes it clear these investments are being made now, since they are already giving metrics for the success on the spare parts front. Also they say the YMX pre-FAL is using the former regional jet facilities and we know a new building is in progress for pre-FAL at MOB. I think it's pretty clear Airbus took a good look around and decided they had no choice but invest right up front if they wanted any chance at making any money off the backlog.

armagnac2010 wrote:

The pandemic is a significant issue as it delays some deliveries and thus affects cash flow, but is not the biggest problem. As expected, Boeing has no choice but to heavily discount - and this is an understatement - the Max in order to relaunch it. The first effect is annihilating Boeing operating margins for the next 10 to 15 years (thanks God everything is in order for the 787, isn't it?), but as a secondary consequence, is also affecting the complete single aisle (narrow body) market.

Thanks for the translation. I appreciated getting more insight on the A220 program. I think you'd be better off not making this an A vs B thing. DL got such huge discounts on their order they were subject to a dumping case that they only dodged by setting up a 2nd FAL in MOB, an unplanned expense. I'm sure B6 and Breeze did not pay list price either. Airbus insiders admitted they launched A320neo to crush the C Series. Ironic, eh? BBD had pretty much no pricing power and those orders are still a big part of the backlog. Airbus paid their $1 knowing the competitive landscape, they had made a losing bid on the DL order ( ref: https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/delta-c ... ies-order/ ).. They probably realized BBD had a poor grip on their supply chain and design for manufacture, but I imagine they didn't think it was as bad as it is. Basically this article says they have had to make a lot of up front investments to get the facilities and supply chain management right, and they are behind where they thought they would be on the ramp up. They are lucky CRJ is failing at the right time for them so they don't have to spend even more building out a new facility.

Antarius wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

I wonder what the new cabin would look like?

Why would the cabin change? This is a small range increase.

Cabin should continue to be the same. It's nice already

When armagnac2010 first provided a translated summary in the A220 production thread (since removed), mention was made of a new interior being introduced with the Breeze and Air France deliveries.

yyztpa2 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

I wonder what the new cabin would look like?

Why would the cabin change? This is a small range increase.

Cabin should continue to be the same. It's nice already

When armagnac2010 first provided a translated summary in the A220 production thread (since removed), mention was made of a new interior being introduced with the Breeze and Air France deliveries.

Interesting. They're only ~150 frames into the production run and they are doing a new interior already. Can't be good for the financials.

Revelation wrote:

Interesting. They're only ~150 frames into the production run and they are doing a new interior already. Can't be good for the financials.

One assumes there is a valid reason as to why its being done.
Perhaps aligning with Airbus "standard" and leveraging the supply economies of scale benefits?????
Who knows..

Rgds

Will Delta order this as well?

Opus99 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Antarius wrote:

And the main reason. Single fleet type.

Is this the main reason for WN to go ahead with the MAX7, or was it the dirt cheap offer Boeing made an WN simply couldn’t refuse?

WN stresses single fleet type more than anything else. The A220 as efficient as it is was not worth the stress. WN clearly decided it was not that aircraft they were going to use to break their single fleet type. I think in order to do that you need a generational leap in efficiency not the small figure some people were calling here

No quibble with the single fleet type argument.
But I'd be surprised if WN aren't/weren't loaded up with credits against the MAX fiasco to an extent that Airbus just can't match.

Which is a subtly different argument to the "Boeing giving them away" argument, although that may be close to the net outcome..

Rgds

yyztpa2 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

I wonder what the new cabin would look like?

Why would the cabin change? This is a small range increase.

Cabin should continue to be the same. It's nice already

When armagnac2010 first provided a translated summary in the A220 production thread (since removed), mention was made of a new interior being introduced with the Breeze and Air France deliveries.

Is it possible to have a picture comparison?

nicode wrote:

yyztpa2 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Why would the cabin change? This is a small range increase.

Cabin should continue to be the same. It's nice already

When armagnac2010 first provided a translated summary in the A220 production thread (since removed), mention was made of a new interior being introduced with the Breeze and Air France deliveries.

Is it possible to have a picture comparison?

We don’t know what the “new interior” looks like. It wasn’t clear to me if Airbus was talking about new basic interior changes or just mentioning that they have AF and Breeze coming up soon that will cost them some money due to airline specific fittings/changes (eg galley setups) that have to be integrated into production line. There is always a slight learning curve. Right now most of the A220 deliveries have been to the same couple of airlines, I think AF and Breeze are the next new operators of the type.

astuteman wrote:

No quibble with the single fleet type argument.
But I'd be surprised if WN aren't/weren't loaded up with credits against the MAX fiasco to an extent that Airbus just can't match.

Which is a subtly different argument to the "Boeing giving them away" argument, although that may be close to the net outcome..

Rgds

Right. That seems most likely. It is not likely to be financially defensible for AB to match what BCA are likely obligated —at this point— to let WN have MAXs for. I would even be astonished to see WN paying any price premium/difference between the 7M8s & M7s in question.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Depth of margin reduction and duration is nothing but speculation on your part.

Does the decision to exit your home from the front door or a third floor window require extensive investigation? There are reasonable assumptions it is fine to make. This was one.

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Interesting. They're only ~150 frames into the production run and they are doing a new interior already. Can't be good for the financials.

One assumes there is a valid reason as to why its being done.
Perhaps aligning with Airbus "standard" and leveraging the supply economies of scale benefits?????
Who knows..

Rgds

Or they found a way to reduce weight or improve an inefficiency.

I can't imagine that they'd make a change that costs them money for no reason.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

astuteman wrote:

No quibble with the single fleet type argument.
But I'd be surprised if WN aren't/weren't loaded up with credits against the MAX fiasco to an extent that Airbus just can't match.

Which is a subtly different argument to the "Boeing giving them away" argument, although that may be close to the net outcome..

Rgds

Right. That seems most likely. It is not likely to be financially defensible for AB to match what BCA are likely obligated —at this point— to let WN have MAXs for. I would even be astonished to see WN paying any price premium/difference between the 7M8s & M7s in question.

And barring any actual data, pure fantasy and speculation.

Antarius wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Interesting. They're only ~150 frames into the production run and they are doing a new interior already. Can't be good for the financials.

One assumes there is a valid reason as to why its being done.
Perhaps aligning with Airbus "standard" and leveraging the supply economies of scale benefits?????
Who knows..

Rgds

Or they found a way to reduce weight or improve an inefficiency.

I can't imagine that they'd make a change that costs them money for no reason.

Considering aircraft production is down and Airbus owns Airbus Interiors (Zodiac), I speculate they were given more work in the new interior.

If another interior vendor had quality issues, the easy solution is to bring the interior in house. I am only guessing, I couldn't find details on the Breeze or AirFrance interiors.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Antarius wrote:

astuteman wrote:

One assumes there is a valid reason as to why its being done.
Perhaps aligning with Airbus "standard" and leveraging the supply economies of scale benefits?????
Who knows..

Rgds

Or they found a way to reduce weight or improve an inefficiency.

I can't imagine that they'd make a change that costs them money for no reason.

Considering aircraft production is down and Airbus owns Airbus Interiors (Zodiac), I speculate they were given more work in the new interior.

If another interior vendor had quality issues, the easy solution is to bring the interior in house. I am only guessing, I couldn't find details on the Breeze or AirFrance interiors.

Lightsaber

Isnt Zodiac owned by Safran? I believe Airbus Interiors is separate.

However the point is understood and agreed. They have staff and a much bigger supply chain. No reason not to harmonize and develop.

In the interview itself, it is said the EIS interior had to be reinforced, it turned out to be not robust enough. It is now meeting full expectations and this incurred only a small weight penalty (remarkably, the A320 had the same issue 30 years ago!). Nothing more specific. Nothing more specific either on the AF or Breeze interiors, except they are 'stunning', but what other statement would you expect in such a piece... Not clear if those interiors are only new seats, new color harmony etc. I won't personnaly expect drastic changes at this stage of the program.

The interview has also some discussions about PW and its relationship with Airbus; PW is big in Montreal. It starts with one of the interviewer stating PW is new or returning to Airbus which is a very surprising statement considering PW implication on most Airbus projects, engine on A300/310, half engine on A320CEO, engine on A320NEO, full engine on A330, half engine on A380... The conclusion is that PW will remain the sole engine supplier, not a surprise at all considering there is no credible alternative on the market, the SM146 from Safran would require a lot of rework to be competitive by becoming a small Leap.

Lightsaber probably nailed it.

I do remember that some time ago, the interior vendor had indeed quality issues and that was causing delays at the FAL for BBD.

armagnac2010 wrote:

The conclusion is that PW will remain the sole engine supplier, not a surprise at all considering there is no credible alternative on the market,

Speaking of which...is there now a remedy for the rotor disc failure incidents that based on the report below, are apparently FADEC related?

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/e19 ... 11.article