The A220 is being evaluated by its current customers. Things will go well if Delta or Breeze convert a bunch of options, that is the sign the plane is performing. Right now there is incredible competition with all the white tails and lease returns, It may be easier to get new 737 or A320 fast compared to the long backlog of the A220.
I don't think performance is being questioned. I think it's more about Airbus's ability to make a profit building them. DL is said to have very attractive pricing. It might be better for the program if DL doesn't take up any options.
I will confess to being somewhat puzzled by the tenor of this thread in a couple of ways.......
I find the notion that Airbus won't at some point get the programme up to profitability challenging.
It may take longer than they thought to do so, but the appeal of the product in the marketplace looks pretty established to me.
The market for it certainly seems capable of supporting the 12 per month target that was set.
It's clear that they need to work on the production and supply paradigm.
We seem to have a lot of manufacturing "experts" on here that in reality can't probably spell the word, much less understand it in a complex integrated product environment (at best we will get quotes based on parts
production, which is not remotely the same), but this being a web forum, get to peddle their views.....
Ask Boeing. Tripling production when the process is still being transformed is a recipe for disaster.
I wonder how many black belt MRL practitioners we have on here
Aside from the fact that the A220 was never in with a shout at WN whatever the price, that's one of the reasons Airbus won't have been too hard over on it in my opinion.
They'll get those 100 frames at better margin, at better timing for the production process too, at some point.
The Delta options should be considered in that context.
I also don't get the "either/or" tenor of the A32XNEO vs A220 investment either.
The route to investment and volume for the A320 family is established and in process. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
The A220 investment is complementary in my view, not conflicting, as seems to be suggested.
I recognise that they did not just pay $1 for the Programme, and can see why this solicits an emotional response.
They paid about $600M for the Bombardier share.
There have been investments in both Quebec and Mobile, but some $610M of that was funded by Bombardier.
I don't know how deep Airbus are in terms of capital investment on the programme, but I suspect it's fairly limited due to the above
They've clearly invested in product development in order to certify the MTOW increases.
And yes, they'll have to invest in product development for cost reduction. But that is true for every long-term manufactured product....
I've no idea how many 787's or A350's ended up being sold at a loss, but in both cases it will have been similar to the number of A220's currently on order.
As far as I'm aware, Airbus only broke even on A350 production in 2018, and it makes me wonder just how profitable they are in 2021 at rate 6
I'm sure Airbus would like the A220 backlog to be profitable, but it sort of is what it is - a step to be gone through to long-term profitability.
The A220 will be around for a very long time in my opinion, and will make money for Airbus.
It's never going to make the margins that the high volume A320 series make.
But then I don't see that as "either/or" as I said.
Unless of course the armchair CEO's who have no idea what they don't know are going to profess to know Airbus's cost structure and markets better than Airbus.
I've got news for them - they don't.