WayexTDI wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

So, you basically confirmed that the E2 fits the wrong niche and that BBD had it right with the CSeries.

"Wrong niche" ??
There's no need to put words in my mouth. I never said that and that's not at all what I believe. You compared the share of 220s sold to the share of E2s sold, but I don't think they occupy the same role in airlines' fleets. When I say "step above," that's not a compliment to the 220, since that's how you seem to understand it as. That is simply a differentiator between the two models: more capacity versus less capacity, more range vs less. Regarding scope issues with the 175E2, frankly, Embraer wasn't thinking... but it's only resulted in more orders for E175-E1s for them.

When your products don't sell (or barely sell) and your closest competition is outselling you 2.5:1, you locked yourself in the wrong niche. When one of your customers replaces its E-jets with A220s (JetBlue) instead of the "natural" replacement (E2s), you got it wrong. When your "old" product line (E-Jets) has a backlog almost as important as your new offering after 10 years of market presence for the latter (133 vs 162 in March 2021), you got it wrong.

So, according to you, I should say that the B787 is way much more successful than the A220, then? Or, better, the B737 is way much more successful since it is being around since the 1960s and still sells??

JetBlue replaced their E190s by A220s not only because it got a better deal (at a loss to Airbus): It did so because it wanted to UP-GAUGE their routes. How many times we need to mention that the E195 is not on the same niche as the A220-300 (which JetBlue did buy)???

Embraer tried very hard to keep the customer but, despite pricing, performance et all, it did not have the right product. Consider KLM - with Air France adding stacks of A220s, it still went to the E2-195 for their Cityhopper offering..

Boeing, Airbus, Embraer will win and lose customer due to comercial and economics but they will also lose (and win) customer based on the suitability of their offerings. That's what it happened with JetBlue and that's why for example, United ordered the A321XLR (Boeing has nothing to offer on that bracket since the demise of the B757)

Skywatcher wrote:

In my humble opinion the programs have diverged with the passage of time so dramatically that the two platforms are no longer comparable.

E2-less risk taken/more cautious investment/more niche market/less innovative technology/less amenable to foreign ownership.
A-220-bet the company/billions in the hole/far more marketable/tech leader/global in every way.

I think Brazil's prickly industrial strategy towards foreigners is a big negative for the E2 program.
Without Boeing EMB will never compete on the same scale as the A-220.

I am afraid you are inaccurate. What sunk the JV between Boeing and Embraer was Boeing's situation. It had lots of problems to deal with and just had the B737 MAX grounded for safety reasons..

Boeing got all it wanted in regards to the JV but pulled out in the end - their strategic move and time will tell if it was right or wrong.

Now, Embraer, as it stands, weill never have anything of scale as the A220 for one simple reason: It DOES NOT wants to. It does not operate on that level. It is happy with the regional market; not mainline. Look at their new proposed projects. Anything there over 100/120 seats??? Embraer is heavily profitable as they are: military aircraft, commercial private ones and the regional market. If you isolate the A220 that is compatible to their E2-195, the A220-100, you will see that Airbus barely touches the market.

Suffice to say that, the real competitor of Embraer was BBD which operated in the same market (from their DAHs and Q200/400 all the way to their ERJs). They did try to go "turbo" and overreached with the C-Series. They've gone. So, on this perspective, Embraer consolidated its place where it is always have been: 3rd largest Aircraft Maker.

zkojq wrote:

There is a odd tendency for people to just look at C Series/A220 from the moment that Airbus bought it for a $1, and completely ignore its history (and costs!) before then.

Sunk cost fallacy. A dollar Bombardier spent ten years ago developing the program has no effect on Airbus today.

We hear about this quite a lot regarding the 77X program....

No, it is not. Here we are discussing the Programs (A220 x E-195E2), not the companies so overall it does make sense to consider that, if Airbus did not want to acquire the space on the market rather than let go towards a Chinese Investor, for example, does not hide that the project is not as profitable as such. Every single A220 that leaves the factory today does not make a profit. This will have to change somehow without Airbus relying on Boeing's misadventures.

The B77X program is like the E2, the NEO and the MAX - a continuation and overall is very profitable.

WayexTDI wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Why wait 5 years? The E2 has been offered for sale for 10 years now, entered into service in April 2018; its 205 orders were placed in majority before EIS (139 before, 66 after). It's understandable that the order book could be on the lighter side before EIS; but now? How long do we need to wait, just in case it picks up new orders?

The E2 was a low-cost low-risk derivative; it does not garner an order book worthy of its predecessor.
The A220 was a high-cost high-risk venture; it (and other issues at BBD) sunk its manufacturer. It costs Airbus money, but is banking on the future. E2's future is cloudy at best.

Why 5 years? Because since the aircraft entered service, there was a period of uncertainty around how Embraer would look in the future owing to the proposed Boeing deal, followed by a period of uncertainty around how anything would look in the future owing to COVID-19.

During the last 20 months since the pandemic took hold, from what I can see, the A220 suffered 38 cancellations (Air Canada - 12, Gulf Air - 10, SaudiGulf - 16 - although this last one was in the works pre-COVID), while the E2 did not appear to lose any orders. In 2020, there were 58 orders for the A220 (ALC - 50, Air Senegal - 8), for a net of 20 when cancellations are taken into account. Meanwhile the E2 only took 2 orders - Congo Airways.

In 2021 to date, there have been 30 orders for the E2 (Porter) and 10 orders for the A220 (Ibom Air), plus a Letter of Intent for 25 A220s from ALC which is really not in question, so let’s say 35 orders for the A220. Looking at 2020 and 2021 in isolation, I might draw the conclusion that things were fairly evenly matched, but I think you’d agree those are probably not the most indicative years to be drawing conclusions from. Hopefully 2022 will see a return to less unusual conditions, and then we can really look at how these types perform on the market.

Looking back in history, in the 10 years 1988-1997, Airbus delivered 752 A320s to Boeing’s 1,491 737s in the same period, but as history has shown it would have been quite wrong in 1997 to declare that the 737 had clearly won the battle between the two.

So why 5 years? Because 5 years will give us good data that 1 or 2 years won’t, it was a rounder number than 4 or 6, and it also allows time for decisions around the E175-E2 and A220-500 to play out.

V/F

In 1988, Airbus had been delivering aircraft for less than 15 years (vs 32 years for Boeing jets, prior commercial products were marginal compared to competition) and was delivering its first ever narrowbody, whereas Embraer has been delivering commercial jets (RJs) for 25 years now. You're basically comparing apples to oranges: both fruits, but with different purpose and use.

While still able to sell its products, Embraer appears to have missed the turn in the industry and is in jeopardy of becoming like Bombardier or Sears/Circuit City: a strong contender who misread the market and its evolution and is now done.
BBD tried to save its future by betting the company on the CSeries; it failed to execute the program properly and had to sell everything but the biz jets to remain afloat. If Embraer fails at its E3 turboprop project, I don't think its civilian branch will survive much longer.

You continue to make unfeasible comparisons.

BBD came up with the C-Series because it wanted to beat EMB on the Regional and also go for Mainline (against Airbus and Boeing). It lost. End of. EMB never wanted to operate on that level. It always recognized that the E195 (now E2-195) was as far as that project could go. Even that, is compared to an A220-100.

Airbus is very successful and will be around for years to come but it is on another different league of EMB. It has been for years on years. But the real "mother of the child" has gone. BBD's bizjet is a shadow than what it was and plays second fiddle to EMB and lost the Q400 program and the C-Series is now A220.

BBD tried to fly too high and end up in pieces. Embraer continues where it essentially, wants to be and is profitable.

Airbus direct competitor is and, for the time being, will always be Boeing. There's no manufacturer in the market that can match to them.

tommy1808 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

However, there are airfields too small for the BCS3 or even the BCS1..

yes, but those are also too small for the E2. Its not like they have some stellar field performance.

best regards
Thomas

I was surprised that Swiss has replaced some of there A220’s to London city for the E2’s of Helvetic. Rumore has it that the e2-195 will be allowed there in the future. That will give them some advance over the A220.

I repeat myself. The succes of a product is not measured by the costs / profits /losses of individual frames build, but the overall performance. One could argue the 787 is still loss making. Yet I think the project, despite all it's setbacks is quite successful.

A350 reached production break even after over 300 units were delivered in 2020. A220 and E2 will reach this milestone after a set number of units are delivered. Embraer spent $$$ developing an evolution to the E1, then had to take some losses on the start of production. Airbus spent $1,- on a program and then had to invest and had to take some losses on production. In the end bringing an airplane to market demands some investing before earning you a profit.

P.S. Regional airlines seeking to expand their fleet and upgauge might choose E2. Mainline airlines seeking for a small jet might choose A221 if they are already flying or eyeing a plan the size of A223. E.g. Air France KLM:
KLM Cityhopper (regional airline): E175 / E190 / E195E2.
Air France (Mainline): A223

Or
Swiss (mainline): A221 / A223
Helvetic (regional): E190 / E190E2 / E195E2

godsbeloved wrote:

I repeat myself. The succes of a product is not measured by the costs / profits /losses of individual frames build, but the overall performance. One could argue the 787 is still loss making. Yet I think the project, despite all it's setbacks is quite successful.

A350 reached production break even after over 300 units were delivered in 2020. A220 and E2 will reach this milestone after a set number of units are delivered. Embraer spent $$$ developing an evolution to the E1, then had to take some losses on the start of production. Airbus spent $1,- on a program and then had to invest and had to take some losses on production. In the end bringing an airplane to market demands some investing before earning you a profit.

P.S. Regional airlines seeking to expand their fleet and upgauge might choose E2. Mainline airlines seeking for a small jet might choose A221 if they are already flying or eyeing a plan the size of A223. E.g. Air France KLM:
KLM Cityhopper (regional airline): E175 / E190 / E195E2.
Air France (Mainline): A223

Or
Swiss (mainline): A221 / A223
Helvetic (regional): E190 / E190E2 / E195E2

Succes is measered on however you want to look at it, Clearly you don't look at is as an invester who holds shares in the comnpany. For those people only profit counts, workers prefer there Job, passengers prefer a standy ride, Some people only will look at the enviroment, For some peolple it is only like a foorbal match.

Jomar777 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

The A220-500 dream - we talked so much about this that it is a waste of time here.

A quick update for you, Airbus CCO Christian Schrerer: "A220-500 will come after profitability. The market is pressuring us to develop it."

That might mean "next year" or "never" - depending on which side you are on... They will keep saying this or that all the time... might be as close as Boeing's B737 replacement as far as I am concerned.

The project initially might exits in some shape or form. I believe that BBD had plans for a CS-500. But Airbus will not cannibalise their own offering on the back of it... even more now that Boeing is down...

Just dream on a bit longer

Things changed, but just stick to it. After launch you can say : No news, long expected.

The drivers for Airbus to launch will be customer demand, as Scherer confirms.

Many operators replacing old A320 fleets after 20-30 years, want more than a new A320. ~15% more. Most have A321's, but those are 30% bigger, heavier, costlier.

They might consider lower or bigger capacity but only if CASM is substantially better: A225, A321NEO.

I think convincing 737-800 operators to switch, pushes a Airbus portfolio upgrade inbetween A220-300 and A321Neo. A very large segment and the A320NEO backlog is shrinking.

Jomar777 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

"Wrong niche" ??
There's no need to put words in my mouth. I never said that and that's not at all what I believe. You compared the share of 220s sold to the share of E2s sold, but I don't think they occupy the same role in airlines' fleets. When I say "step above," that's not a compliment to the 220, since that's how you seem to understand it as. That is simply a differentiator between the two models: more capacity versus less capacity, more range vs less. Regarding scope issues with the 175E2, frankly, Embraer wasn't thinking... but it's only resulted in more orders for E175-E1s for them.

When your products don't sell (or barely sell) and your closest competition is outselling you 2.5:1, you locked yourself in the wrong niche. When one of your customers replaces its E-jets with A220s (JetBlue) instead of the "natural" replacement (E2s), you got it wrong. When your "old" product line (E-Jets) has a backlog almost as important as your new offering after 10 years of market presence for the latter (133 vs 162 in March 2021), you got it wrong.

So, according to you, I should say that the B787 is way much more successful than the A220, then? Or, better, the B737 is way much more successful since it is being around since the 1960s and still sells??

JetBlue replaced their E190s by A220s not only because it got a better deal (at a loss to Airbus): It did so because it wanted to UP-GAUGE their routes. How many times we need to mention that the E195 is not on the same niche as the A220-300 (which JetBlue did buy)???

Embraer tried very hard to keep the customer but, despite pricing, performance et all, it did not have the right product. Consider KLM - with Air France adding stacks of A220s, it still went to the E2-195 for their Cityhopper offering..

Boeing, Airbus, Embraer will win and lose customer due to comercial and economics but they will also lose (and win) customer based on the suitability of their offerings. That's what it happened with JetBlue and that's why for example, United ordered the A321XLR (Boeing has nothing to offer on that bracket since the demise of the B757)

Eh, yes: the 787 is way more successful than the A220 given its sales record, even if it doesn't fit in the same category. Same for the 737: when you can sell 15,000+ frames over 50+ years and your backlog is 25% of that total, you have a successful product.

The fact that JetBlue decided to upgauge also came from the fact that, overall, the A220 made more financial sense than the E2: if you can make more money running 3 E2s than running 2 A220s on a route, you go with frequency.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter the reason why; but, if the harsh reality is that you're losing customers and that your product sells way less than it used to, it means your product is less attractive (again, irrespective of the reason why) and you've misread the market or got blinded by your competitors.
Thing is, market has evolved away from the RJs: BBD tried to make the turn, designed a great product that ended up being executed poorly and it cost them dearly. Still, that product, once taken over by a competitor, is proving to be a sales success so far. EMB has decided to stick with their big RJ and it might end up costing the as well.

Jomar777 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

Well, that only applies if you consider them to occupy the same market segment which is not the case. The A220-100 is a step above the 190-E2 in terms of capacity, and the -300 js a step above the 195-E2 in terms of capacity. When you compare ranges, the disparity becomes clearer, as the 220 has about 3400-3600 nmi of range compared to the E2's 2600-2000nmi (excluding the 175-E2). This makes it pretty clear that you can't just swap out an A220 for an E2. I think it's somewhat similar to the 787 vs A330neo debate as opposed to the 787 vs A350 debate. You aren't going to see US regional airlines ever consider ordering the 220 over the E2, for example.

So, you basically confirmed that the E2 fits the wrong niche and that BBD had it right with the CSeries.

No, BBD did not. The C-Series program sank the company. The Program (not BBD) was lucky to get a second investor (Airbus) which decided to invest (at a still big loss) on the program otherwise, it would not have survived.

Execution of the program was poor; but the product itself was the right one, since it now sells in good numbers.

Don't mistake wrong product with wrong program execution.

tvh wrote:

I was surprised that Swiss has replaced some of there A220’s to London city for the E2’s of Helvetic. Rumore has it that the e2-195 will be allowed there in the future. That will give them some advance over the A220.

How come? How has the stretch rectified the tailstrike issue?

WayexTDI wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

So, you basically confirmed that the E2 fits the wrong niche and that BBD had it right with the CSeries.

No, BBD did not. The C-Series program sank the company. The Program (not BBD) was lucky to get a second investor (Airbus) which decided to invest (at a still big loss) on the program otherwise, it would not have survived.

Execution of the program was poor; but the product itself was the right one, since it now sells in good numbers.

Don't mistake wrong product with wrong program execution.

I agree except the A220 needed funding for corrective PiPs. In particular engine reliability. At engine dispatch reliability of 99.98%, not an issue anymore:
https://www.aero-mag.com/pratt-whitney- ... -23122020/

The next PiPs are performance related. I speculate continued weight loss and maybe say main landing gear doors. I also expect an increase to range, as Breeze seems to want:
https://worldofaviation.com/2021/05/bre ... -increase/

If a few more orders come in, it makes sales easier.

Lightsaber

Too many superficial 'analyses' posted on this thread confuses what really matters: facts and objective conclusions, rather than misleading 'categorical statements'.

- Embraer's E195-E2 only competes with the A220-100; the A220-300 serves different, mainline markets requiring greater capacity
- E2 offers substantially lower acquisition, and therefore financing, costs vs. A220-100, and its development never threatened Embraer, or its shareholders
- Bombardier's owners, the parties most standing to gain from capital investments, i.e. its shareholders, lost their value due to their governance decision to pursue C-Series development
- Embraer NEVER designed or planned E2 to serve the mainline market, competing with A+B
- Some E1 operators, like B6 and AC, have different mission and market requirements today vs. 10-15 years ago and are better served with the A220-300 vs. the E195-E2
- Some new A220 operators, like DL, will likely operate the smaller A220-100 on thinner markets, complementing its larger A220-300 fleet
- E2 has garnered 205 orders since marketing launch, while the A220-100 has collected a whopping 90 orders, quite a large gap[/list]

A market battle is never 'won' without commensurate financial returns, on a cash-on-cash basis, to the investors themselves. This is particularly relevant for equity owners, who authorize corporate governance decisions. Under this criteria, the 'C-Series/A220' program has been an abject failure, with new investors (Airbus SAS) forced to fund further capital outlays to fully develop and market the program. Who knows what the marginal operating profit per A220 delivery is today, even without assessing capitalized acquisition and development costs? Of course, we do know Embraer Commercial realized $902 million in YTD 2021 revenues through Q3 2021, representing approximately a third of total corporate revenue, yielding a rather nice $288 million in YTD 2021 EBITDA, all in a pandemic year! Under this perspective, E2 has been a phenomenal success for Embraer, further extending the E-Jet series cash flows decades into the future.

Bombardier targeted a larger market segment for its original C-Series development. Capital investment funding C-Series development completely destroyed Bombardier's corporate valuation. Did Embraer 'fail' because it did not follow with a 'bigger-bolder' E2 programme capable of directly competing across the A220 portfolio? Absolutely NOT! Why? Well, because that objective was never possible with the E-Jet platform and would have required an entirely new aircraft. Is Embraer 'missing out' because its product offering does not serve the 'juicy-125-155-passenger-plus-single-aisle-market'? Absolutely NOT! Why? Well, because Embraer's corporate governance, its board of directors representing the fiduciary interests of its shareholders, made a strategic decision many years ago to avoid direct competition with Airbus and Boeing. They made this decision knowing their comparative advantage lies with innovation and design-led product offerings serving the sub-130 passenger market.

Today, Embraer dominates its stated market sector, the sub-130 passenger market. Its E175-E1 product holds an enviable U.S. market position. Mitsubishi (appears to have) abandoned its insanely-expensive M100 and M90 Spacejet programme. Unlike the Bombardier C-Series, neither Airbus, nor its regional aircraft joint-venture, ATR, appear interested in acquiring and fully-developing the Spacejet programme. Embraer's future appears to be even more exciting and successful than its recent past, with potentially transformative developments like the New Turbo-Prop ('NTP'), or 'E3', programme and the eye-opening 'Energia' series, serving the 9-50 passenger market with new sustainable propulsion technologies.

Embraer has a stated objective developing hydrogen-fuel-powered E2s mid-century. Quite an ambitious goal for a 'failed programme', no?

SEU wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Sunk cost fallacy. A dollar Bombardier spent ten years ago developing the program has no effect on Airbus today.

We hear about this quite a lot regarding the 77X program....

No, it is not. Here we are discussing the Programs (A220 x E-195E2), not the companies so overall it does make sense to consider that, if Airbus did not want to acquire the space on the market rather than let go towards a Chinese Investor, for example, does not hide that the project is not as profitable as such. Every single A220 that leaves the factory today does not make a profit. This will have to change somehow without Airbus relying on Boeing's misadventures.

The B77X program is like the E2, the NEO and the MAX - a continuation and overall is very profitable.

The B777X progam is very profitable at the moment then?

The B777X is not very profitable but, if you add it on the whole B777 offering since the beginning, the story changes. That's what I am trying to explain.

PDPsol wrote:

Too many superficial 'analyses' posted on this thread confuses what really matters: facts and objective conclusions, rather than misleading 'categorical statements'.

- Embraer's E195-E2 only competes with the A220-100; the A220-300 serves different, mainline markets requiring greater capacity
- E2 offers substantially lower acquisition, and therefore financing, costs vs. A220-100, and its development never threatened Embraer, or its shareholders
- Bombardier's owners, the parties most standing to gain from capital investments, i.e. its shareholders, lost their value due to their governance decision to pursue C-Series development
- Embraer NEVER designed or planned E2 to serve the mainline market, competing with A+B
- Some E1 operators, like B6 and AC, have different mission and market requirements today vs. 10-15 years ago and are better served with the A220-300 vs. the E195-E2
- Some new A220 operators, like DL, will likely operate the smaller A220-100 on thinner markets, complementing its larger A220-300 fleet
- E2 has garnered 205 orders since marketing launch, while the A220-100 has collected a whopping 90 orders, quite a large gap[/list]

A market battle is never 'won' without commensurate financial returns, on a cash-on-cash basis, to the investors themselves. This is particularly relevant for equity owners, who authorize corporate governance decisions. Under this criteria, the 'C-Series/A220' program has been an abject failure, with new investors (Airbus SAS) forced to fund further capital outlays to fully develop and market the program. Who knows what the marginal operating profit per A220 delivery is today, even without assessing capitalized acquisition and development costs? Of course, we do know Embraer Commercial realized $902 million in YTD 2021 revenues through Q3 2021, representing approximately a third of total corporate revenue, yielding a rather nice $288 million in YTD 2021 EBITDA, all in a pandemic year! Under this perspective, E2 has been a phenomenal success for Embraer, further extending the E-Jet series cash flows decades into the future.

Bombardier targeted a larger market segment for its original C-Series development. Capital investment funding C-Series development completely destroyed Bombardier's corporate valuation. Did Embraer 'fail' because it did not follow with a 'bigger-bolder' E2 programme capable of directly competing across the A220 portfolio? Absolutely NOT! Why? Well, because that objective was never possible with the E-Jet platform and would have required an entirely new aircraft. Is Embraer 'missing out' because its product offering does not serve the 'juicy-125-155-passenger-plus-single-aisle-market'? Absolutely NOT! Why? Well, because Embraer's corporate governance, its board of directors representing the fiduciary interests of its shareholders, made a strategic decision many years ago to avoid direct competition with Airbus and Boeing. They made this decision knowing their comparative advantage lies with innovation and design-led product offerings serving the sub-130 passenger market.

Today, Embraer dominates its stated market sector, the sub-130 passenger market. Its E175-E1 product holds an enviable U.S. market position. Mitsubishi (appears to have) abandoned its insanely-expensive M100 and M90 Spacejet programme. Unlike the Bombardier C-Series, neither Airbus, nor its regional aircraft joint-venture, ATR, appear interested in acquiring and fully-developing the Spacejet programme. Embraer's future appears to be even more exciting and successful than its recent past, with potentially transformative developments like the New Turbo-Prop ('NTP'), or 'E3', programme and the eye-opening 'Energia' series, serving the 9-50 passenger market with new sustainable propulsion technologies.

Embraer has a stated objective developing hydrogen-fuel-powered E2s mid-century. Quite an ambitious goal for a 'failed programme', no?

I agree 200% with your statement.

The only thing I could wish was that you did pot it earlier.

Would have avoid a lot of pointless posts that came before it.

PDPsol wrote:

- E2 offers substantially lower acquisition, and therefore financing, costs vs. A220-100,

That would be a solid "nope".

LAXintl wrote:

A220-100 - $23.6 - 33.0M, $150-230,000
EMB190E2 - $23.3 - 29.0M, $150-220,000

viewtopic.php?t=1460947

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

- E2 offers substantially lower acquisition, and therefore financing, costs vs. A220-100,

That would be a solid "nope".

LAXintl wrote:

A220-100 - $23.6 - 33.0M, $150-230,000
EMB190E2 - $23.3 - 29.0M, $150-220,000

viewtopic.php?t=1460947

best regards
Thomas

Be careful with comparisons. The oldest A221 has been in service about 5 years. The oldest E190E2 ~3 years.

Jomar777 wrote:

No, it is not. Here we are discussing the Programs (A220 x E-195E2), not the companies so overall

The title of the thread includes "market battle" not "program success".

Jomar777 wrote:

The B77X program is like the E2, the NEO and the MAX - a continuation and overall is very profitable.

There is every chance that the 777X program will never become cashflow positive. Boeing took a $6.5 billion charge against the program at the start of the year. To compare the program's success (financial or otherwise) to the neo is simply comical.

zkojq wrote:

There is every chance that the 777X program will never become cashflow positive. Boeing took a $6.5 billion charge against the program at the start of the year. To compare the program's success (financial or otherwise) to the neo is simply comical.

I think you mean overall profitable. It’s entirely possible that the 777X program becomes cash flow positive (even the A380 reached that milestone, albeit only for a brief period of time). Accounting charges don’t really play into that, it’s more a factor of cost to build vs sale prices.

vfw614 wrote:

tvh wrote:

I was surprised that Swiss has replaced some of there A220’s to London city for the E2’s of Helvetic. Rumore has it that the e2-195 will be allowed there in the future. That will give them some advance over the A220.

How come? How has the stretch rectified the tailstrike issue?

Smartly implemented FBW can make dreams come true.

IMO the E2 is not really comparable to the CSeries, they only overlap a bit (the biggest E2 sits just a bit above the CS100, and that smallest member is not the successful member of that family).
Its a pity that the "partnership" between Embraer and Boeing did not happen, the E2 was a perfect fit below the 737 MAX.

zkojq wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

No, it is not. Here we are discussing the Programs (A220 x E-195E2), not the companies so overall

The title of the thread includes "market battle" not "program success".

Jomar777 wrote:

The B77X program is like the E2, the NEO and the MAX - a continuation and overall is very profitable.

There is every chance that the 777X program will never become cashflow positive. Boeing took a $6.5 billion charge against the program at the start of the year. To compare the program's success (financial or otherwise) to the neo is simply comical.

Firstly - in the case of this thread and following all comments, you may see that we are actually discussed "Program Success" AS PART of "Market Battle". It would be extremely helpful to you if, rather than making pointless comments and wasting time, you read most of the comments and consider what's being discussed.

Also, again like many many others here on this thread - The B777X is an evolution AND PART OF the main project - the B777 Project overall. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish a brand new project offering (the actual A220/CS Project, the original A320 and B737, for example) from their own evolutionary paths (the MAX, the NEO, the X). Maybe is lack of knowledge or, like the above, your lack of ability to read other comments before jumping in with comments that are pointless.

Jomar777 wrote:

Also, again like many many others here on this thread - The B777X is an evolution AND PART OF the main project - the B777 Project overall. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish a brand new project offering (the actual A220/CS Project, the original A320 and B737, for example) from their own evolutionary paths (the MAX, the NEO, the X). Maybe is lack of knowledge or, like the above, your lack of ability to read other comments before jumping in with comments that are pointless.

Even the #1 B777X customer, Emirates long term CEO, Tim Clark, has a problem (lack of knowledge or, like the above, lacks of ability to read other comments) distinguishing a brand new project offering from their own evolutionary paths.

" I can’t understand why the 777X with all its novelties was ticketed as a derivative, while it’s not when you build a new aircraft. "
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... -problems/

I don't think the A220 vs E-195E2 in 2021, market battle finally won by Airbus. Embraer will probably keep dominating 80-120 seats for the foreseeable future, while Airbus grows the A220 in production volumes and size.

Lehman News analyzing the Regional Aircraft Market (https://leehamnews.com).

I don't have a subscription, so I only got the summary, as follows. Anyone out there with more details on this article ? It fits our current thread just perfectly

"Nov. 22, 2021, © Leeham News: Last week, LNA looked at Airbus and Boeing’s planned twin-aisle production rates. We now turn our attention to production rates in the regional aircraft market.
The production of the Mitsubishi Heavy Industry-owned CRJ ceased earlier this year, while De Havilland of Canada’s Q400 will also end soon. Few expect production on the latter program to restart.
KLM E-Jet
MHI also halted the development of its MRJ/SpaceJet, with a program restart unlikely at this point. These exits mean that ATR and Embraer will be the only major regional OEMs outside China and Russia.
ATR announced plans to raise its combined ATR42 and ATR72 production to 50 aircraft annually. LNA will investigate whether the turboprop’s order book justifies such an increase.
LNA will separately analyze the Embraer E175 and E-Jet E2 production. Since the E-Jet E2 Embraer program competes with Airbus’ A220, we will also look at production plans on the latter.

Summary
An optimistic ATR production plan;
Comparing E175 and E Jet-E2 production;
Steady A220 production plans;
Orders at risk;
Other OEMs."

Cheers

docmtl

Airbus also competes with Embraer with the ATR 42/72, even though it is a 50/50 joint venture with italian supplier Leonardo. ATR final assembly line is in Toulouse.

At the Dubai airshow it was announced that the ATR will be re-engined with an up-to-date PW turboprop.

keesje wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

Also, again like many many others here on this thread - The B777X is an evolution AND PART OF the main project - the B777 Project overall. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish a brand new project offering (the actual A220/CS Project, the original A320 and B737, for example) from their own evolutionary paths (the MAX, the NEO, the X). Maybe is lack of knowledge or, like the above, your lack of ability to read other comments before jumping in with comments that are pointless.

Even the #1 B777X customer, Emirates long term CEO, Tim Clark, has a problem (lack of knowledge or, like the above, lacks of ability to read other comments) distinguishing a brand new project offering from their own evolutionary paths.

" I can’t understand why the 777X with all its novelties was ticketed as a derivative, while it’s not when you build a new aircraft. "
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... -problems/

I don't think the A220 vs E-195E2 in 2021, market battle finally won by Airbus. Embraer will probably keep dominating 80-120 seats for the foreseeable future, while Airbus grows the A220 in production volumes and size.

The B777X was market as derivative because it is what it is. There's not enough of those so called derivatives for it to be seen as a brand new project. You may want to discuss this further by opening a new thread. It will be worth and will invite a lot of interesting views.

As for the E2-195, the best definition of outcome might be:

a) Embraer won against the C-Series and BBD. It sold more, it remains profitable while BBD went down and had to solve the project;
b) Embraer won against the A220-100. Its direct competitor within Airbus, does not accrue either orders nor profitability enough to even warrant a battle
c) Embraer lost against the A220-300. Consider though that, on this specific, it was competing against a more established Plane Maker on a level it did not really intend to directly compete. The A220-300 only overlaps the E2-195 on its (E2) very top.

Consider that, if BBD did not sell the C-Series to Airbus and went down, you would not have the A220 today and Embraer would definitely shy away from pitching the E2-195 against the A319/A320 since it was never their intended market.

Are either of these programs successful right now? Even at 800 frames the A220 has been around for over a decade with ~180 delivered frames. Not exactly tearing through sales. The E2 is a little younger but only sold ~200 frames.

Under BBD, the A220 was not that successful. Under Airbus umbrella, it had this strong recent sales performance. The plane is the very the same. What has changed is the sales team.

I wonder what would have been the sales performance of the two families if the E2 program had been bought by Airbus instead of the C-Series. Would we have a similar amount of aircraft ordered or, perhaps, the E2 ahead?

SA280 wrote:

Under BBD, the A220 was not that successful. Under Airbus umbrella, it had this strong recent sales performance. The plane is the very the same. What has changed is the sales team.

I wonder what would have been the sales performance of the two families if the E2 program had been bought by Airbus instead of the C-Series. Would we have a similar amount of aircraft ordered or, perhaps, the E2 ahead?

Actually, Airbus did put (and is still putting) a lot of money on the program, including a new Production Line in USA (AL). Plus the marketing and leverage...

I am not sure Airbus would have chipped in on the E2 Program because Embraer is in a very good shape and also the program does not overlap with Airbus own offerings on the scale (A318, A319, bottom of A320). Airbus saw in the C-Series a program that was threatening their share but also had offerings on an area where they were not covering/not that successful. Additionally, it already accrued orders of scale (Air Baltic, Swiss, Delta...). It was also, initially cheap and available to be acquired since BBD was on the rope.

The most likely alternative outcome would be for it not to invest on the C-Series and to stick to its own offering.. If that happened, I believe that the E2 would acquire some extra (but not many) orders but the main impact would be the C-Series program being terminated and the A220 not existing altogether...

..

aemoreira1981 wrote:

.. However, there are airfields too small for the BCS3 or even the BCS1..

..Those airfields that are too small for A220-300 (Bombardier CSeries CS300/BD-500-1A11) or even A220-100 (Bombardier CSeries CS100/BD-500-1A10) are also too small for E195-E2 (ERJ 190-400) or even E190-E2 (ERJ 190-300 STD) aircraft.
..
● Both, A220-100 (LX/SWR) and E190-E2 (2L/OAW) serve some small, demanding and at the same time very popular airports such as London City Airport (LCY/EGLC) and Florence Airport (FLR/LIRQ).
..
● The other small airport LX/SWR serves with its A220-100s are: Mykonos Airport (JMK/LGMK), Cork Airport (ORK/EICK) and Sylt Airport (GWT/EDXW).
..
● The other small airport 2L/OAW serves with its E190-E2s are: Regional Aerodrome Bern-Belp (BRN/LSZB) and Bristol Airport (BRS/EGGD).
..
● The smallest airport DL/DAL serves with its A220-100s are: John Wayne Airport (SNA/KSNA) and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA/KDCA).
..
● Air Astana (KC/KZR), Air Kiribati (IK/AKL) and Widerøe (WF/WIF) don't serve any small airport with their E190-E2s …
..
..Despite the more seats in the cabin and significantly longer range, the aircraft of the .A220 Family are not inferior at all in their short field performances in the comparison with the aircraft of the .E-Jet E2 family …
..
…..
…..Comparativ data of Airbus A220-100, Airbus A220-300, Embraer E190-E2 (ERJ 190-300 STD) and Embraer E195-E2 (ERJ 190-400) aircraft
..

tvh wrote:

I was surprised that Swiss has replaced some of there A220’s to London city for the E2’s of Helvetic. Rumore has it that the e2-195 will be allowed there in the future. That will give them some advance over the A220.

..With the passenger demand still relatively thin, the lower capacity Helvetic Airways' Embraer E190-E2 with the cabin configuration Y110 is an ideal aircraft for the service on those routes (the first commercial service into LCY airport happened on 02. September 2021.), now served by both Helvetic Airways' Embraer E190-E2s and SWISS' Airbus A220-100s with the cabin configuration CY125 (resumed their route from Zurich on 12. May 2021.) …
..
..According to those authoritative and competent sources, in the foreseeable future both types of the aircraft, Airbus A220-300 (link.1) and Embraer E195-E2 (link.2) could get certified for the operations at London City Airport.
..
..Embraer S.A. is keenly working towards the certification for E195-E2 at London City, which would open the door not only for Helvetic Airways to upgauge, but also for the airlines like KLM Cityhopper to being service to the airport with their E195-E2s …
..
…On 23. March 2017. Bombardier CSeries CS100 (BD-500-1A10) testbed aircraft; MSN 50002, reg. C-GWYD, powered by two .PW1524G, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.854,2 mm / 73,0 in; BPR: 12,0:1; gear ratio: 3,0625:1; eng. architecture: 1F-]G[-3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 108,54 kN / 11.068 kgf / 24.400 lbf, landed for the first time at London City Airport. In March 2017. Bombardier Aviation conducted further steep 5,5˚ approach landings tests at LCY/EGLC, making it the largest airplane to land there. Bombardier Aviation announced that their CSeries CS100 (BD-500-1A10) received Transport Canada and EASA steep approach certification in April 2017.
..
…SWISS’ aircraft CSeries CS100; MSN 50010, reg. HB-JBA, test reg. C-FPAI, with the cabin configuration CY125 and powered by two .PW1524G, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 1.854,2 mm / 73,0 in; BPR: 12,0:1; gear ratio: 3,0625:1; eng. architecture: 1F-]G[-3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 108,54 kN / 11.068 kgf / 24.400 lbf, completed its first revenue flight from ZRH to LCY on 08. Aug. 2017, starting to replace Swiss Global Air Lines' BAe AVRO RJ100, short-haul, regional airliner with the CY97 cabin configuration, powered by four Textron Lycoming LF507-1F, ’2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.022,3 mm / 40,25 in; BPR: 5,7:1; gear ratio: 2,3:1; eng. architecture: 1F-]G[-2LPC–(7+1r)HPC〧2HPT–2LPT), OPR: 13,8:1, each rated at 31,14 kN / 3.175 kgf / 7.000 lbf. The last flight of the LZ/SWU’s AVRO RJ100 aircraft to LCY happened on 14. Aug 2017.
..
….….
…..Bombardier CSeries CS100; MSN 50002, reg. C-GWYD and Embraer E190-E2; MSN 19020004, reg. PR-ZGQ, prototypes landing at London City airport (click for a larger view)
..
..On 13. July 2018. Embraer E190-E2 (ERJ 190-300 STD) testbed aircraft; MSN 19020004, reg. PR-ZGQ, powered by two .PW1922G, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.854,2 mm / 73,0 in; BPR: 12,0:1; gear ratio: 3,0625:1; eng. architecture: 1F-]G[-3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 105,93 kN / 10.802 kgf / 23.815 lbf, on its way to 2018 Farnborough Airshow, landed for the first time at London City Airport. Embraer E190-E2 received steep approach certification from EASA on 11. May 2021.
..
..Helvetic Airways’ aircraft Embraer E190-E2; MSN 19020036, reg. HB-AZG, test reg. PR-ECV, with the cabin configuration Y110, powered by two .PW1919, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 1.854,2 mm / 73,0 in; BPR: 12,0:1; gear ratio: 3,0625:1; eng. architecture: 1F-]G[-3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 92,79 kN / 9.462 kgf / 20.860 lbf, completed its first revenue flight from ZRH to LCY on 02. September 2021.
..
….….
…..SWISS’ Airbus A220-100 and Helvetic Airways' Embraer E190-E2 at London City airport (click for a larger view)
..
..Bombardier CSeries / Airbus A220 is the only commercial aircraft specifically designed for the airport operations at London City Airport and that for SWISS's flights to ZRH/LSZH and GVA/LSGG. With the cabin configured with 108 seats, Airbus A220 can fly some 2.350 nmi / 4.352 km from LCY. It can reach JFK from LCY with the cabin configured with 42 seats.
..
..Before SWISS have started the operations to LCY in August 2017. with their .A220-100s (Bombardier CSeries CS100/BD-500-1A10), MTOW: 60.781 kg / 134.000 lb, cabin configuration: CY125, powered by two .PW1524G, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 73,0 in / 1.854,2 mm; BPR: 12,0:1; gear ratio: 3,0625:1; engine architecture: 1F-]G[-3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 108,54 kN / 11.068 kgf / 24.400 lbf and Helvetic Airways in September 2021. with their .E190-E2s (ERJ 190-300 STD): MTOW: 56.400 kg / 124.341 lb, cabin configuration: Y110, powered by two .PW1922G, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.854,2 mm / 73,0 in; BPR: 12,0:1; gear ratio: 3,0625:1; engine architecture: 1F-]G[-3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 105,93 kN / 10.802 kgf / 23.815 lbf, the largest aircraft certified for the operation at LCY airport was British Airways’ .A318-112; MTOW: 68.000 kg / 149.914 lb, cabin configuration: C32, powered by two .CFM56-5B9/P, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 1.734,8 mm / 68,3 in; BPR: 5,9:1; engine architecture: 1F+4LPC–9HPC〧1HPT–4LPT), OPR: 32,6:1, each rated at 103,64 kN / 10.568 kgf / 23.300 lbf.
..
..The steep approach to the LCY's 1.508 m / 4.948 ft long paved runway represents a serious challenge (glideslope 5,5°). The airport reference code 2C means its ASDA, TORA and TODA declared distances are limited to 1.199 m / 3.934 ft by regulation (LDA is unregulated and permitted to be longer - 1.319 m / 4.327 ft). Otherwise, the usable takeoff distance available (TODA) for RWY 27 is 1.385 m / 4.544 ft, longer than that of RWY 09 (1.319 m / 4.327 ft) due to shorter starter extension on RWY 09.
..At least as much as its short runway, the limiting factors at LCY are obstacle clearance and a downwind take-offs. The winds are generally from the east, favoring RWY 09 which has some restrictive obstacles, but the downwind on the RWY 27 is just favorable. The LCY's ground infrastructure is designed to aircraft code C standards so it could, in theory, accept any aircraft with up to 35,99 m (118 ft 7/8 in) wingspan, and that would include all four aircraft shown in the table.
..

vfw614 wrote:

tvh wrote:

I was surprised that Swiss has replaced some of there A220’s to London city for the E2’s of Helvetic. Rumore has it that the e2-195 will be allowed there in the future. That will give them some advance over the A220.

How come? How has the stretch rectified the tailstrike issue?

..Appart from the required glideslope and descent, there might be a parking and ground manoeuvring issues so the aircraft would need to be ferried in and out due to a lack of space for the parking. The reason why Airbus A220-300 and Embraer E195-E2, no matter of the former serious discussions about their regular operations at London City Airport, haven't been certified for the operation on this airport so far was probably due to their general runway performance issues. They could physically operate into the airport without a hitch, no matter of the required glideslope, but to stop safely on a wet runway the payload should be very limited so it's possible that someone concluded there was no sense and justifiable reason to go through the lengthy and expensive processes of their certification. The root issue lies in the fact that the streched versions of the aircraft usually share a common wing with their shorter and lighter siblings, what doesn't help when it comes to approach speed and departure performance at all. It has nothing to do with the possible tail strike. It is worth noting that every member of Embraer E-Jet E2 family has its very own, bespoke wing..
..
..And while there have already been a serious discussions about the regular operations on the LCY airport for Airbus A220-300 and Embraer E195-E2 aircraft, I haven't heard anyone mentioning Airbus A319neo or Boeing 737 MAX 7 in that context. In the case of business jets, which would be anyhow arriving at this airport in far fewer numbers, all that what would be valid for the small, non-interchangeable and steep approach capable airliners’ sub-fleets, in fact would not be applyable to the business jets flying with a very small number of the passengers and incomparably less cargo.
..
..That's why I think that there is no reason why .ACJ319neo; 78.200 kg / 172.401 lb, powered by either two .PW1127G-JM, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, GTF engines (fan diameter: 2.057,4 mm / 81,0 in; BPR: 12,5:1; gear ratio: 3,0625:1; engine architecture: 1F-]G[-3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 120,43 kN / 12.280 kgf / 27.075 lbf or by two .LEAP-1A26, 2-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 78,0 in / 1.981,2 mm; BPR: 11,0:1; engine architecture: 1F+3LPC–10HPC〧2HPT–7LPT), OPR: 43,68:1, each rated at 120,64 kN / 12.302 kgf / 27.120 lbf, .BBJ MAX 7; MTOW: 80.286 kg / 177.000 lb, powered by two .LEAP-1B27, 2-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 69,4 in / 1.763,0 mm; BPR: 9,0:1; engine architecture: 1F+3LPC–10HPC〧2HPT–5LPT), OPR: 43,68:1, each rated at 124,71 kN / 12.717 kgf / 28.037 lbf, .Lineage 1000 (ERJ 190-100 ECJ); MTOW: 54.500 kg / 120.152 lb, powered by two .CF34-10E7-B, 2-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 1.346,2 mm / 53,0 in; BPR: 5,4:1; engine architecture: 1F+3LPC–9HPC〧1HPT–4LPT), OPR: 29,0:1, each rated at 83,72 kN / 8.537 kgf / 18.820 lbf or .SBJ; MTOW: 49.450 kg / 109.019 lb, powered by two PowerJet SaM146-1S18C, 2-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 1.224,3 mm / 48,2 in; BPR: 4,4:1; engine architecture: 1F+3LPC–6HPC〧1HPT–3LPT), OPR: 28,0:1, each rated at 73,32 kN / 7.477 kgf / 16.483 lbf, could not be certified for the operations at London City Airport.
..
..I suppose all of them could be adjusted through the controling software changes to fly steep approaches procedures with no physical or structural modifications needed. Because of glideslope of 5,5° and descent of some 427 m / 1.400 ft per min (LCY airport), it is really pushing 737 MAX to its limits. Besides Boeing 737 is very slippery plane which means that it's very hard to bleed its speed off if necessary and the only of those four aircaft not using complete but only spoiler FBW system for improved stopping distances. I came across a very interesting article related to .737-7BC(WL) BBJ; MTOW: 77.564 kg / 171.000 lb, MSN 30884 / LN 747, reg. N184QS, powered by two .CFM56-7B26, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 61,0 in / 1.549,4 mm; BPR: 5,1:1; engine architecture: 1F+3LPC–9HPC〧1HPT–4LPT), OPR: 32,7:1, each rated at 116,99 kN / 11.930 kgf / 26.300 lbf, performing test flights at Paro International Airport (PBH/VQPR) airport in Bhutan…
..
..Since Bombardier CSeries / Airbus A220 is the only commercial aircraft specifically designed for SWISS' flights between Zurich Airport (ZRH/LSZH) and Geneva Airport (GVA/LSGG) on the one and London City Airport on the other (in the cabin configured with 108 seats it can fly some 2.350 nm / 4.352 km from LCY and can reach JFK with the cabin configured with 42 seats), one day the business version of Airbus A220-100 aircraft - ACJ TwoTwenty, could probably get its steep approach certification for LCY airport too. If Pratt & Whitney PW1500G, '2,5'-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engines of an even greater thrust were needed, there is PW1525G engine, with the same static thrust at the sea level as PW1524G rated at 108,54 kN / 11.068 kgf / 24.400 lbf, but 5 % increased through the thrust bump to 113,96 kN / 11.621 kgf / 25.620 lbf in non-static conditions and the speeds over Mach 0,1 / 66,7 kts / 123 km/h at sea level airfields.
..
………..
………..Comparison graph of the narrowbody airliners
..
..Besides the mentioned A220-100, A220-300, E190-E2 and E195-E2 airliners, the other airliners I would like to see at London City Airport are definitely: .A319neo, .737 MAX 7 and .Superjet 100…
..
..Related to the aircraft titled in this thread; I bellieve the market is large enough to accept the aircraft from the both, A220 Family and E-Jet E2 family. And while Airbus A318 and Boeing 737-600 have already fallen into the oblivion, the numbers of the orders for Airbus A319neo and Boeing 737 MAX 7 aircraft only further indicate that that the time has overtaken those shortened, overweight and robust versions of those basic and larger narrow-bodies from which they arose…
..
..The aforementioned quartet of the aircraft of the A220 Family and the E-Jet E2 family also has a great potential as the VIP airliners, largely comparable with the business jets produced by Dassault Aviation SA, Bombardier Aviation and Gulfstream Aerospace Co..
..
..Although the A220s and the E-Jet E2s do overlap in some regards, they actually don’t occupy the same market segment. And while the A220s give the impression of a small mainline jet, the E-Jet E2s feels more like the big regional jets. The fact A220 Family could be extended with a largest family member - A220-500 and E-Jet E2 family with a smallest family member - E175-E2, clearly indicates the difference in between the construction concepts of these two aircraft families. Anyhow; the needed capacity, the range, the aprice as well as the other technical characteristics certainly narrow the choice for the potential customers.
..
..To live in the safeness of someone's warm and spacious home is much easier than on the street left to yourself …
..
..Mario

More and more the A220 looks like a A319 and A320 follow on program to me. A more efficient mainline aircraft for big airlines. This leaves the A321neo to become the base of a growing own family with bigger wing. It will be interesting to see how Airbus integrates the totally different A220 cockpit philosophy into the rest of the products that are so well harmonised.

The E2 is a more honest "regional" aircraft. Smaller, leaner and less fancy but surprisingly capable and comfortable to the passenger. Much more comfortable for the passenger than high density MAX and neo configurations these days.

Noshow wrote:

More and more the A220 looks like a A319 and A320 follow on program to me. A more efficient mainline aircraft for big airlines. This leaves the A321neo to become the base of a growing own family with bigger wing. It will be interesting to see how Airbus integrates the totally different A220 cockpit philosophy into the rest of the products that are so well harmonised.

The E2 is a more honest "regional" aircraft. Smaller, leaner and less fancy but surprisingly capable and comfortable to the passenger. Much more comfortable for the passenger than high density MAX and neo configurations these days.

If passengers buying basic Y would pay more for comfort, I'd get the argument more. Since I won't pay a difference between a 737 and an A32x, I'd like to see if there is any revenue benefit. Aircraft are for efficiency.

The A220 is growing into an A319 replacement and we can hope for an A225. What we're seeing is the smaller market the E-jets used to occupy is shrinking.

There is also good weight. For example, Embraer increased the wing size on the E2 jets. From 92.53 m^2 to 103 m^2. That increase in weight is good weight as lower wing loading not only improves short field performance, but also allows cruising at a higher altitude in thinner air. The same is true for the A220 with its 112 m^2 wing area. That adds weight, but as it reduces trip costs via reduced fuel burn, that is good weight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E ... ifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family
https://www.airvectors.net/ava320.html

Other good weight is electric subsystems. My impression is the A220 has about a half generation ahead subsystems which reduces maintenance burden as well as fuel burn (much more efficient than the old simple pneumatic subsystems). So considering the E2-195 is the far better selling model (see wiki link) of 183 (E2-195) to 22 (E2-190) orders that goes up against the 90 orders for the A221:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A2 ... deliveries

In general, I see upgauging to the A223 a la JetBlue, AirCanada, and one could argue AirFrance and Breeze. I personally believe the high frequency regional jet market will be replaced by less than daily frequency with larger aircraft as competition is pushing down yields. I'm not saying RJs will disappear, the fraction of the market they occupy is just shrinking. In particular as the MAX, NEO, and A220 nicely dropped per passenger costs going forward.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I'm not saying RJs will disappear, the fraction of the market they occupy is just shrinking. In particular as the MAX, NEO, and A220 nicely dropped per passenger costs going forward.

Lightsaber

The counter argument to that would be that with the increased cost of fuel taxation and/or SAF percentage mixed in, the sensitivity to the fuel burn advantage of the specialized regional jets would increase. One has to wait and see how those fuel cost will develop, but my personal expectation is they will grow quite significantly given the urgent need for everyone for fossil change and the current cost of SAF and the expected development of that cost when scaling.

Remember your version of "winning" is being defined as number of units sold. Outside of a.net these companies dont care about units sold. They care about profits made. I could easily see the embraer program make more money than Airbus for these models. They really only care about making money in the real world. Airbus has way higher development costs to make up for in this program. Your comparing apples to oranges. I'm sure on a per plane basis embraer is making quite a bit more per plane as of now.

Airbus must totally reinvent the A220 production system to bring cost down to A320 family standards. This will be expensive to do and take time.

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I'm not saying RJs will disappear, the fraction of the market they occupy is just shrinking. In particular as the MAX, NEO, and A220 nicely dropped per passenger costs going forward.

Lightsaber

The counter argument to that would be that with the increased cost of fuel taxation and/or SAF percentage mixed in, the sensitivity to the fuel burn advantage of the specialized regional jets would increase. One has to wait and see how those fuel cost will develop, but my personal expectation is they will grow quite significantly given the urgent need for everyone for fossil change and the current cost of SAF and the expected development of that cost when scaling.

If we become more sensible to fuel cost per passenger, that would kill off prior generation small aircraft due to the elevated cost per seat.

Flying say 3x or 4x/week with modern larger aircraft burns less fuel than daily flights with an RJ.

The RJ burns 625 gallons per hour for a mere 76 passengers.

https://airinsight.com/what-is-mitsubis ... o-do-next/

If we look into seat miles per gallon, I see many stations losing daily service. So reduced fuel burn for the same comfort of passenger experience.

https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-stage- ... -a-review/

While it will be a slow transition. e.g., nothing replaced turboprops directly, instead we went to 50 seat RJs that are being retired and replaced with narrowbodies with some service reduction.

I see a niche for small narrowbodies in limited service displacing RJs: Allegiant, Spirit, and Breeze seem to have it down. More and more their offerings meet my needs. For example, I see DL using A220s to displace RJs to start. We can debate over the years, I just see the high price of SAF making RJs too pricey per seat. There has to be a reason the various RJs in service are really down more than the narrowbodies:

https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/exploitation.htm
NG/MAX is at 91% despite being a 1997 plane.

I'm skipping the A320CEO as a 1987 aircraft, a decade older isn't comparable.

E170/175 is at 91% as a 5 year younger plane

CRJ 70%, I Think its on the way out.
ERJ 64%. Yea, 50 seaters are going...

Since one expects about 3% retirement or so per year (based on typical service lives, going from memory). We just started seeing NEO/MAX/A220 deliveries in the largest RJ market, the USA. (If there was any E2 customer displacing EJs, I'd have listed it too.)

This won't happen fast, but the RJ market will continue to shrink as the relative cost per passenger increases, that is just supply and demand.
Lightsaber

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Remember your version of "winning" is being defined as number of units sold. Outside of a.net these companies dont care about units sold. They care about profits made. I could easily see the embraer program make more money than Airbus for these models. They really only care about making money in the real world. Airbus has way higher development costs to make up for in this program. Your comparing apples to oranges. I'm sure on a per plane basis embraer is making quite a bit more per plane as of now.

The numbers of sold copies are important too if you not ingore the aftermarket sales! If the competion sells you out now with a loss it will catch you in the future in a big way !

They care about profits made

What about the profits of the E2-175 by now ???

lightsaber wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I'm not saying RJs will disappear, the fraction of the market they occupy is just shrinking. In particular as the MAX, NEO, and A220 nicely dropped per passenger costs going forward.

Lightsaber

The counter argument to that would be that with the increased cost of fuel taxation and/or SAF percentage mixed in, the sensitivity to the fuel burn advantage of the specialized regional jets would increase. One has to wait and see how those fuel cost will develop, but my personal expectation is they will grow quite significantly given the urgent need for everyone for fossil change and the current cost of SAF and the expected development of that cost when scaling.

If we become more sensible to fuel cost per passenger, that would kill off prior generation small aircraft due to the elevated cost per seat.

Flying say 3x or 4x/week with modern larger aircraft burns less fuel than daily flights with an RJ.

The RJ burns 625 gallons per hour for a mere 76 passengers.

https://airinsight.com/what-is-mitsubis ... o-do-next/

If we look into seat miles per gallon, I see many stations losing daily service. So reduced fuel burn for the same comfort of passenger experience.

https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-stage- ... -a-review/

While it will be a slow transition. e.g., nothing replaced turboprops directly, instead we went to 50 seat RJs that are being retired and replaced with narrowbodies with some service reduction.

I see a niche for small narrowbodies in limited service displacing RJs: Allegiant, Spirit, and Breeze seem to have it down. More and more their offerings meet my needs. For example, I see DL using A220s to displace RJs to start. We can debate over the years, I just see the high price of SAF making RJs too pricey per seat. There has to be a reason the various RJs in service are really down more than the narrowbodies:

https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/exploitation.htm
NG/MAX is at 91% despite being a 1997 plane.

I'm skipping the A320CEO as a 1987 aircraft, a decade older isn't comparable.

E170/175 is at 91% as a 5 year younger plane

CRJ 70%, I Think its on the way out.
ERJ 64%. Yea, 50 seaters are going...

Since one expects about 3% retirement or so per year (based on typical service lives, going from memory). We just started seeing NEO/MAX/A220 deliveries in the largest RJ market, the USA. (If there was any E2 customer displacing EJs, I'd have listed it too.)

This won't happen fast, but the RJ market will continue to shrink as the relative cost per passenger increases, that is just supply and demand.
Lightsaber

I agree, I meant in the context of the A220 vs. the E2.

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

The counter argument to that would be that with the increased cost of fuel taxation and/or SAF percentage mixed in, the sensitivity to the fuel burn advantage of the specialized regional jets would increase. One has to wait and see how those fuel cost will develop, but my personal expectation is they will grow quite significantly given the urgent need for everyone for fossil change and the current cost of SAF and the expected development of that cost when scaling.

If we become more sensible to fuel cost per passenger, that would kill off prior generation small aircraft due to the elevated cost per seat.

Flying say 3x or 4x/week with modern larger aircraft burns less fuel than daily flights with an RJ.

The RJ burns 625 gallons per hour for a mere 76 passengers.

https://airinsight.com/what-is-mitsubis ... o-do-next/

If we look into seat miles per gallon, I see many stations losing daily service. So reduced fuel burn for the same comfort of passenger experience.

https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-stage- ... -a-review/

While it will be a slow transition. e.g., nothing replaced turboprops directly, instead we went to 50 seat RJs that are being retired and replaced with narrowbodies with some service reduction.

I see a niche for small narrowbodies in limited service displacing RJs: Allegiant, Spirit, and Breeze seem to have it down. More and more their offerings meet my needs. For example, I see DL using A220s to displace RJs to start. We can debate over the years, I just see the high price of SAF making RJs too pricey per seat. There has to be a reason the various RJs in service are really down more than the narrowbodies:

https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/exploitation.htm
NG/MAX is at 91% despite being a 1997 plane.

I'm skipping the A320CEO as a 1987 aircraft, a decade older isn't comparable.

E170/175 is at 91% as a 5 year younger plane

CRJ 70%, I Think its on the way out.
ERJ 64%. Yea, 50 seaters are going...

Since one expects about 3% retirement or so per year (based on typical service lives, going from memory). We just started seeing NEO/MAX/A220 deliveries in the largest RJ market, the USA. (If there was any E2 customer displacing EJs, I'd have listed it too.)

This won't happen fast, but the RJ market will continue to shrink as the relative cost per passenger increases, that is just supply and demand.
Lightsaber

I agree, I meant in the context of the A220 vs. the E2.

In the E2-195 vs. A220, we can agree. Embraer just needs far more orders. There is an A220 sales campaign thread discussing potential orders with LOT and Qantas being the large campaigns in work:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1457803&p=23065195#p23065195

The QF order is big enough to have a thread of its own:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1465483

I believe the saga of the 717 fading away because the sole operator giving the type enough economics of scale to operate dropping the type and thus having a huge impact on support will have an impact on airline buying decisions. The E2 really needs to get over 300 aircraft sold so that airlines do not worry about Azul being required for supporting the type while the A220 has Delta, Breeze, JetBlue, AirFrance, and AirBaltic all providing as much economy of scale with enough secondary operators it could be like with a turboprop, no large buyers required as enough small operators keep the type going. The A220 has the advantage of top off orders from Delta, AirBaltic, Breeze, JetBlue, and ALC to further boost confidence in the type as discussed in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1457803&start=450

Orders of 643 (A220) vs. 205 (E2) start to imply a runaway competition. The LOT and Qantas orders will determine the fate of both aircraft (in my opinion) as either one aircraft will have such an operational and production economy of scale advantage there is no looking back or the other aircraft gains enough economy of scale for known confidence in the long term support. The fate isn't set, this battle isn't won either, yet. It is my opinion these known two large orders will determine the fate of this aircraft size category and are thus a must win for both airframers.

Lightsaber

I honestly see CM and AV ordering the E2. Maybe Aeromexico in a few years. Having A320s flying intra Central American routes is an overkill. A higher frequency, more economical, lower capacity plane is the ideal approach.

The same applies to thinner Mexican and Latin American routes for AM and CM.

Jomar777 wrote:

Firstly - in the case of this thread and following all comments, you may see that we are actually discussed "Program Success" AS PART of "Market Battle". It would be extremely helpful to you if, rather than making pointless comments and wasting time, you read most of the comments and consider what's being discussed.

Also, again like many many others here on this thread - The B777X is an evolution AND PART OF the main project - the B777 Project overall. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish a brand new project offering (the actual A220/CS Project, the original A320 and B737, for example) from their own evolutionary paths (the MAX, the NEO, the X). Maybe is lack of knowledge or, like the above, your lack of ability to read other comments before jumping in with comments that are pointless.

No need for the snark.

Like I said, to compare the program success of the neo to that of the 777X is simply comical.

SA280 wrote:

Under BBD, the A220 was not that successful. Under Airbus umbrella, it had this strong recent sales performance. The plane is the very the same. What has changed is the sales team.

And the financial backing.

What's becoming increasingly clear in recent times is that, even if Bombardier had say 500 solid CSeries orders from a range of high quality 'blue chip' customers, it would be very unlikely that they would have had the finances to be able ramp up production to a level where each delivery was cashflow positive.

I also don't think you can blame this entirely on the Bombardier sales team. It's especially hard to sell a product with a long lead time if it's the company has every chance of going bust before the product is delivered. Eventually that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Air Astana (KC/KZR), Air Kiribati (IK/AKL) and Widerøe (WF/WIF) don't serve any small airport with their E190-E2s …

To be clear, Air Kiribati/Pionair unfortunately don't serve any airports with the E190E2s, small or large.

avi8 wrote:

I honestly see CM and AV ordering the E2. Maybe Aeromexico in a few years. Having A320s flying intra Central American routes is an overkill. A higher frequency, more economical, lower capacity plane is the ideal approach.

I hope so too, though I feel that the ship probably sailed when Copa retired their E190s. Imo the E195E2 would have been an excellent replacement for their 737-700s and a good complimentary fleet (in terms of seating capacity) with the MAX9s.

lightsaber wrote:

Orders of 643 (A220) vs. 205 (E2) start to imply a runaway competition. The LOT and Qantas orders will determine the fate of both aircraft (in my opinion) as either one aircraft will have such an operational and production economy of scale advantage there is no looking back or the other aircraft gains enough economy of scale for known confidence in the long term support. The fate isn't set, this battle isn't won either, yet. It is my opinion these known two large orders will determine the fate of this aircraft size category and are thus a must win for both airframers.

Lightsaber

I also think that the Air-France-KLM order will be very important, because they have both models in their fleet. For Embraer, follow on orders from KLM would be even more important than more A220's for the group for Airbus.

It also all the depend a bit how soon the SAF percentages will start to increase. For the E2 in the competition with the A220 it better be sooner than later.

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Orders of 643 (A220) vs. 205 (E2) start to imply a runaway competition. The LOT and Qantas orders will determine the fate of both aircraft (in my opinion) as either one aircraft will have such an operational and production economy of scale advantage there is no looking back or the other aircraft gains enough economy of scale for known confidence in the long term support. The fate isn't set, this battle isn't won either, yet. It is my opinion these known two large orders will determine the fate of this aircraft size category and are thus a must win for both airframers.

Lightsaber

I also think that the Air-France-KLM order will be very important, because they have both models in their fleet. For Embraer, follow on orders from KLM would be even more important than more A220's for the group for Airbus.

It also all the depend a bit how soon the SAF percentages will start to increase. For the E2 in the competition with the A220 it better be sooner than later.

Not that convinced that AFKL will order a smaller narrow body.

How does the SAF affect both A220 and E2 differently?

There’s also the SAS competition for their new production platform, where they announced a decision for Q1 at their quarterly report. I can see 30-50 E2s or A220.

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Orders of 643 (A220) vs. 205 (E2) start to imply a runaway competition. The LOT and Qantas orders will determine the fate of both aircraft (in my opinion) as either one aircraft will have such an operational and production economy of scale advantage there is no looking back or the other aircraft gains enough economy of scale for known confidence in the long term support. The fate isn't set, this battle isn't won either, yet. It is my opinion these known two large orders will determine the fate of this aircraft size category and are thus a must win for both airframers.

Lightsaber

I also think that the Air-France-KLM order will be very important, because they have both models in their fleet. For Embraer, follow on orders from KLM would be even more important than more A220's for the group for Airbus.

It also all the depend a bit how soon the SAF percentages will start to increase. For the E2 in the competition with the A220 it better be sooner than later.

Pretty sure, we will see some additional orders for the A220 as also for the E2, especially as AF will have to order the E190E2, they can not avoid it.
They will order the E190E2 with 99 seats for the regional airline HOP!, there is a law restriction in France, which protects regional airlines from Main Airlines.
A main Airline is not allowed to fly planes with less than 100 seats, but they are allowed to own a (independent) regional airline, in this case, AF owns HOP!.

A regional airline is protected from main airlines but are only allowed to fly planes with maximum 99 seats.

So AF will pretty sure order additional A220 for the own airline and they will also have to order the E190E2 with 99 seats for the regional airline HOP!.

AF will use the A220 for Africa (from France to), to build up additional the planned network south of the Sahara and they will need also the range (and additional fuel capacity) of the A220, they will like to have the A220-500 (as already announced) and I will not be surprised, if they will even also order the extended range version of the A220 (when available and it will come). But they will also need the full belly capacity of the A220, as passengers from/to Africa and inside Africa are regular travelling with huge amounts of luggage ...so perhaps they will not order the extended range version, as the additional tank will reduce the belly load capacity...we will see.
For KLM; perhaps they will be happy with the E2E195 alone (and soem E190E2), in middle of Europe, were the Netherlands are, the range of a regional jet is more than good enough, to reach every place in Europe. So KLM will just not need the benefits of the A220 but will perhaps be happy with the unique passenger capacity of the A220 line? We will see.

Please post on topic. This is a discussion on the A220 vs. the E2.
Do not "call out" other users. If a post violates forum rules, use the reporting function.

Lightsaber

T4thH wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Orders of 643 (A220) vs. 205 (E2) start to imply a runaway competition. The LOT and Qantas orders will determine the fate of both aircraft (in my opinion) as either one aircraft will have such an operational and production economy of scale advantage there is no looking back or the other aircraft gains enough economy of scale for known confidence in the long term support. The fate isn't set, this battle isn't won either, yet. It is my opinion these known two large orders will determine the fate of this aircraft size category and are thus a must win for both airframers.

Lightsaber

I also think that the Air-France-KLM order will be very important, because they have both models in their fleet. For Embraer, follow on orders from KLM would be even more important than more A220's for the group for Airbus.

It also all the depend a bit how soon the SAF percentages will start to increase. For the E2 in the competition with the A220 it better be sooner than later.

Pretty sure, we will see some additional orders for the A220 as also for the E2, especially as AF will have to order the E190E2, they can not avoid it.
They will order the E190E2 with 99 seats for the regional airline HOP!, there is a law restriction in France, which protects regional airlines from Main Airlines.
A main Airline is not allowed to fly planes with less than 100 seats, but they are allowed to own a (independent) regional airline, in this case, AF owns HOP!.

A regional airline is protected from main airlines but are only allowed to fly planes with maximum 99 seats.

So AF will pretty sure order additional A220 for the own airline and they will also have to order the E190E2 with 99 seats for the regional airline HOP!.

AF will use the A220 for Africa (from France to), to build up additional the planned network south of the Sahara and they will need also the range (and additional fuel capacity) of the A220, they will like to have the A220-500 (as already announced) and I will not be surprised, if they will even also order the extended range version of the A220 (when available and it will come). But they will also need the full belly capacity of the A220, as passengers from/to Africa and inside Africa are regular travelling with huge amounts of luggage ...so perhaps they will not order the extended range version, as the additional tank will reduce the belly load capacity...we will see.
For KLM; perhaps they will be happy with the E2E195 alone (and soem E190E2), in middle of Europe, were the Netherlands are, the range of a regional jet is more than good enough, to reach every place in Europe. So KLM will just not need the benefits of the A220 but will perhaps be happy with the unique passenger capacity of the A220 line? We will see.

People keep posting on a future AF/KLM order, I'm not aware of one in work. Is there a link?

I am just of the opinion that if the A220 wins the two known near term sales campaigns (LOT and Qantas) it reduces the economics of scale risk in supporting the type. This will ease sales campaigns. e.g, the big news of ALC increasing their A220 order book by 25 was a nice infusion of confidence in the type. I do believe many airlines will top off orders as is typical (IIRC, about 20% in top off orders should be expected). With only 20% of A220 orders to leasing companies, there is an opportunity for a quick uptick in sales if GECAS, Avolon, or AerCap enters the market as only when the A220 approaches a thousand sales will the market for speculative orders become interesting to the leasing behemoths.
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... ility-fund

For the E2, I am of the opinion they must quickly get above 300 firm sales as I speculate concerns about support economics, in particular all the subsystems that changed from the E1. I'm not aware of a single leasing company increasing their E2 order. Did a miss a sale? With over 40% of E2 sales to leasing companies, this is not an academic question. If they find the effort to place a type too high... they won't take risk. The E2 progress has been too slow to attract new leasing company interest at this time.

Leasing companies are critical to helping sell to smaller airlines. As much as we're excited about big orders, the little airlines will become a major sales focus of this size of aircraft. For a while there wasn't much to talk about as the A220 and E2 had about the same commitment from leasing companies. However, as ALC placed its portfolio, Udvar-Hazy topped off his order. That implies more airlines adopting the type. If (and only if) the sales of the A220 further grow to attract at least one more of the big leasing companies, then this sales war is effectively won. Embraer must win a few of the big campaigns in 2022 in my opinion.

Lightsaber

DUSZRH wrote:

How does the SAF affect both A220 and E2 differently?

In a relatively low fuel cost environment, an airline will more likely choose a longer range aircraft to have flexibility in planning within their network. In a very high fuel cost situation (SAF), using more specialized aircraft with a lower usable range bracket will reduce fuel burn because of lower weight. The higher the cost of fuel, the higher the cost of flying a flexible plane on shorter mission compared to a lighter model with less range.

T4thH wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Orders of 643 (A220) vs. 205 (E2) start to imply a runaway competition. The LOT and Qantas orders will determine the fate of both aircraft (in my opinion) as either one aircraft will have such an operational and production economy of scale advantage there is no looking back or the other aircraft gains enough economy of scale for known confidence in the long term support. The fate isn't set, this battle isn't won either, yet. It is my opinion these known two large orders will determine the fate of this aircraft size category and are thus a must win for both airframers.

Lightsaber

I also think that the Air-France-KLM order will be very important, because they have both models in their fleet. For Embraer, follow on orders from KLM would be even more important than more A220's for the group for Airbus.

It also all the depend a bit how soon the SAF percentages will start to increase. For the E2 in the competition with the A220 it better be sooner than later.

Pretty sure, we will see some additional orders for the A220 as also for the E2, especially as AF will have to order the E190E2, they can not avoid it.
They will order the E190E2 with 99 seats for the regional airline HOP!, there is a law restriction in France, which protects regional airlines from Main Airlines.
A main Airline is not allowed to fly planes with less than 100 seats, but they are allowed to own a (independent) regional airline, in this case, AF owns HOP!.

A regional airline is protected from main airlines but are only allowed to fly planes with maximum 99 seats.

So AF will pretty sure order additional A220 for the own airline and they will also have to order the E190E2 with 99 seats for the regional airline HOP!.

AF will use the A220 for Africa (from France to), to build up additional the planned network south of the Sahara and they will need also the range (and additional fuel capacity) of the A220, they will like to have the A220-500 (as already announced) and I will not be surprised, if they will even also order the extended range version of the A220 (when available and it will come). But they will also need the full belly capacity of the A220, as passengers from/to Africa and inside Africa are regular travelling with huge amounts of luggage ...so perhaps they will not order the extended range version, as the additional tank will reduce the belly load capacity...we will see.
For KLM; perhaps they will be happy with the E2E195 alone (and soem E190E2), in middle of Europe, were the Netherlands are, the range of a regional jet is more than good enough, to reach every place in Europe. So KLM will just not need the benefits of the A220 but will perhaps be happy with the unique passenger capacity of the A220 line? We will see.

Agree, unless KLM sees opportunities for adding longer and thin routes to their network. I can't really asses that need/opportunity.

lightsaber wrote:

T4thH wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

I also think that the Air-France-KLM order will be very important, because they have both models in their fleet. For Embraer, follow on orders from KLM would be even more important than more A220's for the group for Airbus.

It also all the depend a bit how soon the SAF percentages will start to increase. For the E2 in the competition with the A220 it better be sooner than later.

Pretty sure, we will see some additional orders for the A220 as also for the E2, especially as AF will have to order the E190E2, they can not avoid it.
They will order the E190E2 with 99 seats for the regional airline HOP!, there is a law restriction in France, which protects regional airlines from Main Airlines.
A main Airline is not allowed to fly planes with less than 100 seats, but they are allowed to own a (independent) regional airline, in this case, AF owns HOP!.

A regional airline is protected from main airlines but are only allowed to fly planes with maximum 99 seats.

So AF will pretty sure order additional A220 for the own airline and they will also have to order the E190E2 with 99 seats for the regional airline HOP!.

AF will use the A220 for Africa (from France to), to build up additional the planned network south of the Sahara and they will need also the range (and additional fuel capacity) of the A220, they will like to have the A220-500 (as already announced) and I will not be surprised, if they will even also order the extended range version of the A220 (when available and it will come). But they will also need the full belly capacity of the A220, as passengers from/to Africa and inside Africa are regular travelling with huge amounts of luggage ...so perhaps they will not order the extended range version, as the additional tank will reduce the belly load capacity...we will see.
For KLM; perhaps they will be happy with the E2E195 alone (and soem E190E2), in middle of Europe, were the Netherlands are, the range of a regional jet is more than good enough, to reach every place in Europe. So KLM will just not need the benefits of the A220 but will perhaps be happy with the unique passenger capacity of the A220 line? We will see.

People keep posting on a future AF/KLM order, I'm not aware of one in work. Is there a link?

I am just of the opinion that if the A220 wins the two known near term sales campaigns (LOT and Qantas) it reduces the economics of scale risk in supporting the type. This will ease sales campaigns. e.g, the big news of ALC increasing their A220 order book by 25 was a nice infusion of confidence in the type.

Lightsaber

Personally I feel the A220 is already past the point of needed confidence from airlines. To me it is more about the point of when will Airbus commit to more than 14/months and launch the 500 and the consequent reshuffling of their single aisle offering? I feel they could easily sell double the currently planned 14/month halfway in the decade, especially when they launch the 500. Imaginable reasons not to do so yet:

- They want to lower production cost more in relation to the A320 lines first.
- Take over cost for the rest of the program.
- Pushback from EU politicians/unions.
- They don't want to reshuffle their single aisle range sooner than they need to stay more flexible/agile to any development from the competition.