JonesNL wrote:lightsaber wrote:strfyr51 wrote:It begs me to question. If an airline is alrady flying the A320/319/321 series? then all they're doing is muddying the waters withe the A220. the Avionics are not interchangeable, not the wheels or Brakes nor windows. From a cost perspective? An airline that flies the A220? Would still have to move up to the A320 series or the Noeing 737 series if they are to grow. The A220 appears to be a good airplane. But? to what end? Can you build on to form a great airline? Or? A super Great Regional?
The marketing strategy is "Eat the young." The A320NEO has an engine built for 35k of thrust on an airframe that only needs 27k of thrust.
An A225 vs. the A320 will be lighter, have better electronic systems (lower cruise thrust), and much more optimized engines (lower fuel burn).
The A319NEO weights 42.6 tons vs. A223 at 37.08 tons or a 5.5 metric ton weight savings. Plus less nacelle drag with the A220 and the A319NEO engines will be at such low thrust, the pressure ratio (in operation, not peak engine design) will be low.
The A319NEO weights 44.3 tons (it benefits as the A319 is a simple shrink and thus doomed to be heavy for the weight). One would assume the A225 would lose 2 to 2.5 tons of the weight advantage being stretched. So a 3 ton weight advantage on say a MTOW of 75 tons.
So just on weight, a 4% to 6% reduction in fuel burn. Now, the A320 has fractionally more wing area than the A220, so one would expect very similar wing loading (same density air).
The electrical subsystems should save an additional 2% to 3% in fuel burn.
The nacelle drag (which includes high speed air *inside* the engine) is another 1% to 1.5% reduction in fuel burn.
So my best estimate is a 7% to 10.5% reduction in fuel burn for the A225 over the A320NEO. Basically a half generation better, per my estimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A2 ... ifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family
It then becomes a question of range. A regional airliner is < 1800nm in range.
Going from memory (I know, dangerous)
US midWest hubs to coasts/Florida need 2200nm range
US TCON is 2950 nm range (which JetBlue proved was indeed the minimum with all their diversions)
US West coast to Hawaii is 3100nm range
While I use US ranges, it should there are step functions for needed range. An A225 will easily have over 2500nm range, and might just be able to have that 2950nm range with an engine PiP (CMC turbine blades?) Recall it wasn't too long ago (pre-Sharklets and engine PiPs) that the A320CEO struggled on US TCON missions. (I'm well aware with sharklets and the engine PiPs from both engine vendors that they A320CEO has no issue on US TCON).
So all the A225 would miss out on is very long thin routes. That's the job for the A223 anyway. Once you have US TCON ranges, you encompass the vast majority of EU, intra-India, and other potential A320 missions. Let's look at the current A220 operators who might buy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A2 ... ifications
1. Delta
2. Air Baltic
3. Swiss/Lufthansa (relatively short missions looking at the A320s they retired)
4. AirCanada (they might need more range on the A225)
5. Egypt Air
6. JetBlue (A potential bonanza of orders as they need something more efficient than the A320NEO)
7. Korean Air (Never bad to displace the competitors's MAXs)
8 . Air France (iffy, loyal to CFM/SAFRAN)
9. Breeze (growth!)
10. Air Tanzania (simplify fleet)
11. Air Austral
12. Eurowings (allowed by scope, I don't know?)
13. Ibom (keep fleet simple)
14. Iraqi Airways
15. Air Manas
16. Air Senegal
Plus those that ordered the A220 who haven't started flying (Air Vanuatu, ITA, I exclude Qantas and Odyssey on my own opinions).
I see an opportunity for Airbus. In particular with the A380 production facility being converted to A321 production. The point is to stifle the competition and return on investment. I see a great sales opportunity for the A225. Which will sell more A223... This is a cheap way to really hurt the business case for a NSA (New single isle) from Boeing. It also destroys the -7 MAX business case.
I personally believe an A225 would have won an Allegiant order for the A220.
Lightsaber
Leeham once made an analysis that projected a 15% saving vs A320NEO. But this was a simple stretch with a stage of 1000nm if I recall correctly. Even at 10% savings they could demand a premium compared to A320NEO and 737MAX at current fuel prices and recoup investments much faster. As production is limited anyway they could ask the maximum price the market will bear, see markups at dealers. From a cashflow perspective there hasn't been a better time to launch a A225 then right now...
I make assumptions on weight that, obviously, I believe are realistic. The 5-across cabin is less weight efficient at A320 capacity than the 6-across cabin (hence why Airbus launched the A320 as 6-across, in my opinion). Now, at A319/A220-300 capacity, the 5-across cross section, with today's materials, by my back of the envelope calculations, seems to be the most weight/aerodynamic efficient. Because of this weight, my numbers are lower. However, a substantial improvement.
The A223 should be 20% more efficient than the A319NEO. Mind the A319NEO has ridiculously over-sized engines (weight/drag), a simple shrink (weight penalty, in particular in the wingbox and wing, in my opinion), and has shrunk to the point a different cross section is optimal (again, all in my opinion).
Old link on the 20% fuel efficiency difference: https://blog.flight-report.com/infograp ... t%20family.
From above link. Please note the doted line. There is always a cost curve that larger aircraft must perform better than smaller aircraft. Anything below the link will outsell anything at the line (or above).
The A223/A225 combo does destroy the -7MAX business case. As the A225 should have a lower cost per flight than the A319NEO, it punts that business case (why not go for a little more revenue?). Note: I am of the opinion the 5 across cross section is not economical beyond 185 seats in ULCC configuration (again, with today's materials).
Hopefully soon we find out about Vietnam/Bamboo/SAS/Lufthansa/JAL/Turkey. I'm feeling more confident we'll have at least 3 more orders before/during Farnborough. I have hopes that a larger lease order will come through too.
I remain of the opinion that the minimum "economy of scale" for modern aircraft, other than military aircraft, is to make a hundred per year. There is hope that enough orders come in this year that Airbus moves up to that production volume.
Lightsaber