A friend who flies at JB says their dispatch reliability is horrible and they’re not getting expected range. No data, but interesting anecdotal evidence.

JonesNL wrote:

Interview from AviationWeek with A220 program leaders:
https://aviationweek.com/special-topics ... w-versions

Lots of known stuff about desire to increase current (non-linear due to supply chain) monthly rate of 6 to 10 by 2025 and required investments and added value of pre-FAL.

But there is some interesting comments of new versions:
- The A220-300 is currently certified for up to 150 seats, but Airbus is working on raising capacity to 160 passengers.
- New A220-500 would have more then 180 seats (not clear if comment of Airbus or writer).
- Airbus acknowledging that A32x is becoming A321 and thus implying cannibalization is not a problem when A225 competes against the A320.
- A225 launch probably not sooner then 2025.
- A220LR with 4000nm might cannibalize sales of A321XLR (also not clear if comment of Airbus or writer).

Recommended read...

Thanks for posting the article.

Neeleman is flinging route ideas at the "wall" hoping a few will stick. He may be pressing for a longer-ranged A223, but I bet he is the only customer looking for a 4,000 nm range variant. Once sticking aux tanks into the cargo hold and filling them up with Jet A, the much higher MTOW should make the A223LR a weaker performer than the stock A223. Also, there may be a need to strengthen the landing gear and surrounding structure. Then there is the extra weight of the ETOPs gear, catering, a bigger galley, perhaps the need for another lav, and figuring out how to do a crew rest in such a small plane. In a 2-class layout, premium-heavy, the pax load probably will max out at 120~123, but I can't imagine that a A223LR variant will be able to consistently carry a profitable load.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

A friend who flies at JB says their dispatch reliability is horrible and they’re not getting expected range. No data, but interesting anecdotal evidence.

...but then they order 30 more over their orginal order. More than anecdotal.
http://mediaroom.jetblue.com/investor-r ... -150021707

JonesNL wrote:

- Airbus acknowledging that A32x is becoming A321 and thus implying cannibalization is not a problem when A225 competes against the A320.

Eh, this really should be a matter of whether Airbus can achieve higher margins by expanding A32X production to sell A320neos or expanding A220 production to sell -500s.

In a world where production rates are constrained, Airbus is better pointing airlines to larger family members to get better pricing per unit. An A220-500 that cannibalizes an A320neo sale also frees up a production slot for a higher-priced/higher-margin A321neo. And considering the A220 lines do not appear to have the same level of constraints as the neo lines, Airbus isn't sacrificing much at all in terms of overall units with this strategy. Not rocket science from that point of view - the question becomes what engine to use, and is it worth the likely 10-figure develoment cost for the new variant?

JonesNL wrote:

I am not sure they are going to do a neo with new engines. But I can imagine them doing a updated version with other suppliers to get the costs per unit down…

The question that gets talked about a lot is exactly how much range (and therefore MTOW) is required, and therefore will the PW1525G be enough or will they have to use a 1200 derivative given the higher weight.

There are two possible outcomes - a "simple stretch" (i.e. the Bombardier legacy approach) with the same engines and a bit of a range penalty vs the smaller versions, or the two engine subfamily (i.e. the Embraer Ejet legacy approach) with a higher range and payload for the larger variants.

If I'm a betting man I think it's the former they go for, a nominally 160 (up to 180) seat simple stretch with a maxed-out PW1500G and a range in the 3000nm bracket instead of the ~3400nm the current members have.

FLALEFTY wrote:

Thanks for posting the article.



Neeleman is flinging route ideas at the "wall" hoping a few will stick. He may be pressing for a longer-ranged A223, but I bet he is the only customer looking for a 4,000 nm range variant. Once sticking aux tanks into the cargo hold and filling them up with Jet A, the much higher MTOW should make the A223LR a weaker performer than the stock A223. Also, there may be a need to strengthen the landing gear and surrounding structure. Then there is the extra weight of the ETOPs gear, catering, a bigger galley, perhaps the need for another lav, and figuring out how to do a crew rest in such a small plane. In a 2-class layout, premium-heavy, the pax load probably will max out at 120~123, but I can't imagine that a A223LR variant will be able to consistently carry a profitable load.

Completely Agree with all of this

Until supply chain and profitability reached it will be a struggle. But I bet they have a team of smart people on it.

I was on one recently and was impressed until I saw the challenges the crew had closing the door. It was sticking and the interior plastic panel was catching something. Surprised me for such a new aircraft. This was an AC bird.

JonesNL wrote:

- A225 launch probably not sooner then 2025.
-

From the linked article:

Also in 2025, the aircraft program is expected to reach an operating profit for the first time. Once that milestone is in sight, Airbus will look at the next potential steps—longer ranges and a stretched version that would essentially match the size of a 737-8 or A320neo.

That's a 'look at it' in 2025, not have the engineering done, not have Board approval to offer, certainly not begin commercial production.

I’m a fan of the plane. I fly ex-BOS a lot on DL, so I’ve seen a fair number of them. Either that or the 321 are the most comfortable aircraft in Y/Y+, IMO.

yyztpa2 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

A friend who flies at JB says their dispatch reliability is horrible and they’re not getting expected range. No data, but interesting anecdotal evidence.

...but then they order 30 more over their orginal order. More than anecdotal.
http://mediaroom.jetblue.com/investor-r ... -150021707

Additional order or not, I can assure you jetblue is having issues with quality control, reliability, and to a degree, performance (they still don’t have the 2.3T MTOW increase that Airbus came out with, which is needed with that plane in B6’s config to really get the needed performance). The program started out ok initially, with standard growing pains and teething issues, but has since faced a lot of issues, and is still causing a lot of headaches. The fuel burn is great though. And the NPS scores are high. Once they figure out the QC/reliability issues, it should be a good plane, at least from a pax and bean counter perspective.

Hey guys
I bet the next tranche of narrow bodies to be ordered by Qantas is impacted by decisions around developing the A220 family. The gap between the ordered A220-300 and the A321XLR on order make it imperative that SOMETHING is ordered by QF in the possible A220-500 / A320neo space. Perhaps both? Never been on an A220 but only heard good stuff about them.
On a different tangent, what about any military/specialist variants? I know a bizjet version is underway but anything more specialised for the military/paramilitary sphere?
Take care
Bunumuring

JoseSalazar wrote:

yyztpa2 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

A friend who flies at JB says their dispatch reliability is horrible and they’re not getting expected range. No data, but interesting anecdotal evidence.

...but then they order 30 more over their orginal order. More than anecdotal.
http://mediaroom.jetblue.com/investor-r ... -150021707

Additional order or not, I can assure you jetblue is having issues with quality control, reliability, and to a degree, performance (they still don’t have the 2.3T MTOW increase that Airbus came out with, which is needed with that plane in B6’s config to really get the needed performance). The program started out ok initially, with standard growing pains and teething issues, but has since faced a lot of issues, and is still causing a lot of headaches. The fuel burn is great though. And the NPS scores are high. Once they figure out the QC/reliability issues, it should be a good plane, at least from a pax and bean counter perspective.

I wonder if these issues are Mobile AB specific or the whole project?

Skywatcher wrote:

JoseSalazar wrote:

yyztpa2 wrote:

...but then they order 30 more over their orginal order. More than anecdotal.
http://mediaroom.jetblue.com/investor-r ... -150021707

Additional order or not, I can assure you jetblue is having issues with quality control, reliability, and to a degree, performance (they still don’t have the 2.3T MTOW increase that Airbus came out with, which is needed with that plane in B6’s config to really get the needed performance). The program started out ok initially, with standard growing pains and teething issues, but has since faced a lot of issues, and is still causing a lot of headaches. The fuel burn is great though. And the NPS scores are high. Once they figure out the QC/reliability issues, it should be a good plane, at least from a pax and bean counter perspective.

I wonder if these issues are Mobile AB specific or the whole project?

Here's an article from June 2022 that discussed the issues that Breeze is having with the A220.

https://paxex.aero/breeze-a220-reliability-challenges/

While not specifying the sources of MX's A220 introduction issues this year, I'm speculating that Airbus Mobile and Pratt Whitney probably share about half the blame, with the other half being MX's inexperience with the type. At only 2-years on with A220 deliveries, Airbus Mobile's production line engineers have probably been working out issues as they find them, which has slowed things down. PW's GTF engines have also been known to have production quality issues from batch to batch. And MX's technical operations, which is very new and inexperienced, is probably struggling to keep the A220s flying the line.

As for JetBlue, I imagine similar issues with the A220 are cropping up as they are only 2 years in to building up their fleet.

JoseSalazar wrote:

yyztpa2 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

A friend who flies at JB says their dispatch reliability is horrible and they’re not getting expected range. No data, but interesting anecdotal evidence.

...but then they order 30 more over their orginal order. More than anecdotal.
http://mediaroom.jetblue.com/investor-r ... -150021707

Additional order or not, I can assure you jetblue is having issues with quality control, reliability, and to a degree, performance (they still don’t have the 2.3T MTOW increase that Airbus came out with, which is needed with that plane in B6’s config to really get the needed performance). The program started out ok initially, with standard growing pains and teething issues, but has since faced a lot of issues, and is still causing a lot of headaches. The fuel burn is great though. And the NPS scores are high. Once they figure out the QC/reliability issues, it should be a good plane, at least from a pax and bean counter perspective.

Just wait until they start sending the A220 to HMV. Word has it that even the first C1 check is ridiculously long, like a C6. I am not looking forward to working that. I hope they plan their fleet accordingly...but they probably won't as their planning capabilities are sub-par (to say the least).

JonesNL wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I am not sure they are going to do a neo with new engines. But I can imagine them doing a updated version with other suppliers to get the costs per unit down…

The question that gets talked about a lot is exactly how much range (and therefore MTOW) is required, and therefore will the PW1525G be enough or will they have to use a 1200 derivative given the higher weight.

There are two possible outcomes - a "simple stretch" (i.e. the Bombardier legacy approach) with the same engines and a bit of a range penalty vs the smaller versions, or the two engine subfamily (i.e. the Embraer Ejet legacy approach) with a higher range and payload for the larger variants.

If I'm a betting man I think it's the former they go for, a nominally 160 (up to 180) seat simple stretch with a maxed-out PW1500G and a range in the 3000nm bracket instead of the ~3400nm the current members have.

I also was thinking of an updated wing and engine optimized for slower mach number and shorter stage lengths to go with the A225…

I doubt you will see either.

JonesNL wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I am not sure they are going to do a neo with new engines. But I can imagine them doing a updated version with other suppliers to get the costs per unit down…

The question that gets talked about a lot is exactly how much range (and therefore MTOW) is required, and therefore will the PW1525G be enough or will they have to use a 1200 derivative given the higher weight.

There are two possible outcomes - a "simple stretch" (i.e. the Bombardier legacy approach) with the same engines and a bit of a range penalty vs the smaller versions, or the two engine subfamily (i.e. the Embraer Ejet legacy approach) with a higher range and payload for the larger variants.

If I'm a betting man I think it's the former they go for, a nominally 160 (up to 180) seat simple stretch with a maxed-out PW1500G and a range in the 3000nm bracket instead of the ~3400nm the current members have.

I also was thinking of an updated wing and engine optimized for slower mach number and shorter stage lengths to go with the A225…

If you touch the wing add a couple billion to the program. Besides, some larger operators like B6 would likely want a 225 to stretch its legs on transcons and island flying.

JonesNL wrote:

ScottB wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

- Airbus acknowledging that A32x is becoming A321 and thus implying cannibalization is not a problem when A225 competes against the A320.

Eh, this really should be a matter of whether Airbus can achieve higher margins by expanding A32X production to sell A320neos or expanding A220 production to sell -500s.

Not completely, the A32x line is production constrained. So, every A225 they sell is revenue they would miss out on as deliveries are constrained. Of course this is under the assumption that the A32x line stays production constrained and that the A225 can contribute a positive margin…

Well the A220 program still loses money on every aircraft they build so the A225 variant would be a good tax write off for the profitable branches of Airbus.

JonesNL wrote:

N757ST wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I also was thinking of an updated wing and engine optimized for slower mach number and shorter stage lengths to go with the A225…

If you touch the wing add a couple billion to the program. Besides, some larger operators like B6 would likely want a 225 to stretch its legs on transcons and island flying.

I agree, but it was commented by Airbus a couple of times that the wings are one of the biggest cost drivers for the plane. That’s why I only imagine it being tackled if Airbus can get the design and production in house to cut production costs considerably. The gained efficiency would be a bonus, not the main goal…

That will take billions and eat any savings you might get from producing in house vs having Spirit AeroSystems produce it as currently done. If there are even any savings- I’m not sure why you think in house production would cost considerably less.

Airbus would only do that if there was a considerable efficiency gain, which is unlikely as the A220’s wing is very modern as is.

Bombardier published images of the CS700 and CS900 many years ago, they looked like simple fuselage stretches with existing wings and engines. Seat map showed 170 and 190 all-economy seats, IIRC. Wonder how much of that Airbus can use...

CRJ900 wrote:

Bombardier published images of the CS700 and CS900 many years ago, they looked like simple fuselage stretches with existing wings and engines. Seat map showed 170 and 190 all-economy seats, IIRC. Wonder how much of that Airbus can use...

I feel like I remember those being fan made, I have a hard time seeing the aircraft being stretched to such a length.

ikolkyo wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

Bombardier published images of the CS700 and CS900 many years ago, they looked like simple fuselage stretches with existing wings and engines. Seat map showed 170 and 190 all-economy seats, IIRC. Wonder how much of that Airbus can use...

I feel like I remember those being fan made, I have a hard time seeing the aircraft being stretched to such a length.

Yes BBD as far as I am aware never published those images, it was always fans with little perspective about how long the A220/C series actually is (A225 will be approaching A321 in length).

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

A friend who flies at JB says their dispatch reliability is horrible and they’re not getting expected range. No data, but interesting anecdotal evidence.

You aren't wrong, it's not impressive. The E190 played out just like this though - the nickname (before I started - it was actually much better by the time I did) was the E180.

I have friends at Delta, they have similar issues, apparently Breeze does too. Bringing new aircraft online seems to be a real challenge, deliveries are way too slow. Before we start talking about an A220-500, an A220LR, and an A220-500LR that can fly to the moon, they should probably figure out delivering the new, already designed aircraft in a timely manner, and stop delivering lemons.

BBD definitely studied a "-500" stretch back in the day, and had loose discussions with customers about it. The technical challenges were the same ones Airbus faces now, but with an added layer of financial challenges that are less of an issue than they are for Airbus, so there was never a real chance of it being launched unless/until the CS100 & 300 started earning income - which as we now know, would have been a long way off!

After Boeing has made it clear that it won’t plans for a new jet this decade, Airbus CEO, has said last month that the A220-500 is a ‘when’ and not ‘if’.

The new proposed aircraft will have a shorter range than the B737MAX8 but will be carrying the same number of passengers with a better design and fuel efficiency.

In the meantime, the A220-500 could hand Airbus a 13% efficiency advantage over the Max 8 on a per-seat basis, according to Addison Schonland, an analyst at AirInsight Group. That’s a considerable saving at a time when fuel prices remain high and airlines are under pressure to slash emissions.

What about the risks that lie ahead? The A220-500 could steal the spotlight of the successful A320 family. Airbus is aiming to commit to the new model when the market is shifting to the A321 and thus creating some space for a plane that carry 175 passengers, which is just around the corner.

“Talking now is perfect,” Aboulafia says. “You want airlines to do their fleet-planning with the A220 in mind. It’s the Max 8 with shorter range and better economics, lighter, thinner and with a really great engine.”

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... lane-model

Is this aircraft 2-3 seating? Is it longer than the 737?

It won’t be without advantages. It would be the right size for operators whose median sized aircraft is around 130 seats 2-class instead of… 160? The latter would be better off with a fleet of a320s and a321s. The former could have a223s and a225s.

Delta has a lot of old a320s and a319s for example. I’d wager they’d order some if airbus announced the a225.

AvWeek had a recent write-up saying what Bloomberg reported, in fact, that exact quote from Airbus.

I think that Airbus is holding back the horses at the moment, as they capture as many potential buyers (and thus, testing their commitment) as possible. Air France, is one of those key clients, and their requests can provide the basis for a fantastic customer. Even if Airbus were attempting to protect the A320NEO (by 'inhibiting' the A220-500 launch), Mr. Scherer (COO of AF) posits that the A320NEOs long lead time is a detractor in itself.

https://www.air-journal.fr/2022-07-22-airbus-a220-douzieme-pour-air-france-et-version-500-5237457.html
Aucune date de lancement de l’A220-500 n’est cependant annoncée vu les problèmes industriels actuels ; « il ne s’agit pas de protéger l’A320neo » selon Christian Scherer, qui estimait en décembre que les clients tentés par les A220 ne seraient « de toute façon pas intéressés » par la famille supérieure, dont les délais de livraison sont en outre très longs en raison la demande.

If, and when Airbus were the capture a few other A225 demands (and potentially then, orders), I could see them then working current A220 customers for expansion. Quite a lot of these carriers/customers could well welcome the addition (such as DL, and B6 here in the U.S.). The aircraft's 'lack' of range (perhaps, sacrificed for the needs of an expansion) is not necessarily a detractor for orders in that, customers would have smaller versions of the A220 (and/or in the case of AC, larger MAXs) to operate the longer ranged routes, with the A225 benefitting from larger scale, and lower costs on potentially trunk routes (where these ranges are not often in play).

Ziyulu wrote:

Is this aircraft 2-3 seating? Is it longer than the 737?

Not sure where you've been the last 10 years but yes, the A220 has 2-3 seating.

As for its length, of course we don't have a number yet. But the A220-300 is already longer than the 737MAX-7. An eventual A220-500 would certainly be longer than the MAX-8, and quite possibly the MAX-9.

JL

Leeham is now also taking (another) dive into an A220-500 and possible consequences.



source: https://leehamnews.com/2023/01/18/airbu ... -analysis/

I think assuming it will replace the A320 and 737-8 is unrealistic. If we take the same seat pitches, galleyrates and lavatory rates, a significant stretch of the A220-300 into the A220-500 would still be significantly smaller than a A320. Two years ago I worked my way through all available specs, drawings, airport planning guides and created algorithms for unknown's based and tested on known configurations. Some A320 fly with 186 seats


Source: viewtopic.php?t=1465935

Taking a low density configuration for A320 & 737 with full galleys and lavatories and comparing them to an A220-500 ULC configuration doesn't make much sense IMO. Airlines don't look at it that way. Apart from that an 737-8 generally is two rows bigger than the A320 in similar configurations and the latter can use containers, has engine choice and great A321NEO compatibility that an A220 hasn't.

Still an A220-500 (I took an IMO reasonable 42.4m stretch) would be a real nice aircraft. In my overall score (row 17) it scores very high on efficiency.

Really, nothing new to see here. A lot of the same old arguments by the same old naysayers, to wit: "it will steal orders from the more profitable 320 line." With the same responses: "that frees up slots on the 320 line for more profitable (and in demand) 321's.

The 500 has apparently been planned from the very beginning. It will happen at some point, hopefully soon.

Imho, reliability will certainly be a problem. An all new airplane with an all new engine is a recipe for problems. Ideally, these planes would on locked rotations through hubs frequently, to allow recovery options in the case of the mechanical delays that we all know are coming, several of the airlines using the airplane don't have that type of network. The 737 and A320 are thoroughly "fleshed out" and it will take awhile for this airplane to "settle down." And the engine will probably be unreliable by CFM56 standards forever. But it does sip fuel, and the 5 abreast fuselage is unique in the marketplace.

Optimizing an engine for the A220-500 will be a challenge. The current PW1500g tops out at 23K lbs. of thrust, it has a 73 inch fan diameter and weighs 4,800 lbs., which are important dimensions when it comes to the basic design of the A220 in general. The upgrade option would be the PW1100g engine used on the A320NEO, which has roughly 27K lbs. of thrust, but has an 81 inch fan diameter and weighs 6,300 lbs.. The A220 would require engine mounting mods, a taller landing gear and structural mods to accommodate the larger engines. The end result for the A225 would be a much heavier OEW & increased drag.

FLALEFTY wrote:

Optimizing an engine for the A220-500 will be a challenge. The current PW1500g tops out at 23K lbs. of thrust, it has a 73 inch fan diameter and weighs 4,800 lbs., which are important dimensions when it comes to the basic design of the A220 in general. The upgrade option would be the PW1100g engine used on the A320NEO, which has roughly 27K lbs. of thrust, but has an 81 inch fan diameter and weighs 6,300 lbs.. The A220 would require engine mounting mods, a taller landing gear and structural mods to accommodate the larger engines. The end result for the A225 would be a much heavier OEW & increased drag.

Yep, as soon as you strap a significantly different motor on it, you’re going to shoot costs up. If Pratt and squeeze more thrust out of the 1500 that would help, but I do gather they’re still seeing some reliability issues and recurring failures of parts, reading the notes from a current operator. Bumping thrust=higher temp and pressure, more potential for faults.

I do see a -500 as inevitable, but not immediate.

FLALEFTY wrote:

Optimizing an engine for the A220-500 will be a challenge. The current PW1500g tops out at 23K lbs. of thrust, it has a 73 inch fan diameter and weighs 4,800 lbs., which are important dimensions when it comes to the basic design of the A220 in general. The upgrade option would be the PW1100g engine used on the A320NEO, which has roughly 27K lbs. of thrust, but has an 81 inch fan diameter and weighs 6,300 lbs.. The A220 would require engine mounting mods, a taller landing gear and structural mods to accommodate the larger engines. The end result for the A225 would be a much heavier OEW & increased drag.

That's only an 8" difference. It's FBW - as a new pylon is needed anyways just mount the engines a little higher and tune out any handling issues with the FBW. You may need to strengthen the gear and a few parts but that would be about it.

It should not be a huge challenge.

That being said - bet they just stick with existing engines and just sacrifice range to make it super efficient per seat, on the vast majority of routes that are under 1,500NM.

Keep it simple and make it very reliable. Not every aircraft needs 3,500Nm range.

JonesNL wrote:

The A220 misses scale to to make the 500 version viable. The backlog at current rate is 14 years plus (750/53). They are probably losing sales due to this fact. Airbus needs to solve this first before thinking about a A220-500.
When launched it will probably garner 500 orders at launch without any troubles. This means a rate of 200 per year is needed at minimum to make the backlog an acceptable 6-7 years...

They seem to really struggling with this as both A32x and A22x line have been stagnant since 2019...

Production ramp up & supply chain issues have been really playing up in recent years. COVID-19 and raw material shortages didn't help either. I think the target is now 14/month in 2025, 10 in Mirabel, 4 in Mobile. Operating profit should be reached in 2025. A lot has been invested by Airbus in recent years.

The A220 series covering 120-165 seat up to 5-6 hours efficiently might fit well with upscaling the A320 series into 175-250 seats, adding new variants over time.


source: keesje

The A220 is a good project but still not profitable and that's the main point. Even though it carries a massive backlog.

Because of this, nothign new may appear until 2025 when, supposedly, the project turns around. As for the A225, that might be a good bet for development (not for a first flight) because it might hit the time where Airbus might redefine the whole A320 project so you could actually see an A225 of some sort actually replacing (not running together) the A320. Or even a new program to replace them both. I would not bet for anything earlier than that. Even more when you consider that Airbus is not under pressure given Boeing is way away from a new project themselves.

The only factor that might change all this is is the C919 which might potentially kick both Airbus and Boeing out of the Chinese Market (on a large scale - they might still acquire orders there but not on the present scale).

I wonder also if, in a 2-3 configuration, an A220-500 might not be too long.

As for the reliability issues, there's Breeze, there's Jet Blue and there's Swiss also. They all show issues but I guess that the A220 is still on a "honeymoon" period or there's some hidden commitment which makes them be re-ordered. Mind you, their fuel burn (crucial at present) is quite good so this might be mitigating. Fact is though that the only one NOT to have any teething (or not) problems seems to be Air Baltic. Let's see when it enters the other airlines and when we start to have second hand ones around to see how they do perform...

MIflyer12 wrote:

Also in 2025, the aircraft program is expected to reach an operating profit for the first time. Once that milestone is in sight, Airbus will look at the next potential steps—longer ranges and a stretched version that would essentially match the size of a 737-8 or A320neo.

That's a 'look at it' in 2025, not have the engineering done, not have Board approval to offer, certainly not begin commercial production.

In your desire to analyze carefully, you've ironically missed the massive wiggle-room that such a statement grants.

It does NOT say "look at it in 2025," it says "once that milestone is in sight"......

Well, what does "in sight" mean?

ANSWER: whatever they want it to.

That could signify any point from the day that this was written, onward.
All they have to do, is see the program trending toward profitability, and the "in sight" threshold is thereby met.

Thus, for all we know, they could indeed be working on the engineering/approval/etc requirements, with an eye on starting in 2025. Or any other time: the article postulates 3-4yrs thereafter, but that's in no way official. We'll just have to wait and see what prompts them to pull the trigger, to know when.

LAX772LR wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Also in 2025, the aircraft program is expected to reach an operating profit for the first time. Once that milestone is in sight, Airbus will look at the next potential steps—longer ranges and a stretched version that would essentially match the size of a 737-8 or A320neo.

That's a 'look at it' in 2025, not have the engineering done, not have Board approval to offer, certainly not begin commercial production.

In your desire to analyze carefully, you've ironically missed the massive wiggle-room that such a statement grants.

It does NOT say "look at it in 2025," it says "once that milestone is in sight"......

Well, what does "in sight" mean?

ANSWER: whatever they want it to.

That could signify any point from the day that this was written, onward.
All they have to do, is see the program trending toward profitability, and the "in sight" threshold is thereby met.

Thus, for all we know, they could indeed be working on the engineering/approval/etc requirements, with an eye on starting in 2025. Or any other time: the article postulates 3-4yrs thereafter, but that's in no way official. We'll just have to wait and see what prompts them to pull the trigger, to know when.

You can parse my writing any way you want, but you may not be familiar with the French method of executive/investor relations methods of communications: Use lots of words to commit to absolutely nothing. This is no stronger than a politician saying 'We will look at XXX at the appropriate time.'

MIflyer12 wrote:

You can parse my writing any way you want,

Irrelevant, seeing as it's not your words I'm commenting on at all.

MIflyer12 wrote:

but you may not be familiar with the French method of executive/investor relations methods of communications: Use lots of words to commit to absolutely nothing. This is no stronger than a politician saying 'We will look at XXX at the appropriate time.'

Quite familiar... and you're (now) saying the same thing I am: the summation given in that article means all of nothing. It doesn't set a time frame (or restrict to one) at all.

My opinion is that any A220-500 should just be a simple stretch of the A220-300. Trade capacity for range. A 3-4m stretch would put it at 150 pax with typical F/E+/E layout (like Delta) and range should be at least 1500nm.

I think Airbus should position the A220-500 as a very efficient regional aircraft, and the A32X would be more of a mid-range aircraft.