Wingtips56 wrote:

I'm thinking if you need to replace and update a whole fleet in a timely fashion, odds are on the 319s arriving sooner.
Is Airbus acquiring control of the CS project an effort to eliminate the completion?

The reverse I'd think. A320 family backlog is 7 years. Revenue wise the A319 is not the preferred model.
With a bit of help from Airbus C-Series frames could be had in much shorter time.

Eliminate? in a way. This is more about Synergy afaics.

767333ER wrote:

WIederling wrote:

767333ER wrote:

The A319 can’t take containers. The only thing it’s good for at this point is special performance.

Hahrm.

The A318 can’t take containers. really too short.

You can have AKH on a319, a320, a321.

My bad there, but even if it can, almost nobody uses them on the A319. The only one I know of is Austrian. Contiainers are better on the A320 and A321neo, but in a plane that size, they really don’t do much.

When I used to work on the ramp we loaded AKHs into Finnair A319s. Don't know if that is still the case. And BA definitely use them on their 319s.....

Airbus knew what their intention was when investing in the CSeries...They are not worried about 319 sales anymore.

Slug71 wrote:

Yes it will. Prototype is already flying.

Not only is the prototype already flying, and the development money already spent, but Airbus also currently have contractual obligations to deliver the type.
Whilst they have publicly said they will push the CS300 over the A319NEO, they have also publicly said they will do nothing until the deal is confirmed, which is in the best case about a year, and in the worst case never.
As it currently stands they have no other choice than to bring the A319NEO into service.

What happens in the longer term is something else altogether

Rgds

The A319 offers take off and climb performance which is comparable to the 757. The A319neo will have higher climb thrust than the ceo improving climb gradients even further. I don't think the cs300 can touch it in that regard, the cs100 perhaps. The 319neo isn't going anywhere and no, the 320neo improvements don't make it redundant.

Lightsaber - The cj variant of the neo isn't targeted towards corporate clientele. The marketing focus is on governments who need the cabin space. Governments tend to fly into larger international/military airports where space isn't an issue and most of their flying doesn't require .90 cruise capability. Besides, Airbus and Boeing offer superior parts coverage and most nations have the ability to repair 737s and 320s locally.

I agree the A319 isn't going anywhere.... or going nowhere that is.

Its comparative efficiency is limited to high-performance take-off requirements or long, thin routes 3000 to 3700 miles. It will never sell in any significant numbers and I expect the NEO order book for it to thin out a bit.

Any airline that has A320/A321 in significant numbers and thinks they will have better financial performance by adding a handful of A319 is doing the math wrong. They can do just as well by keeping their fleets simple and adding A320s instead.

Chaostheory wrote:

The A319 offers take off and climb performance which is comparable to the 757. The A319neo will have higher climb thrust than the ceo improving climb gradients even further. I don't think the cs300 can touch it in that regard, the cs100 perhaps. The 319neo isn't going anywhere and no, the 320neo improvements don't make it redundant.

It's tough to find info for the A319, but googling says MTOW at sea level is somewhere around 6200 ft. BBD says 5000 ft for the CS300.I don't have the math knowledge to extrapolate what the hot-and-high performance would be, precisely, but I'm fairly sure it would scale up, and the CS300 would likely still have better performance than the A319CEO. While the A319NEO will have good hot-and-high performance, I can't imagine the NEO will have performance better than the CS300. So, the only reason I could see for an airline to choose the A319NEO would be if they need both the hot-and-high and the commonality.

That being said, I don't see Airbus eliminating it, but I don't see them pushing it either.

Edited to add: there are reports of CS300 being closer to 6000ft, but those numbers are from older articles, published pre-testing results and real world airline data.

aerolimani wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

The A319 offers take off and climb performance which is comparable to the 757. The A319neo will have higher climb thrust than the ceo improving climb gradients even further. I don't think the cs300 can touch it in that regard, the cs100 perhaps. The 319neo isn't going anywhere and no, the 320neo improvements don't make it redundant.

It's tough to find info for the A319, but googling says MTOW at sea level is somewhere around 6200 ft. BBD says 5000 ft for the CS300.I don't have the math knowledge to extrapolate what the hot-and-high performance would be, precisely, but I'm fairly sure it would scale up, and the CS300 would likely still have better performance than the A319CEO. While the A319NEO will have good hot-and-high performance, I can't imagine the NEO will have performance better than the CS300. So, the only reason I could see for an airline to choose the A319NEO would be if they need both the hot-and-high and the commonality.

That being said, I don't see Airbus eliminating it, but I don't see them pushing it either.

Edited to add: there are reports of CS300 being closer to 6000ft, but those numbers are from older articles, published pre-testing results and real world airline data.

Looking at a cs300 brochure from Farnborough last year, the charts included are giving a 6900ft tofl isa+15 with 24k engines and 148klb mtow. Furthermore, the A319 will maintain its performance far above ISA conditions whilst the others will quickly drop off. Heck, the A319 will out perform even G3 and GIVs from Riyadh on hot days.

The A319NEO will be like the A318 of Boeing 737-600 of the NEO series. Only 80 A318 build.

Chaostheory wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

The A319 offers take off and climb performance which is comparable to the 757. The A319neo will have higher climb thrust than the ceo improving climb gradients even further. I don't think the cs300 can touch it in that regard, the cs100 perhaps. The 319neo isn't going anywhere and no, the 320neo improvements don't make it redundant.

It's tough to find info for the A319, but googling says MTOW at sea level is somewhere around 6200 ft. BBD says 5000 ft for the CS300.I don't have the math knowledge to extrapolate what the hot-and-high performance would be, precisely, but I'm fairly sure it would scale up, and the CS300 would likely still have better performance than the A319CEO. While the A319NEO will have good hot-and-high performance, I can't imagine the NEO will have performance better than the CS300. So, the only reason I could see for an airline to choose the A319NEO would be if they need both the hot-and-high and the commonality.

That being said, I don't see Airbus eliminating it, but I don't see them pushing it either.

Edited to add: there are reports of CS300 being closer to 6000ft, but those numbers are from older articles, published pre-testing results and real world airline data.

Looking at a cs300 brochure from Farnborough last year, the charts included are giving a 6900ft tofl isa+15 with 24k engines and 148klb mtow. Furthermore, the A319 will maintain its performance far above ISA conditions whilst the others will quickly drop off. Heck, the A319 will out perform even G3 and GIVs from Riyadh on hot days.

From the BBD brochure online:

CS300:
Takeoff Field Length
ISA, SL, Base MTOW, Max. Thrust
5,000 ft. (1,524 m)
Landing Field Length
ISA, SL, Base MLW
4,800 ft. (1,463 m)

http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS300.pdf

I'm an enthusiast, and not an expert. So, I'm genuinely asking why the discrepancy between the Farnborough brochure you mention, and the one currently available online?

Interestingly, wiki also says 6,200 ft / 1,890 m However, this statistic is cited from the same brochure I linked to above. Apparently, it has been updated to say 5000 ft.

aerolimani wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

It's tough to find info for the A319, but googling says MTOW at sea level is somewhere around 6200 ft. BBD says 5000 ft for the CS300.I don't have the math knowledge to extrapolate what the hot-and-high performance would be, precisely, but I'm fairly sure it would scale up, and the CS300 would likely still have better performance than the A319CEO. While the A319NEO will have good hot-and-high performance, I can't imagine the NEO will have performance better than the CS300. So, the only reason I could see for an airline to choose the A319NEO would be if they need both the hot-and-high and the commonality.

That being said, I don't see Airbus eliminating it, but I don't see them pushing it either.

Edited to add: there are reports of CS300 being closer to 6000ft, but those numbers are from older articles, published pre-testing results and real world airline data.

Looking at a cs300 brochure from Farnborough last year, the charts included are giving a 6900ft tofl isa+15 with 24k engines and 148klb mtow. Furthermore, the A319 will maintain its performance far above ISA conditions whilst the others will quickly drop off. Heck, the A319 will out perform even G3 and GIVs from Riyadh on hot days.

From the BBD brochure online:

CS300:
Takeoff Field Length
ISA, SL, Base MTOW, Max. Thrust
5,000 ft. (1,524 m)
Landing Field Length
ISA, SL, Base MLW
4,800 ft. (1,463 m)

http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS300.pdf

I'm an enthusiast, and not an expert. So, I'm genuinely asking why the discrepancy between the Farnborough brochure you mention, and the one currently available online?

Interestingly, wiki also says 6,200 ft / 1,890 m However, this statistic is cited from the same brochure I linked to above. Apparently, it has been updated to say 5000 ft.

The answer is in your response. Note that the figures given in your link are, as I suspected, for a lower TOW or 'base MTOW', not the max 148klb.

I agree with above posters in that Airbus won't worry about the A319 and will instead sell the C-series. There will be A319NEO delivered and operated. I will be surprised if 100% of the orders stay as A319s instead of A320s...

Chaostheory wrote:

The A319 offers take off and climb performance which is comparable to the 757. The A319neo will have higher climb thrust than the ceo improving climb gradients even further. I don't think the cs300 can touch it in that regard, the cs100 perhaps. The 319neo isn't going anywhere and no, the 320neo improvements don't make it redundant.

Lightsaber - The cj variant of the neo isn't targeted towards corporate clientele. The marketing focus is on governments who need the cabin space. Governments tend to fly into larger international/military airports where space isn't an issue and most of their flying doesn't require .90 cruise capability. Besides, Airbus and Boeing offer superior parts coverage and most nations have the ability to repair 737s and 320s locally.

It doesn't matter for who the A319NEOCJ is targeted to. Most of the targeted customers will buy an A320NEOCJ thanks to the range enhancements and short field kit. I agree there is a market, just not enough to have a ROI on A319 development and flight testing. And yes, I have a good idea of the costs and profits.

This isn't the A319CEO where there were maintenance, fuel burn, range, and field performance advantages shifting the purchase decision.

Lightsaber

Chaostheory wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

Looking at a cs300 brochure from Farnborough last year, the charts included are giving a 6900ft tofl isa+15 with 24k engines and 148klb mtow. Furthermore, the A319 will maintain its performance far above ISA conditions whilst the others will quickly drop off. Heck, the A319 will out perform even G3 and GIVs from Riyadh on hot days.

From the BBD brochure online:

CS300:
Takeoff Field Length
ISA, SL, Base MTOW, Max. Thrust
5,000 ft. (1,524 m)
Landing Field Length
ISA, SL, Base MLW
4,800 ft. (1,463 m)

http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS300.pdf

I'm an enthusiast, and not an expert. So, I'm genuinely asking why the discrepancy between the Farnborough brochure you mention, and the one currently available online?

Interestingly, wiki also says 6,200 ft / 1,890 m However, this statistic is cited from the same brochure I linked to above. Apparently, it has been updated to say 5000 ft.

The answer is in your response. Note that the figures given in your link are, as I suspected, for a lower TOW or 'base MTOW', not the max 148klb.

Okay… so what is the difference between base and max? Is base some sort of average weight? I guess the brochure isn't particularly useful, given that it doesn't state a specific TOW.

So… it seems there's not enough available evidence to make any determination, in this instance. Or, at least, not enough evidence that I can find. Of course, as the baseline model, it stands to reason that the CS300 hot-and-high performance would not be as good as its shrink, the CS100. Whereas, the A319 is a shrink.

Just for interest sake, I would love to see a comparison between the two aircraft. Just how good is the A319CEO's takeoff performance anyhow? That info seems woefully non-existent online.

aerolimani wrote:

From the BBD brochure online:


http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS300.pdf

Okay… so what is the difference between base and max? Is base some sort of average weight? I guess the brochure isn't particularly useful, given that it doesn't state a specific TOW.

So… it seems there's not enough available evidence to make any determination, in this instance. Or, at least, not enough evidence that I can find. Of course, as the baseline model, it stands to reason that the CS300 hot-and-high performance would not be as good as its shrink, the CS100. Whereas, the A319 is a shrink.

Just for interest sake, I would love to see a comparison between the two aircraft. Just how good is the A319CEO's takeoff performance anyhow? That info seems woefully non-existent online.

The base tow and MTOW is there in your pdf link at the bottom of page 2:

base TOW 132klb, hgw MTOW 149klb

How good is the 319ceo you ask. Off the top of my head, she can manage around 16% climb gradient on a +15 day at higher weights. An A320 would just about achieve around 13%. Those figures are for without sharklets.

There seems to be a premise here that the 319NEO was bought by Avianca for hot and high performance. Look at the rest of the fleet. They don't seem to be particularly optimizing for hot and high. I would argue the CS300 would have no issues in BOG. It may not have the hot and high performance of the 319NEO. Could just be good enough to meet AV's needs though.

Chaostheory wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

From the BBD brochure online:


http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS300.pdf

Okay… so what is the difference between base and max? Is base some sort of average weight? I guess the brochure isn't particularly useful, given that it doesn't state a specific TOW.

So… it seems there's not enough available evidence to make any determination, in this instance. Or, at least, not enough evidence that I can find. Of course, as the baseline model, it stands to reason that the CS300 hot-and-high performance would not be as good as its shrink, the CS100. Whereas, the A319 is a shrink.

Just for interest sake, I would love to see a comparison between the two aircraft. Just how good is the A319CEO's takeoff performance anyhow? That info seems woefully non-existent online.

The base tow and MTOW is there in your pdf link at the bottom of page 2:

base TOW 132klb, hgw MTOW 149klb

How good is the 319ceo you ask. Off the top of my head, she can manage around 16% climb gradient on a +15 day at higher weights. An A320 would just about achieve around 13%. Those figures are for without sharklets.

I'm having a bad day. Hopping around between too many different brochures and webpages. Ugh.

I guess what I'm wondering is just how many customers would actually need the A319NEO's capabilities. Would the CS300 suffice for some, most, or all operators in regions with lots of hot-and-high airfields?

I think of AC with their A319s (now with RV), flying routes like YVR - MEX. I wonder if the CS300 would be good for that. It's well within CS300 range, so it wouldn't need a full fuel load. They will have the CS300 in their fleet in the not-so-distant future. With all the competition on the route these days, from AM and WS, I could see them going to the smaller airframe.

ytz wrote:

There seems to be a premise here that the 319NEO was bought by Avianca for hot and high performance. Look at the rest of the fleet. They don't seem to be particularly optimizing for hot and high. I would argue the CS300 would have no issues in BOG. It may not have the hot and high performance of the 319NEO. Could just be good enough to meet AV's needs though.

A cursory glance at flightradar suggests the A319s are flying a disproportionate number of 5+ hour sectors from Bogota compared to the A320s.

aerolimani wrote:

I'm having a bad day. Hopping around between too many different brochures and webpages. Ugh.

I guess what I'm wondering is just how many customers would actually need the A319NEO's capabilities. Would the CS300 suffice for some, most, or all operators in regions with lots of hot-and-high airfields?

I think of AC with their A319s (now with RV), flying routes like YVR - MEX. I wonder if the CS300 would be good for that. It's well within CS300 range, so it wouldn't need a full fuel load. They will have the CS300 in their fleet in the not-so-distant future. With all the competition on the route these days, from AM and WS, I could see them going to the smaller airframe.

I agree with you.

Just as we see with the 757 v a321, for the vast majority of airlines, the performance offered by the latter is good enough to replace the 757. I'm sure the same will hold true with the cseries v 737-700 and A319.

I do however think that for some operators, especially governments, the performance of the -700 and 319 variants will sway them.

Chaostheory wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

I'm having a bad day. Hopping around between too many different brochures and webpages. Ugh.

I guess what I'm wondering is just how many customers would actually need the A319NEO's capabilities. Would the CS300 suffice for some, most, or all operators in regions with lots of hot-and-high airfields?

I think of AC with their A319s (now with RV), flying routes like YVR - MEX. I wonder if the CS300 would be good for that. It's well within CS300 range, so it wouldn't need a full fuel load. They will have the CS300 in their fleet in the not-so-distant future. With all the competition on the route these days, from AM and WS, I could see them going to the smaller airframe.

I agree with you.

Just as we see with the 757 v a321, for the vast majority of airlines, the performance offered by the latter is good enough to replace the 757. I'm sure the same will hold true with the cseries v 737-700 and A319.

I do however think that for some operators, especially governments, the performance of the -700 and 319 variants will sway them.

On a related note, I was reading today that the UK is considering replacing the RAF's VIP BAe146 fleet with CSeries. Apparently, transatlantic is now a requirement. It would undoubtedly be a bit of a political statement, as Elizabeth II is also the Queen of Canada and Northern Ireland.

The A319NEO will definitely not become a commercial success. Rather a blatant failure, that is. Nevertheless, it has some unique characteristics that would justify her serial production. For example, the Antartica traffic of the Austrailian authorities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VMrh0iJMl8

One airline I see going for the A319neo is Drukair of Bhutan, which has a fleet of some A319s that are equipped for the steep approach into Paro airport. The airport is tiny, so the smaller size of the A319neo actually helps it out in terms of parking vs. the larger A320neo. I'm also not sure even with the neo enhancements, the A320neo can land at Paro, vs. the A319neo. The CS300 is longer than an A319neo, so it's larger airport footprint may hinder it as well.

767333ER wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

The A319 NEO did its test flight today in addition with the A330 NEO. It was on FR24.

Let's look at it from this perspective. Parts on the 319, 320, and 321 go together making maintenance much easier for certain airlines. That's why some airlines only want one a/c type.

Getting their hands on the A319neo in the first place is tricky though as nearly no one is willing to lease the thing or finace it knowing it will fare similar to the 737-600 or A318 on the used market. In other words the A319neo is expected to be a relatively inefficient money loser. It may have commonality but that’s it and that only matters so much. That’s why it has sold so poorly.

I am not saying that it will do well, but it will be open for whoever wants to buy.

RalXWB wrote:

Airbus knew what their intention was when investing in the CSeries...They are not worried about 319 sales anymore.

You don't build an airplane, actively seek orders and then "not worry" about selling it when industry circumstances change. Even more so when those circumstances are of your own making. They've come to the rescue of their Canadian blood-brothers, now they have to integrate the collateral result of their precipitated action.

Chaostheory wrote:

ytz wrote:

There seems to be a premise here that the 319NEO was bought by Avianca for hot and high performance. Look at the rest of the fleet. They don't seem to be particularly optimizing for hot and high. I would argue the CS300 would have no issues in BOG. It may not have the hot and high performance of the 319NEO. Could just be good enough to meet AV's needs though.

A cursory glance at flightradar suggests the A319s are flying a disproportionate number of 5+ hour sectors from Bogota compared to the A320s.

I don't have a set of CSeries charts, but I really do suspect that it's not going to have trouble operating out of BOG for a 5+ hr flight. We'll see what AV does.

ytz wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

ytz wrote:

There seems to be a premise here that the 319NEO was bought by Avianca for hot and high performance. Look at the rest of the fleet. They don't seem to be particularly optimizing for hot and high. I would argue the CS300 would have no issues in BOG. It may not have the hot and high performance of the 319NEO. Could just be good enough to meet AV's needs though.

A cursory glance at flightradar suggests the A319s are flying a disproportionate number of 5+ hour sectors from Bogota compared to the A320s.

I don't have a set of CSeries charts, but I really do suspect that it's not going to have trouble operating out of BOG for a 5+ hr flight. We'll see what AV does.

I also hope AV does get the CSeries. I've seen once in a blue moon their A319's come to LAX from SAL, and that's a 5 hr flight.

Since this thread has used AV out of BOG as an example of an operator that has use for the A319neo,how would the CS 300 compare on the current routes AV operates? I'm especially interested in the operating cost differentials such as fuel burn. I do recall the CS100 has been certified for steep approaches into LCY if that were of any use to AV for some of their destinations.

Why would the 319neo NOT enter service? One is built for certification and orders are there to be fulfilled. Are these orders ALL likely to be cancelled / switched?

Airbus has 8 FALs producing its A320 family, putting the occasional 319 down one of them does not incur any special cost.

Airbus will continue to offer 319s for those that want to buy them, alongside CS, but they will no longer compete on price against each other.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Airbus has 8 FALs producing its A320 family, putting the occasional 319 down one of them does not incur any special cost.

Airbus will continue to offer 319s for those that want to buy them, alongside CS, but they will no longer compete on price against each other.

Not pricing to the market will mean no sales. The issue with the current A319 is that Airbus won't (and shouldn't) discount enough to gain orders. "Giving up" means discounting even less. This isn't a problem as Airbus has profit metrics to hit and a backlog allowing the luxury of pursuing those metrics.

Lightsaber

767333ER wrote:

WIederling wrote:

767333ER wrote:

The A319 can’t take containers. The only thing it’s good for at this point is special performance.

Hahrm.

The A318 can’t take containers. really too short.

You can have AKH on a319, a320, a321.

My bad there, but even if it can, almost nobody uses them on the A319. The only one I know of is Austrian. Contiainers are better on the A320 and A321neo, but in a plane that size, they really don’t do much.

Containers waste space. The A319 cargo hold is already on the small side, so airlines like Air Canada bulk load on the A319 even though they use containers in the bigger planes. I don't think containers is a reason why the A319 would be ordered. I think the interest is short field performance. For an airline like Avianca, the A320 can't operate into SDU in Brazil (correct me if that has changed with the A320neo), but the A319 can. Short field performance for runways under 5,000ft matters.

767333ER wrote:

seahawk wrote:

There will be customers who want the size and the option to use LD-3/45s.

The A319 can’t take containers. The only thing it’s good for at this point is special performance.

The A319 takes up to 5 containers. 4 LD3-45 & 1 LD3-45-40.

aerolimani wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

From the BBD brochure online:


http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS300.pdf

I'm an enthusiast, and not an expert. So, I'm genuinely asking why the discrepancy between the Farnborough brochure you mention, and the one currently available online?

Interestingly, wiki also says 6,200 ft / 1,890 m However, this statistic is cited from the same brochure I linked to above. Apparently, it has been updated to say 5000 ft.

The answer is in your response. Note that the figures given in your link are, as I suspected, for a lower TOW or 'base MTOW', not the max 148klb.

Okay… so what is the difference between base and max? Is base some sort of average weight? I guess the brochure isn't particularly useful, given that it doesn't state a specific TOW.

So… it seems there's not enough available evidence to make any determination, in this instance. Or, at least, not enough evidence that I can find. Of course, as the baseline model, it stands to reason that the CS300 hot-and-high performance would not be as good as its shrink, the CS100. Whereas, the A319 is a shrink.

Just for interest sake, I would love to see a comparison between the two aircraft. Just how good is the A319CEO's takeoff performance anyhow? That info seems woefully non-existent online.

The base model is for shorter range airlines in EU. Lower listed weights means lower airport & lower ATC overflight fees.

NeBaNi wrote:

One airline I see going for the A319neo is Drukair of Bhutan, which has a fleet of some A319s that are equipped for the steep approach into Paro airport. The airport is tiny, so the smaller size of the A319neo actually helps it out in terms of parking vs. the larger A320neo. I'm also not sure even with the neo enhancements, the A320neo can land at Paro, vs. the A319neo. The CS300 is longer than an A319neo, so it's larger airport footprint may hinder it as well.

Airports like Paro will eventually have to enlarge their ramps. What do they do if Boeing and Airbus stop offering airplanes under 150 seats? They could probably fit an 130 ft airplane. The CS300 is only 16 more feet than the A319NEO. Or they can just put the parking spots on an angle and make the ramp one-way, with turnbacks at the end of the runway. Like you see at LCY. I don't imagine PBH is busy enough to have one way flow impact the ramp that much.

Or the airlines there have to go to regional jets. The steep approach thing is not really that much of an issue. Any aircraft getting into LCY, could probably do PBH. The CSeries or the E2 would be perfect for them. Both will carry just under what the A319 does today at about the same CASM and lower trips costs (or more seats and better CASM with the CS300). Both have balanced field lengths within the runway length of Paro. And both bring enough range to open up a lot more new destinations for KB.

I hope we see KB trade their current three A319s for 4 CS100s. They can use that to open up more routes, and regularize some of their seasonal destinations like BOM and SIN. Does KB need airbus planes for cargo containers (LD3-45s)? That's the only reason I see to operate 319NEOs. Otherwise, they really would be better off with a large RJ.

lightsaber wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Airbus has 8 FALs producing its A320 family, putting the occasional 319 down one of them does not incur any special cost.

Airbus will continue to offer 319s for those that want to buy them, alongside CS, but they will no longer compete on price against each other.

Not pricing to the market will mean no sales. The issue with the current A319 is that Airbus won't (and shouldn't) discount enough to gain orders. "Giving up" means discounting even less. This isn't a problem as Airbus has profit metrics to hit and a backlog allowing the luxury of pursuing those metrics.

Lightsaber

This also ignores opportunity cost. 7 years backlog. Why not sell a 320 or 321 instead? They probably could make just as much or more of a margin.

My AV thesis is simple. If the CS300 works for AV, then Airbus has opportunity to sell AV double the number of airplanes while reducing the 319NEO count. Why would they not pursue that?

I assume If somebody wants an A319 Airbus will sell it. It will not be fleets, but a single frame here and there. Everything but length of the fuselage is the same as the A320, so it will be no problem to produce one once in a while.
If we compare it to the CS300, the A319 is the more capable frame. More range, shorter take off run with the short field kit. If you do not need that, or have not to think about commonality, you buy a CS300 as it saves you money operating it.

Newbiepilot wrote:

767333ER wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Hahrm.

The A318 can’t take containers. really too short.

You can have AKH on a319, a320, a321.

My bad there, but even if it can, almost nobody uses them on the A319. The only one I know of is Austrian. Contiainers are better on the A320 and A321neo, but in a plane that size, they really don’t do much.

Containers waste space. The A319 cargo hold is already on the small side, so airlines like Air Canada bulk load on the A319 even though they use containers in the bigger planes. I don't think containers is a reason why the A319 would be ordered. I think the interest is short field performance. For an airline like Avianca, the A320 can't operate into SDU in Brazil (correct me if that has changed with the A320neo), but the A319 can. Short field performance for runways under 5,000ft matters.

My bad on the part where I claimed it doesn’t take them, it does, it’s just not so common for obvious reasons that you state. I tend to go by pictures for airlines outside of North America and the only ones I’ve found so far are Austrian and some, but possibly not all British. Someone here named Lufthansa, but I believe their A319s are bulk loaded.

The A319neo powered by CFM Leap-1A will enter into service. There is little doubt about it.

However, the A319neo PW1100G's future is not so certain, especially when you think that the CS300 is powered by PW1500G.

Basically to address the VIP aircraft market, the A319neo/CFM will certainly be favoured for its payload-range capability and because the Auxiliary Fuel Tanks are already designed.

The question remains on the possibility of the CFM Leap-1B (or equivalent) for the C Series.

If the C Series can have both CFM and PW engines then both engines manufacturers will be on a level playing field.

Whether Airbus can break the quasi exclusivity agreement between Bombardier and PW is a question that is still open. After all, PW made Airbus' and Bombardier's life difficult, so why do you have to stick with a supplier who put your business in jeopardy? In my opinion, even from legal perspective Airbus and Bombardier can have a case here.

I understand that CFM engines on the C Series means a lot more work and requires time and CFM might refuse to do so to protect its 737-7 MAX market.

N212R wrote:

You don't build an airplane, actively seek orders and then "not worry" about selling it when industry circumstances change.

1 - It's a poor seller (like the MAX7).

2 - It's a sub-model, so the incremental costs of design, manufacture and certification are small.

3 - Fact of life - circumstances change (dealing with it is better than denying it).

4 - Airbus will make more money selling highly-efficient CS300s than they would selling a few A319neos.

5 - Better to "eat your own children" rather than have someone else eat them.

Clearly, Airbus understand the realities of the situation and have acted accordingly.

N212R wrote:

You don't build an airplane, actively seek orders and then "not worry" about selling it when industry circumstances change.

No, that is exactly what you should do, if you will make more money from not actively seeking orders than you will from actively seeking orders.

Airbus make considerably more money per frame from the A320 and A321 than they do from the A319 so it makes perfect sense to fill all of your production slots with A320s and A321s if you can sell enough of those to keep the lines busy (and, atm, Airbus can). Airbus will now be able to make additional money from selling C-Series aircraft to customers who need smaller aircraft.

Will Airbus continue to sell A319s to customers who request them (for commonality or other reasons)? Yes, of course they will. But they will not be offering large discounts to customers who want them.

I find it very odd how so many people on this site seem to think that the manufacturers need to do whatever they can to make sure that every aircraft program recovers the development costs. That should, of course, always be the plan at the start, but once the money has been spent, the primary driver of the decision-making process should be "what will make more (or lose less) money from now on?". So for Airbus, the question now is "will we make more money from actively selling C-Series aircraft or A319s?". If the answer is the C-Series then they should stop actively selling A319s and accept that the A319neo program will, most likely, not recover its development costs.

Is it possible to reengine an A319ceo with neo engines?

Swadian wrote:

Is it possible to reengine an A319ceo with neo engines?

Yes, it is called A319 NEO and acutally flying already.

RalXWB wrote:

Swadian wrote:

Is it possible to reengine an A319ceo with neo engines?

Yes, it is called A319 NEO and acutally flying already.

I think he means can an existing (as in customer-owned) A319 be re-engined, and I believe the answer is no.

scbriml wrote:

Clearly, Airbus understand the realities of the situation and have acted accordingly.

Clearly... “Bombardier asked for an ambulance and Airbus sent a hearse,” said one person with close ties to the company.

lightsaber wrote:

Not pricing to the market will mean no sales. The issue with the current A319 is that Airbus won't (and shouldn't) discount enough to gain orders.

I'm not sure that's true in at least one case, with one airline.

mariner

N212R wrote:

Clearly... “Bombardier asked for an ambulance and Airbus sent a hearse,” said one person with close ties to the company.

Not much difference when you're terminally ill.

Now that Frontier has switched their 18 A319neo to A320neo, A319neo backlog now stands at33. (10 Undisclosed customer, 20 for Avianca Group and 3 Private/ Government). Two prototypes have since been built. Assuming those two will go to private hands, I wonder if it is commercially viable for Airbus to make and support those 31 A319neos, assuming they proceed with make them. A319neo will be an ugly duckling like A318.

scbriml wrote:

N212R wrote:

Clearly... “Bombardier asked for an ambulance and Airbus sent a hearse,” said one person with close ties to the company.

Not much difference when you're terminally ill.

Hahahahaha! Always like you banter!

juliuswong wrote:

Now that Frontier has switched their 18 A319neo to A320neo, A319neo backlog now stands at33. (10 Undisclosed customer, 20 for Avianca Group and 3 Private/ Government). Two prototypes have since been built. Assuming those two will go to private hands, I wonder if it is commercially viable for Airbus to make and support those 31 A319neos, assuming they proceed with make them. A319neo will be an ugly duckling like A318.

Certification is near.The things costing money are done Running one off A319neo through the production lines in XFW, TSN or BFM, does not cost anything extra. In the moment we see single A319ceo in XFW and TSN. There is hardly any difference between the A320 and A319 but fuselage length.
What is the point of the discussion here in this thread? We know that we will see a very limited number of A319 ceo, at least one is flying.

mjoelnir wrote:

What is the point of the discussion here in this thread?

Fresh funding for Anti AstroTurfers

juliuswong wrote:

I wonder if it is commercially viable for Airbus to make and support those 31 A319neos, assuming they proceed with make them. A319neo will be an ugly duckling like A318.

It's just a shorter A320NEO, or a NEO'ised A319CEO, whichever way you prefer to look at it. There isn't really anything unique about the A319NEO that will cost Airbus more to support it as long as they support the A319CEO and A320NEO family. The A318 featured different engines and structural modifications, the A319 is more or less just a short A320.

I think Airbus won't stop offering the A319NEO, I think they will certify both the LEAP and P&W GTF versions.
As others have written, the certification is the mayor work Airbus has to being able to offer the A319NEO. For their production proces it doesn't really cost anything. Most likely Airbus does prefer making the larger members of the A32xNEO family, because it has a larger profit margin. After the CSALP joint venture has been approved, I think if a airline requests a ~100-160 seat plane they will offer the CS300, instead of a A319. If a A320/A321 NEO operator needs a small number of smaller plans, that airline can still order A319NEO's.
I assume that the demand for A32xNEO will remain higher than the production capability. The C-series could releave the A32x line from some less profitable A319's. The production slots will be used for A320 of A321's generating a higher turnover for Airbus A32x program. While the airline gets a better product.
The A32x and CSeries could reinforce each other. By being able to offer multiple options (CSeries; A32x series or a mix of both) to a airline, will give Airbus and BBD a larger chance of winning a large narrow-body contract.
For this same reason I think that the CS500 will also be developed.