ExMilitaryEng wrote:

I don't see how a new entrant will ever be able to crack into this duopoly.

Wait, are you saying you don't know how the C-Series (now the A220) will be able to crack the A319/A320/A321 and Boeing 737-700/-800/-900/-Max duopoly, or you don't know how any other aircraft builder will ever be able to crack into the "new" Airbus (with the C-Series program firmly under their belt) and the "new" Boeing (with the Embraer JV under their belt) duopoly?

CHA5Departure wrote:

Where does anyone get the false impression the CSeries has ever been positioned as a regional jet???

It isnt a false impression. It was launched and designed as the Bombardier Regional Jet. It was initally related to the Fokker 70/100, and was put on hold for a while in favour of the CRJ-1000, because they were so similar in size and mission.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

I don't see how a new entrant will ever be able to crack into this duopoly.

With plenty of state launch aid, no problem. Look out for China here. They have the will and the means.

VSMUT wrote:

CHA5Departure wrote:

Where does anyone get the false impression the CSeries has ever been positioned as a regional jet???

It isnt a false impression. It was launched and designed as the Bombardier Regional Jet. It was initally related to the Fokker 70/100, and was put on hold for a while in favour of the CRJ-1000, because they were so similar in size and mission.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

I don't see how a new entrant will ever be able to crack into this duopoly.

With plenty of state launch aid, no problem. Look out for China here. They have the will and the means.

Since it was officially (re)launched as the "CSeries" it has never been marketed as a regional jet. And I would not consider it even in the same category as the CRJ-1000 capacity-wise or any other way.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

VSMUT wrote:

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

I don't see how a new entrant will ever be able to crack into this duopoly.

With plenty of state launch aid, no problem. Look out for China here. They have the will and the means.

Does you really believe BBD got more subsidies than let's say Boeing? $Bs just with WA state, in tax breaks + cross subsidies via juicy military "cost plus" contracts which R&D is then reused with the commercial division. (They really dropped the ball with the refueller though - despite Airbus having won it the first time)

About Embraer, if you google WTO + ProEx + Canada + Brazil + Embraer , you'll see who were the cheaters when talking about illegal subsidies.

This whole subject has been discussed ad nauseum not too long ago (remember that Boeing hypocrite complaint not too long ago, and the following extensive discussion here and at AW?)

I can't find any news about stretched A220-500 apart from A.Net forum.
Was it announced by Airbus?

CHA5Departure wrote:

Since it was officially (re)launched as the "CSeries" it has never been marketed as a regional jet. And I would not consider it even in the same category as the CRJ-1000 capacity-wise or any other way.

It was designed as a regional jet. Marketing does not make it any less so. Same goes for the E-jet BTW, which is also officially named ERJs for the same reason.

And you may not consider them in the same category, but the manufacturer certainly thought they were so similar that they practically killed off the C-series for a few years, until the CRJ-1000 failed spectacularly.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Does you really believe BBD got more subsidies than let's say Boeing? $Bs just with WA state, in tax breaks + cross subsidies via juicy military "cost plus" contracts which R&D is then reused with the commercial division. (They really dropped the ball with the refueller though - despite Airbus having won it the first time)

About Embraer, if you google WTO + ProEx + Canada + Brazil + Embraer , you'll see who were the cheaters when talking about illegal subsidies.

This whole subject has been discussed ad nauseum not too long ago (remember that Boeing hypocrite complaint not too long ago, and the following extensive discussion here and at AW?)

This makes no sense in the context. Are you a bit confused?

Starting an aircraft manufacturer requires lots of money. It took many decades of government support before Embraer managed to start making money. Same with Airbus, while Boeing piggybacked on WWII and cold war military projects. Even Bombardier can trace it's roots back to some sort of state launch aid: Canadair back to WWII, DeHavilland Canada as a subsidiary of a major British military manufacturer and Shorts Brothers, another major British military manufacturer back in the days. I don't recall a single major aircraft manufacturer that was started without generous amounts of state subsidies in one form or another.

If you want to break the duopoly, you need a state that is willing to provide sufficient financing, and right now only China really fits the bill.

FatCat wrote:

I can't find any news about stretched A220-500 apart from A.Net forum.
Was it announced by Airbus?

Nothing was ever announced, but the CS500 concept was mentioned by Bombardier on several occasions. They did a study on it at one time too, but most reports suggested that it was put on hold due to lack on funding and development resources. This was around the time when Bombardier and the C-series project was at its lowest with delays, groundings, cancellations and a lack of orders.

VSMUT wrote:

FatCat wrote:

I can't find any news about stretched A220-500 apart from A.Net forum.
Was it announced by Airbus?

Nothing was ever announced, but the CS500 concept was mentioned by Bombardier on several occasions. They did a study on it at one time too, but most reports suggested that it was put on hold due to lack on funding and development resources. This was around the time when Bombardier and the C-series project was at its lowest with delays, groundings, cancellations and a lack of orders.

Thanks. But I think that Airbus prefers to sell an eventual A319neo than to develop a whole new airplane... Given also that 6 abreast arrangment is not possible on the TPFKACS (the plane formerly known as CSeries) platform, am I right?

FatCat wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

FatCat wrote:

I can't find any news about stretched A220-500 apart from A.Net forum.
Was it announced by Airbus?

Nothing was ever announced, but the CS500 concept was mentioned by Bombardier on several occasions. They did a study on it at one time too, but most reports suggested that it was put on hold due to lack on funding and development resources. This was around the time when Bombardier and the C-series project was at its lowest with delays, groundings, cancellations and a lack of orders.

Thanks. But I think that Airbus prefers to sell an eventual A319neo than to develop a whole new airplane... Given also that 6 abreast arrangment is not possible on the TPFKACS (the plane formerly known as CSeries) platform, am I right?

The CS300/A220-300 already has the capacity of an A319. LX for example have 145 seats in their CS3 and 138 seats in their A319s.
A possible CS500/A220-500 would be about the size of an A320.

LH779 wrote:

The CS300/A220-300 already has the capacity of an A319. LX for example have 145 seats in their CS3 and 138 seats in their A319s.
A possible CS500/A220-500 would be about the size of an A320.

Thanks, I got confused.

Airbus would be crazy to not make the C series a core product.

The CS300 has 2% greater cabin area than the A319 and seats the same mount of people. Yet the A319 weighs a massive 15% more empty. Many users report that the A319 can fly further but they are incorrect.

The extra empty weight means more thrust is required and more fuel needs to be carried to fly the same payload the same distance. This means that at 67T maximum takeoff weight the A220-300 can fly just as far as the A319 at 75T maximum takeoff weight with the same payload in both aircraft.

The A220-300 simply burns less fuel and is more efficient.

The stretched A220-500 / CS500 would outperform the 737-7 and A320 by a big margin as well. A simple stretch would add approx 1T to the empty weight. Bump the payload up to 20T and the aircraft will still probably be able to fly 90% as far as the A320, but with a big fuel burn advantage.

Ramping up production would effectively allow the A220 to be the cleansheet design to replace the A318, A319 and A320.

This would allow Airbus to produce a larger narrowbody in the medium term. Though it would probably be an A321LR with a bigger carbon wing which would probably include the A322 stretch. It would explain why Airbus has stopped development of improved A321's in the short term. Wait for next generation engines and carbon wings to become cheap and concentrate on smashing through the backlog of orders.

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus would be crazy to not make the C series a core product.

The CS300 has 2% greater cabin area than the A319 and seats the same mount of people. Yet the A319 weighs a massive 15% more empty. Many users report that the A319 can fly further but they are incorrect.


The extra empty weight means more thrust is required and more fuel needs to be carried to fly the same payload the same distance. This means that at 67T maximum takeoff weight the A220-300 can fly just as far as the A319 at 75T maximum takeoff weight with the same payload in both aircraft.

The A220-300 simply burns less fuel and is more efficient.

The stretched A220-500 / CS500 would outperform the 737-7 and A320 by. Big margin as well. A simple stretch would add approx 1T to the empty weight. Bump the payload up to 20T and the aircraft will still probably be ble to fly 90% as far as the A320, but with a big fuel burn advantage.

Ramping up production would effectively allow the A220 to be the cleansheet design to replace the A318, A319 and A320.

This would allow Airbus to produce a larger narrowbody in the medium term. Though it would probably be an A321LR with a bigger carbon wing which would probably include the A322 stretch. It would explain why Airbus has stopped development of improved A321's in the short term. Wait for next generation engines and carbon wings to become cheap and concentrate on smashing theough the backlog of orders.

Thanks RJMAZ for the exhaustive explanation!
What about the cargo capacity?
I've read there are issues (better, differences) between cargo bays of the B737s and the A320s.

FatCat wrote:

Thanks RJMAZ for the exhaustive explanation!
What about the cargo capacity?
I've read there are issues (better, differences) between cargo bays of the B737s and the A320s.

The CS500 / A220-500 would actually have huge cargo volume, just as much as the A320. The CS300 is already longer than an A320. The CS500 would have a cargo bay longer than an A321.

Remember the nose, tail and wingbox can not fit cargo. However the skinnier fuselage means the nose and tail tapers are smaller on the A220. The wingbox is also shorter due to the smaller wing. This allows the cargo bays to be a greater percentage of the overall fuselage length. Granted the height of the cargo bay is shorter on the A220 but it is still more than adequate.

Only downside is it cant fit containers it needs to be bulk loaded. This is not a big issue with the 737.

MSPNWA wrote:

Economic theory tells us the A220 will basically kill off the A319neo, place downward pressure on the A320neo's price, and poach from A320neo sales. The first big domino - the B6 order - falls in line with that theory. The larger question going forward is if the A220 + A320 combination is more profitable for Airbus that just the A320.

But it won’t.

767333ER wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Economic theory tells us the A220 will basically kill off the A319neo, place downward pressure on the A320neo's price, and poach from A320neo sales. The first big domino - the B6 order - falls in line with that theory. The larger question going forward is if the A220 + A320 combination is more profitable for Airbus that just the A320.

But it won’t.

Agree that it won't really affect prices, nor poach into A320NEO sales. (anyways, definitely less than a CSeries still sold by BBD or somebody else).

As the A220 is now strictly marketed by Airbus, Airbus will obviously carefully price each model according the specific sale campaign.

By example Airbus would probably price the A220 lower if it displaces a possible E2 & B737 tandem.
On the other hand, it would price the A220 higher for a current A320 operator that considers just a few E2s...

Whatever happens to the A319, Airbus are better off owning the C series than they would have been had Bombardier sold it to Boeing.

I don’t know if this belongs to this topic, but even Red Wings, the largest Irkut MC-21 customer, resorted for A223 instead of comparable MC-21-300 (which has no orders at all).

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus would be crazy to not make the C series a core product.

The CS300 has 2% greater cabin area than the A319 and seats the same mount of people. Yet the A319 weighs a massive 15% more empty. Many users report that the A319 can fly further but they are incorrect. .

CS300, as capable as it is, won't get close to the payload/range capability of A319NEO
It flies a 14t payload (140 pax) 3 100nm tanking 16.5t fuel.

The A319NEO will take a 14t payload 3 650Nm tanking 18.7 t fuel (max internal fuel)

Rgds

The A319NEO isn't worth worrying about. We are talking about a variant that currently has less than 1% of the A320 family order book.

astuteman wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus would be crazy to not make the C series a core product.

The CS300 has 2% greater cabin area than the A319 and seats the same mount of people. Yet the A319 weighs a massive 15% more empty. Many users report that the A319 can fly further but they are incorrect. .

CS300, as capable as it is, won't get close to the payload/range capability of A319NEO
It flies a 14t payload (140 pax) 3 100nm tanking 16.5t fuel.

The A319NEO will take a 14t payload 3 650Nm tanking 18.7 t fuel (max internal fuel)

Rgds

How any customers need the A319NEO capabilities and wouldn't just buy the A320 with the new shortfield kit? The advantage of the A220 is cost per flight. I am unable to come up with a scenario where the A230-100/300 or A320 isn't more profitable.

For business jets, the A319 is expensive and will only sell a few. Neat plane, I see no ROI for development and flight test. I question if Airbus will even make enough cash flow profit to pay those expense off.

Lightsaber

For the time being they will co-exist within Airbus Portfolio. Only change is that probably Airbus will very soon take over the whole program and leave BBD behind.
Sorry but the CS500 is now dead and buried as far as the (somehow now defunct) C-Series program goes. It is an A2xx program now and an A220-500 is not in the cards any time soon. Airbus has already their work cut out to hump up the production towards increasing deliveries of what has already been sold so it can attracts new customers.
The A320 is doing very well, thank you very much and the A319 will go (or not...) due to many other different factors.
In future, I would expect that Airbus will replace both A320 and A220 family so that it can achieve what it does not have right now with them: commonality. Airbus builds their plans based on this principle but for now, it is hard to see they pushing an A220 instead of an A320.

Jomar777 wrote:

For the time being they will co-exist within Airbus Portfolio. Only change is that probably Airbus will very soon take over the whole program and leave BBD behind.
Sorry but the CS500 is now dead and buried as far as the (somehow now defunct) C-Series program goes. It is an A2xx program now and an A220-500 is not in the cards any time soon. Airbus has already their work cut out to hump up the production towards increasing deliveries of what has already been sold so it can attracts new customers.
The A320 is doing very well, thank you very much and the A319 will go (or not...) due to many other different factors.
In future, I would expect that Airbus will replace both A320 and A220 family so that it can achieve what it does not have right now with them: commonality. Airbus builds their plans based on this principle but for now, it is hard to see they pushing an A220 instead of an A320.

I disagree on the -500 being dead. Either Airbus realizes it will be much more efficient for 4 hour and less missions, or someone else realizes the market opening and builds a CFRP winged 6-across and walks into the market.
.Airbus gets to make the call. Pratt wouldn't now, but in 5 years would be willing to offer a 3.5:1 GTF designed with integral CMC turbine blades.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

astuteman wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus would be crazy to not make the C series a core product.

The CS300 has 2% greater cabin area than the A319 and seats the same mount of people. Yet the A319 weighs a massive 15% more empty. Many users report that the A319 can fly further but they are incorrect. .

CS300, as capable as it is, won't get close to the payload/range capability of A319NEO
It flies a 14t payload (140 pax) 3 100nm tanking 16.5t fuel.

The A319NEO will take a 14t payload 3 650Nm tanking 18.7 t fuel (max internal fuel)

Rgds

How any customers need the A319NEO capabilities and wouldn't just buy the A320 with the new shortfield kit? The advantage of the A220 is cost per flight. I am unable to come up with a scenario where the A230-100/300 or A320 isn't more profitable.

For business jets, the A319 is expensive and will only sell a few. Neat plane, I see no ROI for development and flight test. I question if Airbus will even make enough cash flow profit to pay those expense off.

Lightsaber

I was only responding to the comment that the A319 doesn't fly further than the A223, because it clearly does, in NEO form at least.
Whether or not there is a market or not is a different debate, and one I have no skin in.

Rgds

lightsaber wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

For the time being they will co-exist within Airbus Portfolio. Only change is that probably Airbus will very soon take over the whole program and leave BBD behind.
Sorry but the CS500 is now dead and buried as far as the (somehow now defunct) C-Series program goes. It is an A2xx program now and an A220-500 is not in the cards any time soon. Airbus has already their work cut out to hump up the production towards increasing deliveries of what has already been sold so it can attracts new customers.
The A320 is doing very well, thank you very much and the A319 will go (or not...) due to many other different factors.
In future, I would expect that Airbus will replace both A320 and A220 family so that it can achieve what it does not have right now with them: commonality. Airbus builds their plans based on this principle but for now, it is hard to see they pushing an A220 instead of an A320.

I disagree on the -500 being dead. Either Airbus realizes it will be much more efficient for 4 hour and less missions, or someone else realizes the market opening and builds a CFRP winged 6-across and walks into the market.
.Airbus gets to make the call. Pratt wouldn't now, but in 5 years would be willing to offer a 3.5:1 GTF designed with integral CMC turbine blades.

Lightsaber

Agreed. People seem not to realise that every sale of an A220-500 at the expense of an A320 would be another free production slot/sale to a customer who does need the range and/or capaciteit of an A320/A321 (or whatever is on offer by that time).

Taxi645 wrote:

Agreed. People seem not to realise that every sale of an A220-500 at the expense of an A320 would be another free production slot/sale to a customer who does need the range and/or capaciteit of an A320/A321 (or whatever is on offer by that time).

Exactly

And that's not counting when most of the time, it would actually displace possible 737-8 sales (against which current A320 NEO is not optimal, until an A320.5 NEO is launched)

As Airbus has a total control (not just 50.01% ) on how to market the A220 (and at what price), you can be assured that both above scenarios will be optimised for profitability, and ensure maximum damage to Boeing.

scbriml wrote:

VV wrote:

Slash787 wrote:

CS300/A220-300 is basically the replacement for A319neo.

Can you please elaborate?

It’s pretty clear from the Airbus slide. Airbus already said they would push the A220-300 over the A319.

If an airline said they wanted to buy 50 A319s then I suspect Airbus would say thank you! However, in response to single-aisle RFPs, Airbus will be offering A220-100/300 and A320/A321. Quite a potent line-up.

Isn't there an A319neo in flight test?

strfyr51 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

VV wrote:

Can you please elaborate?

It’s pretty clear from the Airbus slide. Airbus already said they would push the A220-300 over the A319.

If an airline said they wanted to buy 50 A319s then I suspect Airbus would say thank you! However, in response to single-aisle RFPs, Airbus will be offering A220-100/300 and A320/A321. Quite a potent line-up.

If an airline already flies a version of the A310/A320? Why would they up and change for the A220? The architecture isn't the same and nor are the systems, Engines, Flight controls, nor Avionics Some here think Oh Well, Just buy an airplane and everything else will work out. Well? It Won't ! That airplane will face challenges like Every OTHER airplane, and Once the challenges have been faced and the reliability has been proven? Then it will become a viable candidate..
Delta bought them because they got a DAMN good deal of at least 30% off of list prices. When they give the Thumbs up? Then Orders might be flowing in like Hotcakes. But Until then? I might hold my horses.

What exactly is meant by "replacement" in slash787's comment?

lightsaber wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

For the time being they will co-exist within Airbus Portfolio. Only change is that probably Airbus will very soon take over the whole program and leave BBD behind.
Sorry but the CS500 is now dead and buried as far as the (somehow now defunct) C-Series program goes. It is an A2xx program now and an A220-500 is not in the cards any time soon. Airbus has already their work cut out to hump up the production towards increasing deliveries of what has already been sold so it can attracts new customers.
The A320 is doing very well, thank you very much and the A319 will go (or not...) due to many other different factors.
In future, I would expect that Airbus will replace both A320 and A220 family so that it can achieve what it does not have right now with them: commonality. Airbus builds their plans based on this principle but for now, it is hard to see they pushing an A220 instead of an A320.

I disagree on the -500 being dead. Either Airbus realizes it will be much more efficient for 4 hour and less missions, or someone else realizes the market opening and builds a CFRP winged 6-across and walks into the market.
.Airbus gets to make the call. Pratt wouldn't now, but in 5 years would be willing to offer a 3.5:1 GTF designed with integral CMC turbine blades.

Lightsaber

I understand what you mean but 5 years is still 5 years. By then, who knows, Boeing's B797 might be on a prototype level... But as of now, the -500 is dead. One of the USPs for the A220 is the 3-2 cabin. Do a 3-3 and you have a B737 or A319 which are already in the market being the A319 and B737-7 in a position where no many orders are coming through. Southwest's order for the B737-7 is an exception but no many other operators have order it.

I my guess it that, provided the A220 does shift good orders (it looks likely), Airbus might consider in some year's time, to redevelop the whole A220/320 family towards achieving what it does not have now - flight commonality.Once, and if, they do, they will be a tough challenge for Boeing/EMB to match.

Taxi645 wrote:

Agreed. People seem not to realise that every sale of an A220-500 at the expense of an A320 would be another free production slot/sale to a customer who does need the range and/or capaciteit of an A320/A321 (or whatever is on offer by that time).

Actually, a prospective sale of an A220-500 instead of an A320 at present means a drop of 49% on profits for Airbus given they do not own the whole program just yet. Remember - DL's order for example, unless I am very much mistaken, will generate nothing to Airbus unless if it is tasked to actually build the plans. Baltic's one, on Airbus'perspective, simply does not exist unless they did retroact on the order book at the time of deciding on the JV.

So, technically, the only significant A220 order we have is the Jetblue one. DL's aricraft now look the same as when you buy a brand new car just before the dealer turns up with a new "upgraded" model (In UK terms this is when you buy a 18 reg vehicle by end of August - just when new 68 reg vehicles are coming up...) - they own CS-100 / not A220-100 although the aircraft is the same.

When Airbus takes over the whole program (it WILL happen) and leave BBD in the lurch, I think they will review the whole A320 and A220 family as I said before.

Note also, as I already mentioned, the scale of production of the A220 is way too low at present and needs to be increased if they are to deliver on time the ones already sold as well as open new slots for new orders. Every one that cannot order a A220 due to slot constraints or pricing, will go to a MAX 7 or an E2 - the A320, unless if an A319, will be too much of an upgauge on several occasions.

According to a.net, the average 737 flight is 900-1000 miles. Under 10% of flights are over 2000 miles. I assume the A320 has similar statistics. The A320 is overbuilt for the majority of its missions, just so it can fly those 2000+ mile missions. A A220-500 could fly 90% of the A320 missions far more efficiently than either the A320 or 738. Building the A220-500 may canabalize A320 sales, but it would surely eat into 737 sales as well. I don't think Airbus would mind if they start eating into Boeings sales book.

I don't see the A320NEO going anywhere, but, in my opinion, when it comes time to replace the A320NEO with whatever is next (A320+ or new narrow body), Airbus should launch the A220-500 to focus on building a plane that can very efficiently handle that 90% of the missions. That allows Airbus to build exactly the size wing that the A321 needs, without compromising it'd design to also fit an A320. It may also allow for a A322 stretch as well. That 10% of A320 flights over 2000 miles are all trending towards larger aircraft anyway.

It all seems like a win-win to me.

Jomar777 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Agreed. People seem not to realise that every sale of an A220-500 at the expense of an A320 would be another free production slot/sale to a customer who does need the range and/or capaciteit of an A320/A321 (or whatever is on offer by that time).

Actually, a prospective sale of an A220-500 instead of an A320 at present means a drop of 49% on profits for Airbus given they do not own the whole program just yet. Remember - DL's order for example, unless I am very much mistaken, will generate nothing to Airbus unless if it is tasked to actually build the plans. Baltic's one, on Airbus'perspective, simply does not exist unless they did retroact on the order book at the time of deciding on the JV.

As said if selling an A220-500 at the expense of an A320 means another A320-series production slot/sale than you're talking ~1.5 profit. Apart from the fact that there is no A220-500/51% situation at the moment as you refer to below.

Jomar777 wrote:

When Airbus takes over the whole program (it WILL happen) and leave BBD in the lurch, I think they will review the whole A320 and A220 family as I said before.

Agree that is likely.

Jomar777 wrote:

Note also, as I already mentioned, the scale of production of the A220 is way too low at present and needs to be increased if they are to deliver on time the ones already sold as well as open new slots for new orders. Every one that cannot order a A220 due to slot constraints or pricing, will go to a MAX 7 or an E2 - the A320, unless if an A319, will be too much of an upgauge on several occasions.

Yes, that's why it think Airbus should launch an A220-500 at the opportune moment and further focus on production capacity of the A220.

Airbus can't reduce the fixed cost part much on an A320 plane much by going from 60 to 70, on the A220 however...


In general from a strategic and stability POV I think it is a better investment to focus long term on increasing A220 production rate than to take the A320-series to 90 a month or so. Eventually this could allow for more production sites than just Canada and the US, which would be beneficial again for stability and sales.

The A220-300 is ~ 5.5t lighter

OEW A220-300: 37,1 t
OEW A319 : 42.6 t

Many airlines have A319/20/21 fleets and don't want to loose the full cockpit, cabin, engine, maintenance and cargo container commonality.

The A319 can fly real far, can lift much more and has excellent hot/high performance.

So while the seating capacity might be ~the same, that's about it.

That said the A319 (new) sales have been low (many A319CEO's floating around) and Airbus is committed to selling a lot of A220's and some AKH container users on A320/321 seem to use bulk load on on A319's.

I can see good potential for the A220-300 at Southwest Airlines. Airbus has nothing to loose here, because 737-8 will be mainstay at SW for at least the next 20-25 years so the A320/321 has limited opportunity. .

SW's 737-7 is 5t (!) heavier than a A220-300, that's a lot of fuel & it doesn't go away. SW has visibly been dragging it's feed on replacing the 500 737-700s. Ordering a few -7s & then deferring all but 5 until 2024.

An A220-300 or -500 might become irresistible for SW, despite being a sole 737 operator so far. The 737 always has been there for them, but won't last forever & on fleet, you have to think ahead 10-20 yrs.

The A319 and the A220-300 are in direct competition which each other, in 90% of possible uses the A220-300 will be the more optimised frame.

The A220-100/300 are not in competition with the A320. It is a different size. An A220-500 does not exists and if it should be designed and launched today we would see one not before 2025 at the earliest, more likely not before 2030. Than it would still be the question were the crossover would be between an 5 across frame and an 6 across frame.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A319 and the A220-300 are in direct competition which each other, in 90% of possible uses the A220-300 will be the more optimised frame.

The A220-100/300 are not in competition with the A320. It is a different size. An A220-500 does not exists and if it should be designed and launched today we would see one not before 2025 at the earliest, more likely not before 2030. Than it would still be the question were the crossover would be between an 5 across frame and an 6 across frame.

When airlines decide on a new type, they want to see a future roadmap. Selling A220-100 / 300s to an airlines, it enormously supports the business case to be able to show realistic options to upgrade from say 2030 when market might require additional capacity. The airline fleet development people work out 20-25 year fleet scenarios, with different economic / network scenarios and fleet compositions. The suppliers cannot hold back on long term aircraft development options, without severly damaging their position if the other guys have a plan.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A319 and the A220-300 are in direct competition which each other, in 90% of possible uses the A220-300 will be the more optimised frame.

The A220-100/300 are not in competition with the A320. It is a different size. An A220-500 does not exists and if it should be designed and launched today we would see one not before 2025 at the earliest, more likely not before 2030. Than it would still be the question were the crossover would be between an 5 across frame and an 6 across frame.

In my opinion the crossover is before the A220-500 between 5 and 6 across. However, the wing is enough benefit to make the -500 far more efficient for those 99% of missions.

What Airbus needs is more A220 sales to help the resale market (more potential customers for used examples).

JetBlue didn't finalize in July nor Moxy, but both are great wins for 120 more into the backlog.

Next up is Spirit and Kenya that I know of. Hopefully a few more unknowns.

Before we launch a -500, the A220 needs more sales. Since the A319NEO is so much heavier, it just won't economically compete. The PW1100G is more efficient by quite a bit, but is a big heavy engine designed for the A321. I personally think the -500 needs CMC turbine blades for durability at elevated thrust. In 2020 the GE9x is the launch platform for that tech. We'll see it in narrowbody aircraft a few years later. So 2025 EIS for the -500 is probably the earliest.

Lightsaber