Hey all,

Now that Airbus has the A220 in its stable, what impact would this have on the A319 and A320 aircraft? The A220-300 and A319 seem to be very comparable aircraft, and given the lack of A319 sales, I would not be surprised to see Airbus discontinue the model.

Personally, I think Airbus's move to purchase the C-Series was brilliant. The A220 can now free up Airbus to work on a re-winged A321 and new A322 without worrying about the A319 and A320. Airbus can offer a simple stretch of the A220, the A220-500, for the ~150 seat segment, discontinue the A319, and focus on re-winging the A321 and offering an A322 stretch. The A320 could also be discontinued, or offered as an A320.5ER with the larger A321 wing.


Airbus's product lineup could look like this:
A220-100
A220-300
A220-500 (A killer regional aircraft)
A321NEO plus plus whatever (with new wing)
A322NEO plus plus whatever (with new wing)

There would be a range gap between the A220-300 and A321NEO plus plus whatever, but that gap represents a small portion of narrow body flights, and it's a segment that is trending towards the larger A321/739/7310 aircraft anyway. The A220-500 would be an absolute killer on regional routes, where the majority of A320 and 738 flights are operated.

Just my $.02.

The A320NEO will likely still stay strong, with many airlines choosing to fit between 170-180 including some carriers that aren't LCC, and if you had the A321NEO it would make sense to have 321/320 as it would be an single pilot group.

Why discontinue anything that is selling, and especially an aircraft that has several thousands unfulfilled orders?

I think that we some day will see an A220-400 (simple, slight stretch with reduced range). Since the A220 and A320 families can't easily share the same pilot pool and support services etc., smaller airlines will go for one or the other aircraft family. There is no reason to discontinue a variant of one family just because another variant of another family can be configured with a similar number of seats.

Airbus' operations is large enough to support two single aisle families even though there would a slight overlap. I also think the A319neo will continue to be offered for at leased another decade. The A319neo offers extra performance. In other words, it can operate at airports with shorter runways, flying further, and handles demanding hot and high airports better. Some carriers will need a few extra high performance aircraft in their fleet, to compliment their A320 and A321 (+A322?) aircraft.

Aircraft length:
- A320: 37.57 m (123 ft 3 in)
- A220-300: 38.7 m (127 ft 0 in)
- 737-8: 39.5 m (129 ft 8 in)
- 737-9: 42.2 m (138 ft 4 in)

Adding four rows of economy seats to the A220-300 to create a possible A220-400, would make the A220-400 the same length as the 737-9. This is clearly the maximum for a five abreast design. Even with this stretch it would carry fewer passengers than the A320 in an dense 1-class configuration. A320 can have 180 seats @ 30 pitch. A220-300 can have 150 seats @ 30 pitch. With a four row stretch an possible A220-400 would be able to carry 170 seats @ 30 pitch. This would be a short haul aircraft with limited galley space and only two lavatories. The strength of the A220 family, compared with the A320 and 737, will be in markets that uses wider recliner seats for business class. The A220, A320 and 737 families will all have business class seats at four abreast, making the difference in capacity between these aircraft smaller.

I would think that Airbus might consider adding the LEAP 1b as an engine choice for the A220 family. It has slightly smaller fan diameter than the current P&W engine. Operators of the A320 with LEAP engines, would more likely complement their fleet with A220 family aircraft if these could also be equipped with LEAP engines.

I'm sure Airbus wouldn't have brought the C-series into their lineup if there was a chance of it leeching sales from the A320neo.

Considering more A320 's are being produced each month than A220's are being produced in a year, I don't think A320 NEO orders will be affected much. The A319 NEO might be affected when the A220 production rates increase; A319 NEO orders might get converted. Airlines needing high field performance or long rage will still be likely to take A319's.

Why would a name change affect anything?

The A320 flies up to 180 passengers over 5 hour flights with cargo containers. Not sure how the A220 comes in here.

I think the A320 is fine. It seems like people on this forum love to make problems that don't exist.

1. The A319NEOs struggle has been going on before the A220 was even a thing. The A220 is not responsible for that.
2. ULCCs such as Frontier and Allegiant operate most efficiently with one aircraft family type. Them using the A320 family requires one pilot and maintenance pool and simplifies the operations. I doubt they would spend the money and pain to change out their fleet.
3. Airbus wouldn't hurt their A320NEO operation. It's their bread and butter of mid-range aircraft.
4. The A320NEO/CEO program is stronger and bigger. The A220 won't hurt it. The A220 is still a 'smaller' option of the A320 to the airlines that want it.
5. Airbus won't discontinue a program that has thousands of orders, is stronger, and has only been out for the past couple of years. It just doesn't happen.

Also there seems to be this notion that companies don't want competition with their own products.

That's 100% false.

a) It makes sure you know it's fair competition rather than someone else playing rough
b) Having a higher market share is better
c) It's already a competitive market so you aren't actually undercutting your own margins
d) If it turns out to be revolutionary, it's a lot better to own the next generation rather than the previous generation.

Anyone who's been through business school in the last couple decades has done the Kodak case study where they invented the digital camera but were worried about it cutting into their film sales.

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

A320neo might be affected if they introduce a A220-500

Airbus has made their short to mid-term strategy very clear.

IMHO, anyone hoping for an A220-500 any time soon is going to be disappointed.

Slash787 wrote:

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

Can you please elaborate?

Isn't the A319NEO on hold / cancelled?

VV wrote:

Slash787 wrote:

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

Can you please elaborate?

The A319neo wasn't really selling, just 50-something copies sold. The CS3/A223 has about the same capacity but is a lot lighter. Now with the Airbus support organisation behind it, the A223 is a good alternative for airlines who don't need the capacity of the A320neo. It should sell well, because unlike the A319neo I expect the A223 have better CASM than the A320neo (I don't have exact numbers, but if other members can help out it would be appreciated).

THERE. WON'T. BE. AN. A322.

Airbus would have to spend way too much money to modify the existing frame

uta999 wrote:

Isn't the A319NEO on hold / cancelled?

No, the first test aircraft of the A319neo has been built and there are orders for it (there was even an order for 20 with 4 conversions from A320neo earliers this year, probably from a Chinese airline).
Airbus won't put much sales effort in the A319neo anymore. But if someone orders it for the right price, Airbus will gladly build it

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.

I don't see the A319 dying anytime soon.
6 abreast seats would not fit in an A220... imho

Why is it so hard for a lot of people in this forum to accept that A320 and a stretched A220-500 could work together very well?

A220-500 could be for airlines looking for commonality with a fleet of smaller A220s while A320s could be for airlines looking for commonality with older A319/20/21 aircraft and newer A321 NEO (also A330/A350 fleets).

Also A320 series have such a big backlog that Airbus is almost being held back by production capacity. They could make a lot more money by selling both A320 and A220-500 simply because they will be able to build more.

I'd be curious if its possible to modify the A220 to make it pilot type compatible with the A320 family. You'd still of course have issues with the parts being different but what if from the pilot point of view they behaved the same?

My guess is that for the cost to do that you might as well do a cleansheet design. Still, I don't know enough to know for sure.

As for having an impact I'd agree it's unlikely. Most airlines with a fleet of A320s will want to keep the family commonality to keep costs down. The A220 will have to stand on its own two feet and find its own niche. It will probably do well for airlines that want to service smaller airports that just can't support an A320 family plane but demand something a bit more than an ATR72 or Q400.

Why has the A319neo failed to gain traction in the market? Industry/market dynamics? Competition from the E190/195 and CS300?

fightforlove wrote:

Why has the A319neo failed to gain traction in the market? Industry/market dynamics? Competition from the E190/195 and CS300?

From what's been talked around here the extra cost to operate the A320 over the A319 is minuscule. So if you can semi reliably fill the extra seats you at worst break even between the two. So for most airlines it makes sense to fully standardise on the larger one and accept that sometimes it won't be perfect.

The A319NEO will continue on as it will fit well as a BBJ competitor.

The A320 killed the A319. Those 20-30 extra seats are basically “free”, might as well ‘abuse’ the A320, even if you can’t sell all the extra seats. However the A220 is a different game. As Airbus have called it “the network builder”. A320 (or slightly better) CASM, in a 150 size category, with the weight of Airbus behind it in sales AND maintenance/support.

This massively changes sales campaigns. Airbus no longer has to flog A320neo’s to keep the C-Series out of RFPs - instead they will offer the A22x/32x combination. While it’s true that Airbus May sell a few less A32x, they won’t have to sell them at prices to keep the C-Series a small-time player. I’m sure the JetBlue order is a vision of many future sales campaigns.

In my humble opinion, I see things playing out as follows:

1) In a few years, Airbus will see the utility in developing the A220-500. It'll add 4 or 5 rows and be targeted as a regional hauler and as a capacity increase for airlines that are already operating fleets of A220s. For domestic, regional runs, cargo capacity isn't a big deal. It just needs to do a couple of hours of flight time cheaply and reliably without the extra capacity and weight that the A320 brings to the table.

2) Having a product that reliably covers the bottom of the market, including making the A319 essentially obsolete in the same manner that the 757 is now, they can begin to focus on the A320 replacement project. That project will be targeted at an airframe that is roughly just under A321 sized, with a long range shrink available, and a high capacity stretch available. This will cover the market for them that will comfortably overlap with Boeing's MOM design and cover the meat of their narrow body market as well.

With half a decade of backlog on the A320 line, increasing interest in the A220, and many more A320 series orders to come, Airbus has plenty of time to get the A320 replacement right.

As for Boeing, with the E2 series covering a slightly lower capacity space than the A220, and with the MOM well into development, I don't see them doing anything with the MAX line for a while. Eventually, they'll probably replace the 737 line with a new product that uses more modern tech to place into the market with the -800, 200 passenger market being its target development size, with a high capacity stretch to roughly -10 size, and a range maximized shrink available in the -700 size range. Being platform optimized for slightly larger sizes, Boeing will be able to address their issues on operational efficiency and engine fan size with taller gears and a cabin that's about 6 inches wider. They'll be a good 5+ years behind the new Airbus product.

keesje wrote:

The A320 flies up to 180 passengers over 5 hour flights with cargo containers. Not sure how the A220 comes in here.

The A220-300 matches A320NEO Cost per passenger.

Either Airbus accepts they must grow the A220 (staying healthy on NEO sales with the A321), or they create a market opportunity for others.

Every PIP increases the optimal gauge of a cross section. With Sharklets and the last two V2500 engine PIPs, the A319 cost savings per flight were too low to justify downgauging.

With the upcoming Pratt PW1100G low turbine PIP, we add so much capability and cost reduction to the A321 that cost per seat, per Indigo claims, is 15% less than the A320NEO. In other words, pay for a mere 10 seats for 44 more seats. The new seats are too cheap not to take the opportunity a la JetBlue and Indigo.

If a flight doesn't pay for that minor cost per flight increase, than it isn't viable with the A320NEO or CEO anymore, the airline must find a lower cost per flight airframe. Since many airlines want a 150 seat (2-class, about 200 ULCC), they will ask around until they are offered what they want.

Ironically, the engine upgrade has made the A320 too heavy for the size. The easy filler is the A220-500. Unfortunately, it is a non-optimal cross section for a significant stretch (see MD-90). However, it can be stretched enough for a cost per passenger with same seat pitch, with that wider middle seat, of 6% to 8% less than the A320NEO on 1 to 4 hour missions (shorter the mission, the greater the relative savings as the PW1500G is better optimized for climb while the PW1100G is better optimized for cruise, an intentional decision by Pratt based on the desired goals, expressed as requirements, of each airframer).

Based on a PIP for the PW1500G I'm starting to hear about, the A220-500 is only good up to the 5 hour mission in 2-class or 4-hour ULCC. There is a lot of demand. That is sufficient for all mid-America hubs (but not TCON) and all with EU legacy, 98%+ of US, Asian, and EU ULCC flights I know of.

Or leave Mitsubishi an opening for a narrowbody (which they wouldn't be allowed to be prime per Boeing contracts, but they are learning on the MRJ).

Aerospace engineering is often about denying new entrants a market space. There is an easy to identify market space where today's technology provides enough of a cost savings for a new entrants.

CFRP wings are a game changer. Mostly by reducing weight and allowing higher cruise in thinner air, but also by making topside laminar flow easier.

Folding wingtips will be even more of a game changer (mostly by enabling underside laminar flow which requires thinner aspect ratio wings or more wingspan for the same wing loading).

The A320NEO is today's success. But if I can illustrate a market opening,bso can others.

This is why, if supported better than the SSJ, I see a market space for the MC-21 with ULCCs (what I see it optimized for).

The C919? Isn't optimized for anything. Can anyone tell me of any mission it should have better economics than the competition? So far it is a voluntold airframe that will have higher variable costs per passenger than the A320NEO and I just pointed out those costs are high enough to create a market opportunity.

The A220-300 carries a passenger for the same cost as the A320NEO. Historically, when a larger airframe has the same cost per passenger (or higher), it stops selling. In fact, larger airframes must carry each added passenger for a discount.

We are in a step change improvement in narrowbody efficiency. The A321NEO only costs, per my estimate, just over 5.1% more per mission than the A320 NEO. That is amazing!

Lightsaber

afgeneral wrote:

Why is it so hard for a lot of people in this forum to accept that A320 and a stretched A220-500 could work together very well?

Because one is the best selling plane in its class and the other one doesn't exist?

Slash787 wrote:

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

A320neo might be affected if they introduce a A220-500

But even then I see airlines with pre existing A220 fleets going for the -500, and airlines who want commonality with the larger A321neo selecting A320neos. I don't see it as a huge issue (plus an A220-500 is some time off, if it even comes to fruition)

scbriml wrote:

Airbus has made their short to mid-term strategy very clear.

IMHO, anyone hoping for an A220-500 any time soon is going to be disappointed.

I can see a -500 existing once/if the A220-100 and -300 models get a very strong foothold. Otherwise I see absolutely no point.

LightningZ71 wrote:

2) Having a product that reliably covers the bottom of the market, including making the A319 essentially obsolete in the same manner that the 757 is now, they can begin to focus on the A320 replacement project.

The C series (or A220) didn't make the A319 obsolete. The A320 did that and the A320NEO finished it off.

scbriml wrote:

Airbus has made their short to mid-term strategy very clear.

IMHO, anyone hoping for an A220-500 any time soon is going to be disappointed.

Yep. If it ever happens, it is hard to imagine an EIS much before 2030.

zkncj wrote:

The A320NEO will likely still stay strong, with many airlines choosing to fit between 170-180 including some carriers that aren't LCC, and if you had the A321NEO it would make sense to have 321/320 as it would be an single pilot group.

Disagree. If and when the 225 happens, it becomes a mainline airplane while the 320N becomes the LCC airplane. If Airbus ever does the A225, the ideal narrowbody lineup for most airlines would be:

Mainline: 221/223, 223/225, 321N
LCC: 320N, 321N

Eventually, Airbus will have to extend the 320 to create the 320.5, that fits 200 pax in an LCC config. When they do this, I expect they'll extend the 321 as well to 240+ in LCC config. Common wing, new engines, etc. Call this the 322 and 323 if you will.

cledaybuck wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Airbus has made their short to mid-term strategy very clear.

IMHO, anyone hoping for an A220-500 any time soon is going to be disappointed.

Yep. If it ever happens, it is hard to imagine an EIS much before 2030.

Launch before 2020 is overly optimistic. EIS before 2030 is ridiculously pessimistic. Boeing will have the NSA by then. I'd said EIS no later than 2027. And my guess would be around 2025.

ytz wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Airbus has made their short to mid-term strategy very clear.

IMHO, anyone hoping for an A220-500 any time soon is going to be disappointed.

Yep. If it ever happens, it is hard to imagine an EIS much before 2030.

Launch before 2020 is overly optimistic. EIS before 2030 is ridiculously pessimistic. Boeing will have the NSA by then. I'd said EIS no later than 2027. And my guess would be around 2025.

I am thinking Airbus won't launch anything before they have full ownership of the program, which if I remember correctly was five years. If I am correct and launch isn't until after 2023, it is not hard to get around 2030 with four or five years between launch and EIS.

I don't see anyway Boeing will have the NSA in service by 2030 unless you think they aren't going to do the NMA. Even then, the MAX is selling so well it is hard to imagine them launching anything new in that space anytime soon.

cledaybuck wrote:

LightningZ71 wrote:

2) Having a product that reliably covers the bottom of the market, including making the A319 essentially obsolete in the same manner that the 757 is now, they can begin to focus on the A320 replacement project.

The C series (or A220) didn't make the A319 obsolete. The A320 did that and the A320NEO finished it off.

That doesn't make sense, because the A319 came after the A320. Obviously, at one point in time, there was a market for it.

I think we are back to the Mexican standoff that Airbus broke by introducing the A320neo.

The A320/A321neo are not ideally sized given that the A220 now belongs to Airbus. Both, but especially the A320neo would ideally be just a little bit bigger. The A320neo is in a very difficult position between the A220-300 on one side and the 737-8 MAX, which is winning the battle in this size category, on the other. The A321neo doesn't face the same difficulty from Boeing for the moment, but still misses out on some missions for lack of payload/range.

Airbus could fix this decisively with an A320 replacement, with the smaller size halfway between the A320 and A321 and the larger size above the A321. But as long as the A321neo is selling, and especially if it's attracting customers upgauging from the A320neo, is there really a reason to jump and spend billions?

For Boeing's part, it's got an issue with the 737-9/10, but it's selling so many 737-8s that it barely matters. As long as the 737-8 keeps selling there is little urgency in this space for Boeing. It clearly sees NMA as its priority, and probably won't bother with NSA until either NMA is done or Airbus forces its hand. If NMA does happen, I expect Boeing will be relying on NSA to make the business case work, and in that event we'll probably see launch of NSA as soon as the major engineering work is done on NMA.

This debate throws more light on Airbus "shelving" the various A321 "plus" studies. I suggest the pause is to enable their design engineers to fully understand and digest the engineering and marketing opportunities opening up as a consequence of their new acquisition.

I see a full A32x replacement family, drawing on BBD's technology, extending haf way into the MoM gap, emerging in a few years. Timed to EIS towards the end of the current A32x NEO delivery plateau, adjusted where feasible to meet the 797 threat as and when that emerges from Boeing.

The immediate question is whether Airbus sees merit in a "quick and dirty" simple stretch of the current model 320 and 321 to take near term advantage of the available engine PiPs.

seabosdca wrote:

The A320/A321neo are not ideally sized given that the A220 now belongs to Airbus.

I think it's way too early to draw that conclusion.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

This debate throws more light on Airbus "shelving" the various A321 "plus" studies. I suggest the pause is to enable their design engineers to fully understand and digest the engineering and marketing opportunities opening up as a consequence of their new acquisition.

I see a full A32x replacement family, drawing on BBD's technology, extending haf way into the MoM gap, emerging in a few years. Timed to EIS towards the end of the current A32x NEO delivery plateau, adjusted where feasible to meet the 797 threat as and when that emerges from Boeing.

The immediate question is whether Airbus sees merit in a "quick and dirty" simple stretch of the current model 320 and 321 to take near term advantage of the available engine PiPs.

There's no quick and dirty. If they do these stretches, the engines aren't going to give them enough. Probably need new wings too. The good thing here is that the capital investment involved is small compared to a new program. At this point, they might as well wait to see what Boeing does with the MoM/797. Once, they know what Boeing is doing, they can decide whether they want to stretch the 320 and 321 and decide if they want two or three stretched airplanes and what capability and capacity to give them. They'll also know whether to simply scrap a stretch and go for a new fleet altogether. And while they do that, they can launch the 225 fairly quickly and cheaply and grab some of the 140-160 seat class market share.

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.

cledaybuck wrote:

LightningZ71 wrote:

2) Having a product that reliably covers the bottom of the market, including making the A319 essentially obsolete in the same manner that the 757 is now, they can begin to focus on the A320 replacement project.

The C series (or A220) didn't make the A319 obsolete. The A320 did that and the A320NEO finished it off.

The A320 came first. The A319 was a shrink built for lower capacity, better field performance, and longer rang. If the A320 killed off the A319, then why wasn't that A319 still born? The early A320 didn't quite have the range for reliable year round US transcon. It also didn't have hot and high performance some operators needed. Later improvements stretched the A320's range, and the NEO should allow the A320 to have much better field performance too.

Lightsaber wrote:

With the upcoming Pratt PW1100G low turbine PIP, we add so much capability and cost reduction to the A321 that cost per seat, per Indigo claims, is 15% less than the A320NEO. In other words, pay for a mere 10 seats for 44 more seats. The new seats are too cheap not to take the opportunity a la JetBlue and Indigo.

If a flight doesn't pay for that minor cost per flight increase, than it isn't viable with the A320NEO or CEO anymore, the airline must find a lower cost per flight airframe.

The A321NEO only costs, per my estimate, just over 5.1% more per mission than the A320 NEO. That is amazing!

Fascinating post. Is your 5.1% figure based on the Indigo numbers? Any other references for A320neo versus A321neo trip costs? Cite for Indigo's?
And are Indigo figures for cash operating cost or DOC?

I could see Airbus offering a 6ab Cseries using the forward-backwards layout patented by someone (can't remember who). Airbus would probably have to recertify for higher seat count but could be worth it. That would make CSeries a deadly ULCC vehicle if the market accepted it (which I could see happening, especially in super-cheap markets like developing Asia).

Matt6461 wrote:

Lightsaber wrote:

With the upcoming Pratt PW1100G low turbine PIP, we add so much capability and cost reduction to the A321 that cost per seat, per Indigo claims, is 15% less than the A320NEO. In other words, pay for a mere 10 seats for 44 more seats. The new seats are too cheap not to take the opportunity a la JetBlue and Indigo.

If a flight doesn't pay for that minor cost per flight increase, than it isn't viable with the A320NEO or CEO anymore, the airline must find a lower cost per flight airframe.

The A321NEO only costs, per my estimate, just over 5.1% more per mission than the A320 NEO. That is amazing!

Fascinating post. Is your 5.1% figure based on the Indigo numbers? Any other references for A320neo versus A321neo trip costs? Cite for Indigo's?
And are Indigo figures for cash operating cost or DOC?

I could see Airbus offering a 6ab Cseries using the forward-backwards layout patented by someone (can't remember who). Airbus would probably have to recertify for higher seat count but could be worth it. That would make CSeries a deadly ULCC vehicle if the market accepted it (which I could see happening, especially in super-cheap markets like developing Asia).

I used Indigo numbers and some other information that I acquired. Please don't consider it accurate to a percent.
Indigo tends to report total operating costs, the figure I believe airlines care about.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

LightningZ71 wrote:

2) Having a product that reliably covers the bottom of the market, including making the A319 essentially obsolete in the same manner that the 757 is now, they can begin to focus on the A320 replacement project.

The C series (or A220) didn't make the A319 obsolete. The A320 did that and the A320NEO finished it off.

The A320 came first. The A319 was a shrink built for lower capacity, better field performance, and longer rang. If the A320 killed off the A319, then why wasn't that A319 still born? The early A320 didn't quite have the range for reliable year round US transcon. It also didn't have hot and high performance some operators needed. Later improvements stretched the A320's range, and the NEO should allow the A320 to have much better field performance too.

I think you answered your own question. Improvements to the A320 made the number of missions the A319 was best for less. That and the spike in fuel prices is what helped kill the A319. Same thing happened to the 73G too.

The A319 is probably the closest that’s actually affected by this, as it is in the 130-155 seat range of the A220-300, the A320 is fine as the seating in that is closer to 160-180, the A220-100 would compete with the A318, if that was still being made, it doesn’t really affect any airbus planes, and it’s one of the reasons airbus chose to invest in it.

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.

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.

LupineChemist wrote:

Also there seems to be this notion that companies don't want competition with their own products.

That's 100% false.

a) It makes sure you know it's fair competition rather than someone else playing rough
b) Having a higher market share is better
c) It's already a competitive market so you aren't actually undercutting your own margins
d) If it turns out to be revolutionary, it's a lot better to own the next generation rather than the previous generation.

Anyone who's been through business school in the last couple decades has done the Kodak case study where they invented the digital camera but were worried about it cutting into their film sales.

Agree 100%. They are in the business of making money first. If there is an A220 that eats into small A320 sales will also take business away from the 737.

I never really paid attention to that but I just looked at airbus website and found out that A220-300 is actually 38.4 meters long. That's 5 meters longer than A319. That's 70 cm longer than A320!!! And it has the range in excess of 5,000km. Why didn't they just make the fuselage wider and make a full-scale competitor for B737 and A320? I REALLY don't understand this. Why position it as a regional jet if it's a normal main-line plane?

I also have just realized what a huge win Airbus just had!!! All they have to do to build the replacement for A320 is to replace the avionics to achieve single type commonality and inflate the fuselage a bit. The rest is there! NSR can rest on the shelf for some time now.

Where does anyone get the false impression the CSeries has ever been positioned as a regional jet??? It has always been advertised as a competitor at the low end of the mainline jet market, offering much better operating economics than the 737-600/700 & A318/A319.

Even here in the US, where the strict scope clauses even make "regional jets" a thing, Delta has ordered the CSeries to be flown by their mainline operation as an MD-88/90 replacement.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

First, just replacing the avionics won’t accomplish “commonality”; the FBW laws are different for one big thing. Second, you can’t “.inflate” the fuselage a bit without a large certification program. Dimensions alone do not describe an airplane despite what a.netters think.

A fella named Paul Tellier warned BBD away from going up against the A/B duopoly in ‘04-ish. He was shown the door.


GF

5 abreast was optimal for 100 to 150 seatings (drag versus structure/weight versus capacity I guess).

At 6 abreast, that would have put BBD right into duopoly territory.

BBD did not want that as there WAS NO WAYS they could compete with the economies of scale, lower supplier costs, better/larger after sale network, much superior finances and the extensive marketing machine of both Boeing and Airbus.

Well guess what. Boeing and Airbus believed that a "CS500" would be coming next (same wings, same engine, trading range for passengers) with a very low certification costs. Such a CASM killer would have eaten 737-8 and A320Neos lunches considerably. (As opposed to the E195E2, which could not really be extended further)

BBD was now the enemy to destroy ( before it could take market share).
So predatory pricings (B737NG at $23M) and other practices were put in place to bankrupt BBD.

(Mind you, BBD also wasted a lots of capital, included the failed Learjet 85 etc)

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