Aircraft is not necessarily replaced by another with a similar capacity on one-to-one basis.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Airbus is in a JV for ATR, also a low volume production. It can work at say less then 10/month for a model but it is a lot tougher to compete against the economics of the 737 / 320

What does this mean?

Babyshark wrote:

FlightLevel360 wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

Your feelings would be wrong.

How so? Delta has 57 A319s, and much of the exNW fleet is nearing the end of their service life. The 50 CS300s, plus a few A321s probably, could easily replace all that lost capacity one for one.

The 220s were not acquired to replace the 319s. If we did, finance and network would lose their minds.

Fwiw the 319s are really young by delta standards. And we are talking about doing the ESG on the 319/320 fleet including the enhanced cockpits because it's required and not as expensive as we thought. We are redoing all the sims with the enhanced cockpits as we speak and getting creative on how we will handle sims as all indications are for us to prep for the fleet to get to 450. We are opening a lax pilot base in the next spring AE we have.

So neither are going anywhere. We need them for the big stuff. Best part of the 319 is the flexibility it gives us in performance and range for the size and cost. Also it is so much more efficient to use 319/320/321s into stations where we can have all 3 mix and match then to mix a station with other fleets. That's one thing we will take a step back on with 220s.

And we need the 319s to replace the 220s since they're going to miss the EIS goal again.

Babysharp confirms the more operational considerations airlines faces when determining their fleet composition. Differences between fleet types are much more diverse than basic spec indicate. There are ~ 1500 A319s and 1200 737-700s. Many of them will be there for years and airlines can expand their fleets buying used ones / leasing some. I remember Northwest did amazing cabin retrofits on DC9's, apparently some of the legacy is inherited by Delta. https://onemileatatime.com/old-delta-planes/

SteelChair wrote:

Imo the A220-100 has more to fear from the A220-500 than the A320neo does.

Once airlines see the seat mile costs on the 500, the 100 won't be competitive.

That is pretty much the fate of any of the smallest sub-types in an aircraft family once the type has matured and stretches have been launched. DC9, 727, 737, 767, 777, A32X, ATR, Embraer, BAe 146, you name them. The A220-100 first flew in 2013. A 220-500 is many years away from entry into service, so the life-span of the -100 appears to be pretty much in line with other aircraft families. Except for the 757, I cannot think of any aircraft family where the smaller variant outsold/outlasted a stretched sibling lauched later.

vfw614 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Imo the A220-100 has more to fear from the A220-500 than the A320neo does.

Once airlines see the seat mile costs on the 500, the 100 won't be competitive.

That is pretty much the fate of any of the smallest sub-types in an aircraft family once the type has matured and stretches have been launched. DC9, 727, 737, 767, 777, A32X, ATR, Embraer, BAe 146, you name them. The A220-100 first flew in 2013. A 220-500 is many years away from entry into service, so the life-span of the -100 appears to be pretty much in line with other aircraft families. Except for the 757, I cannot think of any aircraft family where the smaller variant outsold/outlasted a stretched sibling lauched later.

I agree with all that you said except "many" years before EIS of the 500. I predict less than 5 years from right now. MHO.

The main point why the A220 does not threaten the A320 are production numbers.

A320 production is nearing 60 frames a month. A220 production will perhaps reach 14 frames per month sometime in 2020 and we will perhaps see A320 production well above 60 by that time. Increasing the A220 production rate above 14, does not only need more FAL capacity, but also a growing supply line and that is not done in a short time frame.

mjoelnir wrote:

The main point why the A220 does not threaten the A320 are production numbers.

A320 production is nearing 60 frames a month. A220 production will perhaps reach 14 frames per month sometime in 2020 and we will perhaps see A320 production well above 60 by that time. Increasing the A220 production rate above 14, does not only need more FAL capacity, but also a growing supply line and that is not done in a short time frame.

Hmm, in #95 I gave a quote from an Airbus VIP via AvWeek:

A220 output almost doubled to 33 last year from 17 aircraft in 2017. In the second half of 2018, 20 were delivered. When Bombardier owned the program, 40 aircraft were targeted for 2018, but Balducchi said the lower level of production was “in line with customer commitments and internal targets.” He refused to reveal the production target for this year but said an output of 10 aircraft per month is expected by the middle of the 2020s.

My recollection is closer to your number. Perhaps the AvWeek article is misquoting?

Either way I agree with your premise, A220 is no threat to A320 in the near term future. Faury said they would wait for the aircraft to become a commercial success and that will take a while.

VV wrote:

ZPhoto wrote:

The BBD engineering team who designed and built the CSeries were all transfered to CSALP and no longer have access to BBD's other facilities at Mirabel (and vice versa). Also, the CSeries engineering team was self contained so, for example: the landing gear engineers only worked on the CSeries landing gear and were not used on the CRJs or Q400s... unlike Embraer who use their guys to design landing gear for all their aircrafts, thus making them harder to part with (so Boeing had to buy the company). So I believe the IP was transferred to CSALP along with the engineers. Airbus will buy out Investissement Québec when the debt is repaid and will own a majority of the program with 66%. If they decide to stretch it it will be a CSALP project which will obligate BBD to share development costs.

This is absolutely inaccurate.

I have no information as to whether it is inaccurate - or - not.

But I can say that it would seem to be very unlikely.

And it is even more unlikely that it was not brutally thrashed-out in the negotiations.

We have heard so, so much triumphalism from AB since this was done.

And the ExMilEng fella seems to regard the BBD Co., the Quebec Govt as well as the Ottowa Feds all doing their dough as being just great all round.

Have to wonder if those parties were not just a wee little bit cannier than the AB fanshow makes-out?

Maybe they did a better deal than has so far been reported? Apparently giving the entire show away for $1 was just a tiny tiny part of the deal?

Shock horror!

Maybe being taken for hicks was not the ultimate reality?

cheers

brindabella wrote:

VV wrote:

ZPhoto wrote:

The BBD engineering team who designed and built the CSeries were all transfered to CSALP and no longer have access to BBD's other facilities at Mirabel (and vice versa). Also, the CSeries engineering team was self contained so, for example: the landing gear engineers only worked on the CSeries landing gear and were not used on the CRJs or Q400s... unlike Embraer who use their guys to design landing gear for all their aircrafts, thus making them harder to part with (so Boeing had to buy the company). So I believe the IP was transferred to CSALP along with the engineers. Airbus will buy out Investissement Québec when the debt is repaid and will own a majority of the program with 66%. If they decide to stretch it it will be a CSALP project which will obligate BBD to share development costs.

This is absolutely inaccurate.

I have no information as to whether it is inaccurate - or - not.

But I can say that it would seem to be very unlikely.

And it is even more unlikely that it was not brutally thrashed-out in the negotiations.

We have heard so, so much triumphalism from AB since this was done.

And the ExMilEng fella seems to regard the BBD Co., the Quebec Govt as well as the Ottowa Feds all doing their dough as being just great all round.

Have to wonder if those parties were not just a wee little bit cannier than the AB fanshow makes-out?

Maybe they did a better deal than has so far been reported? Apparently giving the entire show away for $1 was just a tiny tiny part of the deal?

Shock horror!

Maybe being taken for hicks was not the ultimate reality?

cheers

Well, I know it is inaccurate.

VV wrote:

brindabella wrote:

VV wrote:

This is absolutely inaccurate.

I have no information as to whether it is inaccurate - or - not.

But I can say that it would seem to be very unlikely.

And it is even more unlikely that it was not brutally thrashed-out in the negotiations.

We have heard so, so much triumphalism from AB since this was done.

And the ExMilEng fella seems to regard the BBD Co., the Quebec Govt as well as the Ottowa Feds all doing their dough as being just great all round.

Have to wonder if those parties were not just a wee little bit cannier than the AB fanshow makes-out?

Maybe they did a better deal than has so far been reported? Apparently giving the entire show away for $1 was just a tiny tiny part of the deal?

Shock horror!

Maybe being taken for hicks was not the ultimate reality?

cheers

Well, I know it is inaccurate.

WOW, great contribution to the conversation...

WayexTDI wrote:

VV wrote:

brindabella wrote:

I have no information as to whether it is inaccurate - or - not.

But I can say that it would seem to be very unlikely.

And it is even more unlikely that it was not brutally thrashed-out in the negotiations.

We have heard so, so much triumphalism from AB since this was done.

And the ExMilEng fella seems to regard the BBD Co., the Quebec Govt as well as the Ottowa Feds all doing their dough as being just great all round.

Have to wonder if those parties were not just a wee little bit cannier than the AB fanshow makes-out?

Maybe they did a better deal than has so far been reported? Apparently giving the entire show away for $1 was just a tiny tiny part of the deal?

Shock horror!

Maybe being taken for hicks was not the ultimate reality?

cheers

Well, I know it is inaccurate.

WOW, great contribution to the conversation...

Didn't you read about the lawsuit against Mitsubishi? The fact is that a lot of engineers who worked on the C Series moved to MRJ. Others have simply been laid off.

So, that story about all people transferred to CSALP is absolutely rubbish.

VV wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

VV wrote:

Well, I know it is inaccurate.

WOW, great contribution to the conversation...

Didn't you read about the lawsuit against Mitsubishi? The fact is that a lot of engineers who worked on the C Series moved to MRJ. Others have simply been laid off.

So, that story about all people transferred to CSALP is absolutely rubbish.

It's more a question of opinion that actual hard facts.

Some engineers working on the CSeries moved to the MRJ; but who were they really? It wasn't the whole task force, it was part of it; and there is a great chance it wasn't the critical part of it.

Do you really believe Airbus is spending all that money if they didn't buy the IP and cannot perpetuate the A220 (f.k.a. CSeries)?
Even if Airbus only spent $1 (or whatever the ridiculously low amount of money they did) to buy 50.01% of CSALP, they are now pouring tons of money in manpower to market the aircraft, work with suppliers to reduce cost, etc; do you think all these people work for free???

WayexTDI wrote:

VV wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

WOW, great contribution to the conversation...

So, that story about all people transferred to CSALP is absolutely rubbish.

It's more a question of opinion that actual hard facts.

Some engineers working on the CSeries moved to the MRJ; but who were they really? It wasn't the whole task force, it was part of it; and there is a great chance it wasn't the critical part of it.

Do you really believe Airbus is spending all that money if they didn't buy the IP and cannot perpetuate the A220 (f.k.a. CSeries)?
Even if Airbus only spent $1 (or whatever the ridiculously low amount of money they did) to buy 50.01% of CSALP, they are now pouring tons of money in manpower to market the aircraft, work with suppliers to reduce cost, etc; do you think all these people work for free???

OMG.

Okay, let's go slowly about this because you do not seem to understand very well how it works.

Bombardier has an engineering organization, like any other aerospace company. Those engineers are considered as "resource" for pogams, say C Series. Most of engineers working on the C Series came from this engineering organisation "lent" by the engineering organization. They also worked on other programs if needed.

There were other people who were hired specifically for the C Series program. Let's call this group of engineers as the core of the integrated development team for that specific program.

When the program came toward its end, most engineers came back to Bombardier engineering organization. Those who were dedicated for the C Series can opt to move to other program or even other areas of activity like customer services or marketing or program management in business aircraft branch.

The remaining who were really on the C Series and did not want to move to find another position in the company or quit to other companies were laid off. That's life.

A small minority, usually the managers and others who are absolutely necessary for day-to-day execution of the C Series task like customer engineers or weight engineers flight test engineers remained in the program, but they are not necessarily "designers" they are mere executing hands. Those ones are indeed transferred to CSALP, executing day-to-day procedure for production and engineering tests and verification procedures.

This story about "all the people who worked for the C Series were transferred to CSALP" is an absolute rubbish. Complete rubbish.

VV wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

VV wrote:

So, that story about all people transferred to CSALP is absolutely rubbish.

It's more a question of opinion that actual hard facts.

Some engineers working on the CSeries moved to the MRJ; but who were they really? It wasn't the whole task force, it was part of it; and there is a great chance it wasn't the critical part of it.

Do you really believe Airbus is spending all that money if they didn't buy the IP and cannot perpetuate the A220 (f.k.a. CSeries)?
Even if Airbus only spent $1 (or whatever the ridiculously low amount of money they did) to buy 50.01% of CSALP, they are now pouring tons of money in manpower to market the aircraft, work with suppliers to reduce cost, etc; do you think all these people work for free???

OMG.

Okay, let's go slowly about this because you do not seem to understand very well how it works.

Bombardier has an engineering organization, like any other aerospace company. Those engineers are considered as "resource" for pogams, say C Series. Most of engineers working on the C Series came from this engineering organisation "lent" by the engineering organization. They also worked on other programs if needed.

There were other people who were hired specifically for the C Series program. Let's call this group of engineers as the core of the integrated development team for that specific program.

When the program came toward its end, most engineers came back to Bombardier engineering organization. Those who were dedicated for the C Series can opt to move to other program or even other areas of activity like customer services or marketing or program management in business aircraft branch.

The remaining who were really on the C Series and did not want to move to find another position in the company or quit to other companies were laid off. That's life.

A small minority, usually the managers and others who are absolutely necessary for day-to-day execution of the C Series task like customer engineers or weight engineers flight test engineers remained in the program, but they are not necessarily "designers" they are mere executing hands. Those ones are indeed transferred to CSALP, executing day-to-day procedure for production and engineering tests and verification procedures.

This story about "all the people who worked for the C Series were transferred to CSALP" is an absolute rubbish. Complete rubbish.

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't really understand and is stuck on a few words.

When the CSALP was created (even prior to Airbus' involvement), the CSeries "hardcore" development phase was over with; at the time, the remaining engineers working on the CSeries specifically were just a handful compared to when the program was in full development.
Those are the people that are most critical to the remaining life of the program (including a potential stretch), and I'm sure those are the ones brindabella was talking about.

Again, do you really believe Airbus bought into this program if they didn't get the most critical people involved as well as the IP? Do you think they are that dumb?

WayexTDI wrote:

VV wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

It's more a question of opinion that actual hard facts.

Some engineers working on the CSeries moved to the MRJ; but who were they really? It wasn't the whole task force, it was part of it; and there is a great chance it wasn't the critical part of it.

Do you really believe Airbus is spending all that money if they didn't buy the IP and cannot perpetuate the A220 (f.k.a. CSeries)?
Even if Airbus only spent $1 (or whatever the ridiculously low amount of money they did) to buy 50.01% of CSALP, they are now pouring tons of money in manpower to market the aircraft, work with suppliers to reduce cost, etc; do you think all these people work for free???

OMG.

Okay, let's go slowly about this because you do not seem to understand very well how it works.

Bombardier has an engineering organization, like any other aerospace company. Those engineers are considered as "resource" for pogams, say C Series. Most of engineers working on the C Series came from this engineering organisation "lent" by the engineering organization. They also worked on other programs if needed.

There were other people who were hired specifically for the C Series program. Let's call this group of engineers as the core of the integrated development team for that specific program.

When the program came toward its end, most engineers came back to Bombardier engineering organization. Those who were dedicated for the C Series can opt to move to other program or even other areas of activity like customer services or marketing or program management in business aircraft branch.

The remaining who were really on the C Series and did not want to move to find another position in the company or quit to other companies were laid off. That's life.

A small minority, usually the managers and others who are absolutely necessary for day-to-day execution of the C Series task like customer engineers or weight engineers flight test engineers remained in the program, but they are not necessarily "designers" they are mere executing hands. Those ones are indeed transferred to CSALP, executing day-to-day procedure for production and engineering tests and verification procedures.

This story about "all the people who worked for the C Series were transferred to CSALP" is an absolute rubbish. Complete rubbish.

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't really understand and is stuck on a few words.

When the CSALP was created (even prior to Airbus' involvement), the CSeries "hardcore" development phase was over with; at the time, the remaining engineers working on the CSeries specifically were just a handful compared to when the program was in full development.
Those are the people that are most critical to the remaining life of the program (including a potential stretch), and I'm sure those are the ones brindabella was talking about.

Again, do you really believe Airbus bought into this program if they didn't get the most critical people involved as well as the IP? Do you think they are that dumb?

First, Airbus spent almost nothing to obtain 50.01% of the stake in CSALP. And yes, I am still wondering why the heck they took over the C Series program.

That is exactly the problem. You do not seem to understand the situation.

The whole discussion on the future development of the C Series should have started by the location of the design. Despite the fact CSALP might have been granted the right to use the IP, the Catia drawings, the documentation, the calculation methods and software are all on Bombardier's IT infrastructure.

Yes, you have not even started to understand the implications of the situation. It is like having the right to read a book that is stored in a secure vault and you don't have the key of the vault.

Shhhhh. . .

mjoelnir wrote:

The main point why the A220 does not threaten the A320 are production numbers.

A320 production is nearing 60 frames a month. A220 production will perhaps reach 14 frames per month sometime in 2020 and we will perhaps see A320 production well above 60 by that time. Increasing the A220 production rate above 14, does not only need more FAL capacity, but also a growing supply line and that is not done in a short time frame.

Seems like the discussion here shows the 220 will never rise above 1/5th the 320s production per month. Even if it did do that by the mid 2020s, why would a 20 year old design that has no cockpit similarity to the A320/330/350/380 become the replacement for the 320?

For us at DAL the A220 is the oddest duck in a fleet of odd ducks. It's really out of place. Unless you realize it's here to create a common fleet type for the jumbo RJ flying and push those jets down to where the 50 seaters are. It may find success there in that niche in our fleet. Still, it needs that cockpit ripped out of it to have some commonality with the rest of this massive Airbus world. As a replacement for large flying done by the Airbus fleet, no.

Babyshark wrote:

Seems like the discussion here shows the 220 will never rise above 1/5th the 320s production per month. Even if it did do that by the mid 2020s, why would a 20 year old design that has no cockpit similarity to the A320/330/350/380 become the replacement for the 320?

This is a good point.

Babyshark wrote:

For us at DAL the A220 is the oddest duck in a fleet of odd ducks. It's really out of place. Unless you realize it's here to create a common fleet type for the jumbo RJ flying and push those jets down to where the 50 seaters are. It may find success there in that niche in our fleet. Still, it needs that cockpit ripped out of it to have some commonality with the rest of this massive Airbus world. As a replacement for large flying done by the Airbus fleet, no.

I thought DL looked at A220 as a 717 replacement.

In that regard, it should do well.

DL got them at launch pricing and locked in a big block of orders.

A220 has modern CFRP wings (but not fuse), modern systems, modern high efficiency engines.

They should be nice 717 replacements at DL.

The real question in my mind is if it can/will grow beyond that.

VV wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

VV wrote:

OMG.

Okay, let's go slowly about this because you do not seem to understand very well how it works.

Bombardier has an engineering organization, like any other aerospace company. Those engineers are considered as "resource" for pogams, say C Series. Most of engineers working on the C Series came from this engineering organisation "lent" by the engineering organization. They also worked on other programs if needed.

There were other people who were hired specifically for the C Series program. Let's call this group of engineers as the core of the integrated development team for that specific program.

When the program came toward its end, most engineers came back to Bombardier engineering organization. Those who were dedicated for the C Series can opt to move to other program or even other areas of activity like customer services or marketing or program management in business aircraft branch.

The remaining who were really on the C Series and did not want to move to find another position in the company or quit to other companies were laid off. That's life.

A small minority, usually the managers and others who are absolutely necessary for day-to-day execution of the C Series task like customer engineers or weight engineers flight test engineers remained in the program, but they are not necessarily "designers" they are mere executing hands. Those ones are indeed transferred to CSALP, executing day-to-day procedure for production and engineering tests and verification procedures.

This story about "all the people who worked for the C Series were transferred to CSALP" is an absolute rubbish. Complete rubbish.

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't really understand and is stuck on a few words.

When the CSALP was created (even prior to Airbus' involvement), the CSeries "hardcore" development phase was over with; at the time, the remaining engineers working on the CSeries specifically were just a handful compared to when the program was in full development.
Those are the people that are most critical to the remaining life of the program (including a potential stretch), and I'm sure those are the ones brindabella was talking about.

Again, do you really believe Airbus bought into this program if they didn't get the most critical people involved as well as the IP? Do you think they are that dumb?

First, Airbus spent almost nothing to obtain 50.01% of the stake in CSALP. And yes, I am still wondering why the heck they took over the C Series program.

That is exactly the problem. You do not seem to understand the situation.

The whole discussion on the future development of the C Series should have started by the location of the design. Despite the fact CSALP might have been granted the right to use the IP, the Catia drawings, the documentation, the calculation methods and software are all on Bombardier's IT infrastructure.

Yes, you have not even started to understand the implications of the situation. It is like having the right to read a book that is stored in a secure vault and you don't have the key of the vault.

Shhhhh. . .

And you know that because???

Again, do you think Airbus is stupid enough to pour that much money for a basically dead program? I'm calling it dead as it cannot be upgraded/modified/extended beyond what's currently out there.

So, either:
- you do know for a fact; in this case, let us know (even if you cannot divulge the details) and that conversation will stop right there;
- or, you are guessing; in this case, what you're saying is just an opinion (yours, which you are entitled to), so you need to allow others to have their own opinion, even if contradictory to yours.

You obviously cannot comprehend how a forum works; let alone democracy, free-speech and free-thinking. Shhhhh...

A review of Engineering Job Openings at CSALP brought up the Airbus A220 site. Nearly all are listed as Airbus/Bombardier and nearly all cover "Perform sizing and support design activities for post-certification design activities." It appears that CSALP has engineering support for production and QA, but there is nothing about revisions to certified elements. It looks like support for the factory floor.

BBD was very clear in its announcements of the Q400 sale that it included all IP and rights to produce all Dash models. That has not been the case with CSALP. It is an asset that BBD paid dearly for and needs something for.

JayinKitsap wrote:

A review of Engineering Job Openings at CSALP brought up the Airbus A220 site. Nearly all are listed as Airbus/Bombardier and nearly all cover "Perform sizing and support design activities for post-certification design activities." It appears that CSALP has engineering support for production and QA, but there is nothing about revisions to certified elements. It looks like support for the factory floor.

BBD was very clear in its announcements of the Q400 sale that it included all IP and rights to produce all Dash models. That has not been the case with CSALP. It is an asset that BBD paid dearly for and needs something for.

Can you post the job description? It would be interesting to see what "Perform sizing and support design activities for post-certification design activities." actually means

VV wrote:

First, Airbus spent almost nothing to obtain 50.01% of the stake in CSALP. And yes, I am still wondering why the heck they took over the C Series program.

That is exactly the problem. You do not seem to understand the situation.

The whole discussion on the future development of the C Series should have started by the location of the design. Despite the fact CSALP might have been granted the right to use the IP, the Catia drawings, the documentation, the calculation methods and software are all on Bombardier's IT infrastructure.

Yes, you have not even started to understand the implications of the situation. It is like having the right to read a book that is stored in a secure vault and you don't have the key of the vault.

Shhhhh. . .

In the same post you are accusing others of "not understanding" the situation, while admitting that you are "still wondering" why they took over the C Series.
Sounds like you are not understanding very much either.

Revelation wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

Seems like the discussion here shows the 220 will never rise above 1/5th the 320s production per month. Even if it did do that by the mid 2020s, why would a 20 year old design that has no cockpit similarity to the A320/330/350/380 become the replacement for the 320?

This is a good point.

Babyshark wrote:

For us at DAL the A220 is the oddest duck in a fleet of odd ducks. It's really out of place. Unless you realize it's here to create a common fleet type for the jumbo RJ flying and push those jets down to where the 50 seaters are. It may find success there in that niche in our fleet. Still, it needs that cockpit ripped out of it to have some commonality with the rest of this massive Airbus world. As a replacement for large flying done by the Airbus fleet, no.

I thought DL looked at A220 as a 717 replacement.

In that regard, it should do well.

DL got them at launch pricing and locked in a big block of orders.

A220 has modern CFRP wings (but not fuse), modern systems, modern high efficiency engines.

They should be nice 717 replacements at DL.

The real question in my mind is if it can/will grow beyond that.

If it's a 71 replacement it's going to be here with the 717s as they're not going anywhere yet as the 88 is actively exiting and 717s are still awesome. Maybe having the 220 puts pressure on what happens next with those leases?

It looks to me the jumbo CRJs and ERJs and 88s and 717s are all RJs, and the 220 will join that mix. Hence the range restriction. I think they will continue their wholistic approach to that shuffle and increase quality control and premium products in house as well. I mean how much would you love it if your weekly business travel went from CRJ900s to 220s/717s?

The good thing about the 319 in comparison to the 220 is you can mix that market with 320 and 321s and save on the crew costs. I mean ATL BOS can easily be all 321s or have a few 320s when demand requires a change and the only thing that changes is the airplane, not the crew.

Or you can be a station like dca and run almost nothing but 321s, 320s and 319s. I mean how nice to use a crew that can fly a high margin thin route on a 319 or fly a fully loaded 321 from there as well?

It's a lot of value that the 220 will never offer, and it translates into saving money on crews and delta loves that. Especially with expensive 220 pilots when it comes to asms. But if its pushing out jumbo RJs then the 220 finds a great niche especially with the 717s lousy range.

Babyshark wrote:

The good thing about the 319 in comparison to the 220 is you can mix that market with 320 and 321s and save on the crew costs. I mean ATL BOS can easily be all 321s or have a few 320s when demand requires a change and the only thing that changes is the airplane, not the crew.

Great example.

Just yesterday a lot of people were predicting that KC ATL would need a lot of A321s two weeks from now, but they should have known better and said that BOS ATL would need A321s and KC ATL could go with A319s or even RJs.

At least the DL aircraft are painted in the right colors!

Maybe DL's MRO will get the contract to paint on the 6th trophy?

Babyshark wrote:

It's a lot of value that the 220 will never offer, and it translates into saving money on crews and delta loves that. Especially with expensive 220 pilots when it comes to asms. But if its pushing out jumbo RJs then the 220 finds a great niche especially with the 717s lousy range.

DL is said to have bought the low weight variants of the A220s according to Leeham, so they may also end up in the lousy range bucket, depending on how you define lousy range.

Revelation wrote:

DL is said to have bought the low weight variants of the A220s according to Leeham, so they may also end up in the lousy range bucket, depending on how you define lousy range.

Not only low weight but the small engines also. And still has much more range than a 717 or 76 seat RJ.

It shall be interesting to see what weight and engine options they choose for the 300s......and the 500s hehehe.

Revelation wrote:

DL is said to have bought the low weight variants of the A220s according to Leeham, so they may also end up in the lousy range bucket, depending on how you define lousy range.

Butt range in the 717 pilot seat is about 200nn. Give or take 5 miles.

Took one once 800 miles with an alternate and we were full fuel. Remember doing a JFK-MSP once and we full fuel to pull it off.

I know the 220 is contractually limited. So I think we will still see the 319 doing the long thin routes which, as a older than a220 and owned aircraft, makes the most sense. Maybe the 220 snags a route from the CR9s but I doubt it happens much because they made it clear look at short range stuff not long range.

How could F9 benefit from the A220 series? Logistical nightmare or a perfect a319 replacement for their thin routes?

What kind of range can you get out of a max capacity a221 or a223?

Revelation wrote:

I thought DL looked at A220 as a 717 replacement.

In that regard, it should do well.

DL got them at launch pricing and locked in a big block of orders.

A220 has modern CFRP wings (but not fuse), modern systems, modern high efficiency engines.

They should be nice 717 replacements at DL.

The real question in my mind is if it can/will grow beyond that.

The A220-100 is a perfect 717 replacement. The A220-300 could easily replace Delta's A319 and 737-700 fleets too. If an A220-500 is developed and is basically a simple stretch of the A220-300, we'd have a jet which could replace the A320-200s and MD88s.

So in theory, the A220 family could replace up to five different jets from four different families with three different jets from the same family.

There may be some big gaps in my reasoning, but on the basis of what DL's fleet is currently like, I think there are huge opportunities for the A220 at Delta on a long-run basis. If an A220-500 is developed, the entire family could end up replacing almost 390 jets at DL.

A A220-500 would be a serious challenge to position for Airbus.

If it as efficient or more efficient (CASM) than the A320 and can cover a large part of A320 routes, it puts direct pressure on the A320. So to avoid putting the price of an A320 under pressure, they would need to offer for the same price, yet the lower production rates makes it likely that the margin would be lower, so Airbus earns less in the end.

If it as efficient or more efficient (CASM) than the A320 but can only cover a limited part of A320 routes and is sold for less, it would also put the A320 pricing under pressure.

If it less efficient (CASM) than the A320, it is not worth the effort unless you can sell it for a lower price. That again puts the A320 price under pressure and reduces the margin.

seahawk wrote:

A A220-500 would be a serious challenge to position for Airbus.

If it as efficient or more efficient (CASM) than the A320 and can cover a large part of A320 routes, it puts direct pressure on the A320. So to avoid putting the price of an A320 under pressure, they would need to offer for the same price, yet the lower production rates makes it likely that the margin would be lower, so Airbus earns less in the end.

If it as efficient or more efficient (CASM) than the A320 but can only cover a limited part of A320 routes and is sold for less, it would also put the A320 pricing under pressure.

If it less efficient (CASM) than the A320, it is not worth the effort unless you can sell it for a lower price. That again puts the A320 price under pressure and reduces the margin.

A320NEO+ and A220-500 would fit nicely in a product lineup next to each other. Maybe both families will see an upgauged model at the same time.

seahawk wrote:

A A220-500 would be a serious challenge to position for Airbus.

If it as efficient or more efficient (CASM) than the A320 and can cover a large part of A320 routes, it puts direct pressure on the A320. So to avoid putting the price of an A320 under pressure, they would need to offer for the same price, yet the lower production rates makes it likely that the margin would be lower, so Airbus earns less in the end.

If it as efficient or more efficient (CASM) than the A320 but can only cover a limited part of A320 routes and is sold for less, it would also put the A320 pricing under pressure.

If it less efficient (CASM) than the A320, it is not worth the effort unless you can sell it for a lower price. That again puts the A320 price under pressure and reduces the margin.

Presumably an A220-500 will be a simple stretch of the A220-300, meaning it would have less range and worse field performance than an A320neo. Additionally, the A320neo can be given upgrades to improve field performance even further IIRC (the SHARP upgrade I think its called).

So presumably it would depend on field performance and range requirements, and whether or not something smaller than the A320/A220-500 is required by the airline. The A320neo may also be more attractive for certain airlines because the 6-ab cross section is better for Eurobusiness. Plus the wider cabin would allow for certain longer range business class products (Thompson's Vantage Solo etc) to be installed.

The A319neo is already pretty dead, but I think an A320neo could survive alongside an A220-500 if the A320neo is positioned as the 'more field performance and range' alternative.

Does anyone know here if CSALP is trying to get what EASA calls Design Organization Approval ("DOA")?

Is obtaining a DOA part of CSALP's mandate?

Who will design and certify possible future modifications on the C Series?

VV wrote:

First, Airbus spent almost nothing to obtain 50.01% of the stake in CSALP. And yes, I am still wondering why the heck they took over the C Series program.

To cover the lower end of the NB segment in a competitive and solid way for the next 20 years.

Of course Airbus invests a few billion in the A220. Setting up a second assembly line, aligning the supply chain to ramp up to 150-200 aircraft per year and creating a credible after market infrastructure for big airlines requires a lot of resources.. That's why Bombardier had to find a partner in the first place. It seems to work out so far.

The A220-500 being a "challenge", threat" to the A320 is an interesting thought. Specially because Airbus will be in full control of both. They could double the price of a A220 for a specific customer if needed. But that is not likely, it seems Airbus and BBD want to make the CSeries / A220 a success and business will come before IP fights.



Maybe airlines will convert A320s to A220-500s in the future. As said they have different capabilities and no Airbus might be headed for focus on bigger A320s anyway. The difference between a A320 and a 321 is a whooping 7meter/ 42 seats. Something in between, rightsized for a comfortable 199 seats single class might become the new champion replacing the thousands of A320 "Clunker Engine Option", as VV used to call them in his sour years.

keesje, I have the feeling it would not work out in an idyllic way as you described above, especially it has now been confirmed that both versions of A319neo are going to enter into service.

The message sent out to the market is not crystal clear for CS300 relative to A319neo or the possible C Series future development. As usual, the aircraft is just fine, but the aspects surrounding the integration of the product and the messaging to the market might not be perfect yet. It is all about the market's reaction.
So far it has been positive with JetBlue and Moxy orders, but the we need to see how things evolve.

My feeling can be wrong, but that's the nature of feeling especially because I don't have beautiful pictures to support my assertions.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that a 5 abreats airplane on a 1209 sqft wing with the small GTF engine is a completely different product than a 6 abreast aiplane on a 1340 sqft wing with the big GTF engine?

1. The benefits of fleet standardization are over-stated.

2. The "ends" of the market (the 50 seater on the small end and the VLA 748/A380/777X on the big end) are all beng marginalized, while the middle is being sliced and diced into ever smaller slices.

SteelChair wrote:

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that a 5 abreats airplane on a 1209 sqft wing with the small GTF engine is a completely different product than a 6 abreast aiplane on a 1340 sqft wing with the big GTF engine?

1. The benefits of fleet standardization are over-stated.

2. The "ends" of the market (the 50 seater on the small end and the VLA 748/A380/777X on the big end) are all beng marginalized, while the middle is being sliced and diced into ever smaller slices.

It is not necessarily about the aircraft, but it is more about the market and how operators wish to serve their network.

Is a 100-150 seater is the right answer? I don't know.
This said, there are now about five airframe-engine combinations in the landscape.

1. E195-E2 PW
2. CS300 PW
3. A319neo PW
4. A319neo CFM
5. 737 MAX 7 CFM

It is a crowded place.

seahawk wrote:

A A220-500 would be a serious challenge to position for Airbus.

If it as efficient or more efficient (CASM) than the A320 and can cover a large part of A320 routes, it puts direct pressure on the A320. So to avoid putting the price of an A320 under pressure, they would need to offer for the same price, yet the lower production rates makes it likely that the margin would be lower, so Airbus earns less in the end.

If it as efficient or more efficient (CASM) than the A320 but can only cover a limited part of A320 routes and is sold for less, it would also put the A320 pricing under pressure.

If it less efficient (CASM) than the A320, it is not worth the effort unless you can sell it for a lower price. That again puts the A320 price under pressure and reduces the margin.

I agree. Airbus already has a product it produces at very high volume to do the missions people envision for the A220-500. How to make a transition where A220-500 gets built and replaces A320 without losing money in the process will be a big challenge. Since ~80% of the A320 family members go out as A320 rather than A321/A319 it's the core of the market. Even as A321 share increases, even if A320 drops to 50% you are still going to have to triple A220 production from its planned peak to replace that volume whilst downsizing A320 production by half. It's some pretty ugly math that is a lot less fun than making pretty powerpoints.

It's not even clear the customers want it. It's pretty nice having one plane family whose members can do missions with 120, 160 and 220 pax at each rung of the ladder, all with a common pool of crew and maintenance. A220 will work fine with airlines used to dealing with different planes for different missions, but many airlines don't want the complexity of a mixed fleet.

impilot wrote:

A320NEO+ and A220-500 would fit nicely in a product lineup next to each other. Maybe both families will see an upgauged model at the same time.

Airbus fans tell us they already have the best of breed narrowbody lineup, yet you're proposing Airbus spend money to stretch both A320 and A220-300? That's a lot of money to spend and resources to tie up. To what end? Just to make the powerpoints look nicer? Why spend money on a market they are so successful in already?

VV wrote:

keesje, I have the feeling it would not work out in an idyllic way as you described above, especially it has now been confirmed that both versions of A319neo are going to enter into service.

The message sent out to the market is not crystal clear for CS300 relative to A319neo or the possible C Series future development. As usual, the aircraft is just fine, but the aspects surrounding the integration of the product and the messaging to the market might not be perfect yet. It is all about the market's reaction.
So far it has been positive with JetBlue and Moxy orders, but the we need to see how things evolve.

My feeling can be wrong, but that's the nature of feeling especially because I don't have beautiful pictures to support my assertions.

My feeling goes along with what you and Faury are saying. Airbus is willing to give a lot of support to the product to get it through the ramp up phase. If it becomes a commercial success (i.e. not just aiming for break even but aiming for profitable growth), they'll invest more. It's a good mind set to have. The present planning shows it being produced at 1/6 to 1/4th the rate of the A320 family. Let's see if it can get to that point, make money on each frame sold, and book enough orders to be able to confidently predict profitable growth.

Airbus is surely better being in control of the next A220 developments than competing with them - what if Boeing had come up with the $1 investment instead?

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Airbus is surely better being in control of the next A220 developments than competing with them - what if Boeing had come up with the $1 investment instead?

Wasn't Boeing approached at one point? I am not sure about it but I have a very vague memory having read they were approached, but declined or the discussion was not fruitful.

VV wrote:

ZPhoto wrote:

The BBD engineering team who designed and built the CSeries were all transfered to CSALP and no longer have access to BBD's other facilities at Mirabel (and vice versa). Also, the CSeries engineering team was self contained so, for example: the landing gear engineers only worked on the CSeries landing gear and were not used on the CRJs or Q400s... unlike Embraer who use their guys to design landing gear for all their aircrafts, thus making them harder to part with (so Boeing had to buy the company). So I believe the IP was transferred to CSALP along with the engineers. Airbus will buy out Investissement Québec when the debt is repaid and will own a majority of the program with 66%. If they decide to stretch it it will be a CSALP project which will obligate BBD to share development costs.

This is absolutely inaccurate.

Correct. It is completely inaccurate.

Within Belfast, if they haven't taken voluntary redundancy or compulsory redundancy, most engineers have been redeployed onto nacelles.
As for contractors, we have dispersed to the four winds. There are a few (very few) that are working with BBD - some have remained since CSeries - others have left and come back in.

This will be reflected in Montreal and other sites. You simply cannot maintain detailed design staffing levels after detail design is complete - it'd sink any company!

The engineers that performed the initial conceptual design* of the CSeries - which would have been in the 2005-2007 timeframe - have probably mostly retired by now - particularly given BBD were looking to get so many high wagers off the books over the past few years. In terms of what will be left when Airbus say lets do a 500 - they'll virtually all be gone - I know of a few top guys looking out in the latest round of VRs.


*and many engineers working on the wing would argue they got it wrong with choosing a CFRP wing instead of a metallic wing. Benefits too marginal for the increased manufacturing cost. Others working on the fuselage would also argue the complex compound curvature of the pressure vessel was also a mistake.

Amiga500 wrote:

*and many engineers working on the wing would argue they got it wrong with choosing a CFRP wing instead of a metallic wing. Benefits too marginal for the increased manufacturing cost. Others working on the fuselage would also argue the complex compound curvature of the pressure vessel was also a mistake.

Let's go twin aisle CRFP oval for the pressure vessel then, but at NB costs. Senior executives said so

seahawk wrote:

If it as efficient or more efficient (CASM) than the A320 and can cover a large part of A320 routes, it puts direct pressure on the A320. So to avoid putting the price of an A320 under pressure, they would need to offer for the same price, yet the lower production rates makes it likely that the margin would be lower, so Airbus earns less in the end.

I suppose the win for Airbus would be if that were a sale that would otherwise have been lost to Boeing/Embraer.

Quite a few things would have to line up for it to make sense for Airbus to stretch:

1. Profit margin on CS500 is projected to approximately match that of A320.
2. A320 production rates cannot be pushed any higher.
3. CSeries production rates can continue to be pushed up.
4. Relevant airlines see tangible benefits of having a single family serving 100-180 seats (approx).
5. Market demand continues to be significantly higher than Airbus can meet.

It won't be Airbus who decides if an airlines gets a A220-500 or A320. It's the airlines having the option. Things would get interesting if e.g. Southwest Airbus say they like the A220 efficiency (tons lighter, better, quieter engines), but need close to 149 seats with full size lavatories. They apparently told Boeing so too on the 737-7, just before it's stretch. SouthWest however converted / delayed most of the small -7 order. With 500 x 737-700s up for replacement..



https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/boeing-stretches-smallest-737-max-to-counter-bombardiers-cseries-threat

keesje wrote:

It won't be Airbus who decides if an airlines gets a A220-500 or A320. It's the airlines having the option. ...

keesje while I'd like this to be the case, Airbus has been known to offer to customers what suits Airbus best, rather than what the airline wants or needs. Unfortunately I can't go into details but I am in the midst of a situation just like this as we speak. It's an unfortunate consequence of the oligopoly I guess.

wrongwayup wrote:

keesje wrote:

It won't be Airbus who decides if an airlines gets a A220-500 or A320. It's the airlines having the option. ...

keesje while I'd like this to be the case, Airbus has been known to offer to customers what suits Airbus best, rather than what the airline wants or needs. Unfortunately I can't go into details but I am in the midst of a situation just like this as we speak. It's an unfortunate consequence of the oligopoly I guess.

Isn't this Economics-101: your product should suit you the best, meaning it's what will sell the most and generate the greater margin.

If one customer needs a product suited to their own specific application, it'll cost way too much to be even worth it (especially in aviation).

keesje wrote:

It won't be Airbus who decides if an airlines gets a A220-500 or A320. It's the airlines having the option.

Yep, all the airlines have to do is ask, just like how EK got the A380neo it asked for back in 2014.

Oh, wait...

EK is having to put in a stop gap order for the same engines, and are being told they won't even get a PIP.

keesje wrote:

Things would get interesting if e.g. Southwest Airbus say they like the A220 efficiency (tons lighter, better, quieter engines), but need close to 149 seats with full size lavatories.

Yep, WN wants to have a new sub fleet of smaller lighter 5-across aircraft to replace the 737-700.

Oh, wait...

They had 717s in house complete with crews and maintenance all up to speed, and ended up giving one of their biggest competitors the deal of a lifetime to take them off their hands.

You know Airbus is there to make money. They have 3 options for airlines already. A220-300, A319NEO and A320NEO - why should they make another one, unless one would call 2 of those non competitive. Especially when Boeing can only field (the according to some unpopular) 737-7MAX and the larger (to some in dire need of replacement) 737-8.

Revelation wrote:

Airbus is willing to give a lot of support to the product to get it through the ramp up phase. If it becomes a commercial success (i.e. not just aiming for break even but aiming for profitable growth), they'll invest more. It's a good mind set to have. The present planning shows it being produced at 1/6 to 1/4th the rate of the A320 family. Let's see if it can get to that point, make money on each frame sold, and book enough orders to be able to confidently predict profitable growth.

Really interesting to read this debate!

It seems the tremendous production rates of both A320/321 and the 737 make them the elephants in the room. They achieve fantastic production efficiency and can therefore be sold at extremely low prices while still being profitable. Furthermore, being highly “liquid” assets make them very attractive to leasing companies. A no brainer really.

In that context, profitably competing with those established models (even from “below”, like with the A220) appears to be almost impossible. It seems the A220 will never achieve sufficient economy of scale to ever sell with a profit.

I must say I can’t refute any of the above arguments. I don’t know the actual manufacturing costs of these models and I don’t know their specific efficiency curve as you increase production rates. I also don't know how Airbus will be successful in renegotiating with A220 suppliers. I don't know if the A220 suppliers are more capable of increasing production rates than let's say A320 suppliers (Maybe it's overall cheaper to increase A220 production than the A320/321, who knows). You mentioned a 13% reduction each time we double production. That makes sense to me (FWIW).

Now, would that 13% applies for the A220 when we know that a FAL “part 1” (much automated) is already completed and would be capable of producing 10 -12 A220/month (=> we’re missing FAL “part 2/3”thought).
Having the FAL"1" already completed/paid for, maybe the efficiency gain is more like 25% once 12 aircrafts/month is achieved, who knows.

Now I’m wondering what will it take for any future NB aircraft program (in the segment immediately below the A320/B737, or even immediately above) to be profitable? If it doesn’t achieve anywhere the economy of scale of A320s/B737s, it will most probably be a money losing program, right? Airlines would just keep using a single type NB fleet (A320 /321 or B737); those models being so cheap to procure, and easy to resell.

It appears having a right sized aircraft (with competitive CASM) is not sufficient to bypass the bargain priced/higher capacity B737s/A320s.

seahawk wrote:

You know Airbus is there to make money. They have 3 options for airlines already. A220-300, A319NEO and A320NEO - why should they make another one, unless one would call 2 of those non competitive. Especially when Boeing can only field (the according to some unpopular) 737-7MAX and the larger (to some in dire need of replacement) 737-8.

Because customers want it?

Are we still discussing the aircraft that just got Moxy, Delta and Jetblue orders? It seems impossible.

Amiga500 wrote:

.... snipped ....
*and many engineers working on the wing would argue they got it wrong with choosing a CFRP wing instead of a metallic wing. Benefits too marginal for the increased manufacturing cost. Others working on the fuselage would also argue the complex compound curvature of the pressure vessel was also a mistake.

On the CFRP wingbox, it is the right choice, but not necessarily from weight or technical perspective. Without the Resin Transfer Injection for the composite wing the UK government would have not given the subsidy. I do not remember the amount anymore. In addition there would have not been any tax credit and so on. The Belfast facilities must have been dismantled without the CFRP wingbox. So, the choice was absolutely awesome.

On the fuselage, there is a lot to say, but I would not go into specifics.