Lewton wrote:

So the airlines that bought the "first generation" CS300/A220 got an inferior product?

tell that to iPhone users

There's pips and other small increases in performance increase almost every year for every jet. On top you have MTOW changes as larger improvements and then things like NG, NEO or MAX when you do a major facelift.

That being said, 450nm is a big deal and great improvement for AIrbus.

Do you think all recent positive news on A22x is a pre_cursor to significant orders next month at Paris air show?

rikkus67 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

That is a huge increase in range. For reference the 737-300 was 2,255nm. 737-700 is 3,000nm. Honestly the CS300 seems like a better deal than the 73G

Another good reason why Boeing wanted to kill it.

yea I wish they would just compete against it.... They have been negating the lower end of the market and left the door open.

MSPNWA wrote:

What it may do instead is slightly narrow the gap between the potential A225 and the A320N. I wouldn't say that's a good thing if you're selling both models.

I'd argue it doesn't matter if you're Airbus and have your fingers in both pies (though I acknowledge they don't own the A220 program outright).

The A320neo has still sold tremendously well, and an A225 is at this stage hypothetical, but it must vastly increase the likelihood of an Airbus order for A220 operators looking for a slightly larger model. Suddenly it turns from an A320neo vs 737MAX decision, to an A220 vs New Type decision - if I were Airbus I know which I'd prefer...

grbauc wrote:

rikkus67 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

That is a huge increase in range. For reference the 737-300 was 2,255nm. 737-700 is 3,000nm. Honestly the CS300 seems like a better deal than the 73G

Another good reason why Boeing wanted to kill it.

yea I wish they would just compete against it.... They have been negating the lower end of the market and left the door open.

I am completely happy that they haven't.

One has to wonder if the whole trade dispute brought on by Boeing, which caused BBD to bow out and give the CSeries to Airbus, might have remotely had something to do with knowledge within Boeing of issues with their model.

Something we will likely never know.

rikkus67 wrote:

One has to wonder if the whole trade dispute brought on by Boeing, which caused BBD to bow out and give the CSeries to Airbus, might have remotely had something to do with knowledge within Boeing of issues with their model.

Something we will likely never know.

I would say they absolutely knew their model would be uncompetitive with the newer technology (otherwise why pick that fight), buy they probably didn't know exactly how that uncompetitiveness would manifest.

Does the 2.3MTOW increase make it heavier and less competitive against the E2-190?

marcogr12 wrote:

Does the 2.3MTOW increase make it heavier and less competitive against the E2-190?

Its an increase of maximum take off weight, so the empty weight stays the same but airlines can, if they need, put an extra 2.3 tons of passengers, bags, cargo, &or fuel. If they don't need to fill the plane with the extra weight, it's exact same economics as flying it without the increased MTOW (i understand purchase price is complicated, it is possible this somehow impacts the economics, i don't know enough to say) - they don't need any extra fuel for the unused MTOW.

Now this said, the C-Series/A220 is most likely heavier than the E2-190/5 but I don't think that means less competitive overall. For airlines with exclusively short routes the E2s might be a more competitive offering but then you have to think about overall program success and all that fun complicated stuff.

kitplane01 wrote:

rrbsztk wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

For an ULCC looking at the A230, range is certainly already an issue. I calculate maximum pax range of the old -100, at 120 kg per pax including seat, O2 subsystem, life jacket, catering, with only 2330nm of range. 2750nm with this upgrade.

A220-300 with 160 pax I now calculate 3,025nm range. That means taking off, at 105kg pax (people, bag, some catering, but leave the seat) 3 or 4 pax in the summer West coast US to Hawaii and perhaps 15 to 20 in winter.

Lightsaber

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... r-decision
Spirit Airlines is certainly a possible customer who would greatly appreciate the increased range at higher payload.
They're looking for up to 125 with delivery after 2021, and expect to make a decision mid this year.

I think the A220 has too much range, and a plane with less range would have less structure and therefore burn less fuel.

Suppose you give Spirit a choice. Slightly lower fuel burn at the existing range, or the longer range. Which do you think Spirit would choose? Remember they have their existing fleet to fly the transcontinental stuff, and long thin routes exist but are rare.

Very fair point. The article also said they're looking at the E2s (specifically "Spirit last year confirmed its study of the single-aisle aircraft types offered by Airbus, Boeing, and Embraer, but then-CEO Fornaro said last summer that the airline found the former C Series interesting, particularly when the aircraft became the Airbus A220.") If they don't want the range that would help the case for Embraer.

marcogr12 wrote:

Does the 2.3MTOW increase make it heavier and less competitive against the E2-190?

No.

But it's proof the airplane could have been lighter when it was designed, and that does make it less competitive against the E2.

rikkus67 wrote:

grbauc wrote:

rikkus67 wrote:

Another good reason why Boeing wanted to kill it.

yea I wish they would just compete against it.... They have been negating the lower end of the market and left the door open.

I am completely happy that they haven't.

One has to wonder if the whole trade dispute brought on by Boeing, which caused BBD to bow out and give the CSeries to Airbus, might have remotely had something to do with knowledge within Boeing of issues with their model.

Something we will likely never know.

I’m an aviation fan I route for Boeing but I sure like competition. I absolutely know that it’s a necessity to a healthy industry.
Actually a fan of pretty much most manufacturers.

Do we know if there's an increase in MZFW?

The MTOW increase might partially cover a missed weight saving target.

No MZFW/MLW increase that I am aware of.

Belperflyer wrote:

Do you think all recent positive news on A22x is a pre_cursor to significant orders next month at Paris air show?

I think Airbus has done better PR than Boeing/Embraer.

Vendors and leasing companies should already be occupying their hotel suites for the Paris airshow.

The #1 sales campaign I am aware of, Spirit airways, definitively needs this MTOW increase. Now I know nothing more than the rumored 125 commitments (I'll stop being a cynic on 50 firm + 75 options when I see evidence to the contrary).

So this is a 146 seat E2-195 vs. 160 seat A220-300. I cannot call the winner. However, the potential range increase should make the A220 a little more interesting to Spirit.

This brings up a good question, since all airlines will bid the E2 vs. the A220, what are the other active sales campaigns? Personally, I am surprised how well the A220 has done with E-190 operators (JetBlue, I guess Air Canada isn't a surprise).

Lightsaber

wrongwayup wrote:

No MZFW/MLW increase that I am aware of.

So far it is the case.
When you say "that I am aware of", is that because you know for sure there is not any (e.g. because you work for the program) or is it just because you have not heard anything about it?

I have not heard any MZFW/MLW increase either, but that's exactly why I ask the question.

If the MZFW is increased by, say 700 lb or 1,000 lb then we know they didn't achieve the target of a weight reduction program.

I am waiting impatiently for their updated aircraft characteristics for airport planning document. In addition, I do hope they put it in the right standardized Airbus format and with the right branding. It is very-very-very strange they haven't done the effort to update that public document to Airbus standard. In addition the document is still hosted by Bombardier. What's going on?
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

Does anyone know what the exact reason of this MTOW increase?

It is quite confusing to see such an effort is done on the A220 when the nearest competitor E195-E2 has only about 2,400 nm of range.

VV wrote:

Does anyone know what the exact reason of this MTOW increase?
It is quite confusing to see such an effort is done on the A220 when the nearest competitor E195-E2 has only about 2,400 nm of range.

I see your point here.

Such an apparent range overkill is indeed intriging. (Unless it helps acheiving some sweet spot in the load/range mix - as mentioned by Lightsaber)

André Allard mentionned this MTOW increase DID NOT require any changes to the plane - beside later software ajustments. Only lenghty testings was required to validate the increase.

On the other hand, could that be also a "tiny" step toward an eventual A220-500? (with minimal structural change, mostly trading range for load)

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

VV wrote:

Does anyone know what the exact reason of this MTOW increase?
It is quite confusing to see such an effort is done on the A220 when the nearest competitor E195-E2 has only about 2,400 nm of range.

I see your point here.

Such an apparent range overkill is indeed intriging. (Unless it helps acheiving some sweet spot in the load/range mix - as mentioned by Lightsaber)

André Allard mentionned this MTOW increase DID NOT require any changes to the plane - beside later software ajustments. Only lenghty testings was required to validate the increase.

On the other hand, could that be also a "tiny" step toward an eventual A220-500? (with minimal structural change, mostly trading range for load)

It means the aircraft is over designed. They should have tried harder to optimize it instead of leaving such huge design margins.
It must be much heavier than the E2.

VV wrote:

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

VV wrote:

Does anyone know what the exact reason of this MTOW increase?
It is quite confusing to see such an effort is done on the A220 when the nearest competitor E195-E2 has only about 2,400 nm of range.

I see your point here.

Such an apparent range overkill is indeed intriging. (Unless it helps acheiving some sweet spot in the load/range mix - as mentioned by Lightsaber)

André Allard mentionned this MTOW increase DID NOT require any changes to the plane - beside later software ajustments. Only lenghty testings was required to validate the increase.

On the other hand, could that be also a "tiny" step toward an eventual A220-500? (with minimal structural change, mostly trading range for load)

It means the aircraft is over designed. They should have tried harder to optimize it instead of leaving such huge design margins.
It must be much heavier than the E2.

The E2-190 weighs 33 tons
The A220-100 35 tons
The A220-300 37 tons

I would guess the E2-195 is barely heavier than the A220-100. With a CFRP wing the A220 should be good for multiples of the planned hours.

A new design had better have margin or risk failing the required LOV testing. I expect a LOV increase for the A220.

Lightsaber

Guess I forgot to press submit.

The A220 is starting to remind me of the A318. Perhaps Airbus should just put some bigger engines and 6 abreast seating and its fixed.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

The A220 is starting to remind me of the A318...

Well, even from the start the A318 had terrible CASM, which was/is definitely not the case with the BCS3...

But I agree, apparently plenty of grow margin - particularly a BCS5 with the same wing...

VV wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

No MZFW/MLW increase that I am aware of.

So far it is the case.
When you say "that I am aware of", is that because you know for sure there is not any (e.g. because you work for the program) or is it just because you have not heard anything about it?

I have not heard any MZFW/MLW increase either, but that's exactly why I ask the question.

If the MZFW is increased by, say 700 lb or 1,000 lb then we know they didn't achieve the target of a weight reduction program.

I am waiting impatiently for their updated aircraft characteristics for airport planning document. In addition, I do hope they put it in the right standardized Airbus format and with the right branding. It is very-very-very strange they haven't done the effort to update that public document to Airbus standard. In addition the document is still hosted by Bombardier. What's going on?
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

If there are actual design changes to achieve MTOW increase, I guess that demonstrates Airbus has successfully taken over the CSeries design and capable of developing derivatives such as A220-500

VV wrote:

Does anyone know what the exact reason of this MTOW increase?

It is quite confusing to see such an effort is done on the A220 when the nearest competitor E195-E2 has only about 2,400 nm of range.

Maybe just by reducing payload margin it could take more fuel, so no changes are needed at all.

VV wrote:

Does anyone know what the exact reason of this MTOW increase?

It is quite confusing to see such an effort is done on the A220 when the nearest competitor E195-E2 has only about 2,400 nm of range.

How much payload can the A220 move at 2400nm?

TObound wrote:

VV wrote:

Does anyone know what the exact reason of this MTOW increase?

It is quite confusing to see such an effort is done on the A220 when the nearest competitor E195-E2 has only about 2,400 nm of range.

How much payload can the A220 move at 2400nm?

Potentially it is a lot of payload, but it could be just a theoritical level.

It is quite unusual for short haul flights to carry extra cargo. In addition, the cargo hold of A220 or E2 is not so big.

So, this MTOW and range increase might not significantly improve A220's competitiveness.
This might be an unnecessary capability "enhancement".

LDRA wrote:

If there are actual design changes to achieve MTOW increase, I guess that demonstrates Airbus has successfully taken over the CSeries design and capable of developing derivatives such as A220-500

Your comment confuses me.

Is there design changes to allow the MTOW increase. Some people in this thread suggested there is no change or extremely little change was needed.

If there is not change is needed, I suspect the new management decided that it is not worth the effort to do design changes to reduce weight. It may be more productive to drop proposed design changes that would allow to reduce weight and put the priority to freeze the design and improve the production pace by eliminating modifications.

Therefore the remaining design margins are used to increase the MTOW and range, albeit with some level of overweight.

In order to improve the production rate, it would be better f they mothball the A220-100 first and focus on A220-300 deliveries.

They absolutely need to deliver as many CS300 first to improve the revenue.
They can revive CS100 later on when Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (CSALP) will have better cash position.

what is to stop 6 staggered seats being put on this plane to exploit the MTOW increase?

leghorn wrote:

what is to stop 6 staggered seats being put on this plane to exploit the MTOW increase?

Mostly exit limits, the exit limit for the aircraft prevents the use of more than 160 seats for the A220-300 and 135 seats for the A220-100.

So...two exits each side overwing(they can afford the weight gain). stagger the seats and you've got a new subtype for a low cost carrier carrying 180 passengers.

leghorn wrote:

what is to stop 6 staggered seats being put on this plane to exploit the MTOW increase?

I proposed that a while ago (2007?)



Thompson was pushing this concept at the time. I was involved in testing it a decade before that. x You need extra legspace to get in/ out and there are more disadvantages I remember, e.g. crew serving food to the window passengers. It never became succesfull & Thompson parked the concept to become succesfull in business class seats. Now they are owned by AVIC.

VV wrote:

In order to improve the production rate, it would be better f they mothball the A220-100 first and focus on A220-300 deliveries.

They absolutely need to deliver as many CS300 first to improve the revenue.
They can revive CS100 later on when Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (CSALP) will have better cash position.

Problem is delta wants 221s for e175/crj900 missions. So I don't think they can afford to stop 221s because it would irritate their largest real operator.

kitplane01 wrote:

rrbsztk wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

For an ULCC looking at the A230, range is certainly already an issue. I calculate maximum pax range of the old -100, at 120 kg per pax including seat, O2 subsystem, life jacket, catering, with only 2330nm of range. 2750nm with this upgrade.

A220-300 with 160 pax I now calculate 3,025nm range. That means taking off, at 105kg pax (people, bag, some catering, but leave the seat) 3 or 4 pax in the summer West coast US to Hawaii and perhaps 15 to 20 in winter.

Lightsaber

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... r-decision
Spirit Airlines is certainly a possible customer who would greatly appreciate the increased range at higher payload.
They're looking for up to 125 with delivery after 2021, and expect to make a decision mid this year.

I think the A220 has too much range, and a plane with less range would have less structure and therefore burn less fuel.

Suppose you give Spirit a choice. Slightly lower fuel burn at the existing range, or the longer range. Which do you think Spirit would choose? Remember they have their existing fleet to fly the transcontinental stuff, and long thin routes exist but are rare.

I think the US situation is a kind of unique with it's 2500NM transcon requierments. In Europe the biggest LCC flies 600NM on average and few flights longer than 1500Nm. I think China and US east coast are the same. Like India, SW Asia etc. On top of that you will see few 737/A320/A220 160 seat specifications. The 150th seat automatically adds an additional crew member to meet flight safety (evacuation) regulations. Most airlines like to keep just below that or go >165 seats.



For the A220-300 149 seats single class seems just right btw. An A220 -500 would IMO be more suitable (or: very efficient) for 2 seat class cabins in this segment.

For those who are good at the numbers, it seems that some of the extended range in a plane like the A220 comes from the combination of modern engines and natural fuel volume capacity from other design choices. To a certain extent it's easy to create more range than needed for a plane that's primary mission is probably going to be less than 1200 miles with some exceptions.

VV wrote:

In order to improve the production rate, it would be better f they mothball the A220-100 first and focus on A220-300 deliveries.

They absolutely need to deliver as many CS300 first to improve the revenue.
They can revive CS100 later on when Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (CSALP) will have better cash position.

So what would you have them do with Delta's order and the entire Mirabel assembly facility? They are planning on 24 A220-100 deliveries this year for Delta. That's in the vicinity of half of 2019 deliveries planned. They already have 6 A220-300 for STLC that were meant for Red Wings with deliveries supposed to start in June to figure out what to do with. And they are actively building new facilities to increase production.

Unless you think someone is magically going to buy about 20 A220-300 for 2019 delivery it seems your suggesting to increase production they should stop delivering planes for the time being.

keesje wrote:

few flights longer than 1500Nm..

I think you can over state this. I just did a quick scan of Liverpool's 60ish destinations and there were no less than 8 that were > 1500nm great circle - more real world. Important leisure ones like the Canaries, Turkey, Cyprus and Crete. And that's a short haul focused airport. Go to Manchester and you will have all them plus the likes of Egypt,Israel, Gambia, Cape Verde and the Azores. I expect that to be replicated across NW Europe, especially Scandinavia.

Just trying to make the point that these narrowbody routes aren't the edge cases you're suggesting.

BaconButty wrote:

keesje wrote:

few flights longer than 1500Nm..

I think you can over state this. I just did a quick scan of Liverpool's 60ish destinations and there were no less than 8 that were > 1500nm great circle - more real world. Important leisure ones like the Canaries, Turkey, Cyprus and Crete. And that's a short haul focused airport. Go to Manchester and you will have all them plus the likes of Egypt,Israel, Gambia, Cape Verde and the Azores. I expect that to be replicated across NW Europe, especially Scandinavia.

Just trying to make the point that these narrowbody routes aren't the edge cases you're suggesting.

I think the flight you mention will mostly be flown by bigger aircraft, A320, 757, A321, 767 or even bigger. Under 150 seats LCC's like Easyjet flies 180 seats on their A320's. Ryanair's 737s even more. Out of reach for A220's in terms of capacity it seems, those are really aimed at 100-150 seats and not many airlines fly those on long flights.

That's why I think a possible A220-500 variant might be aimed at more premium regional and feeder flights, 2 class.

keesje wrote:

I think the flight you mention will mostly be flown by bigger aircraft, A320, 757, A321, 767 or even bigger. Under 150 seats LCC's like Easyjet flies 180 seats on their A320's. Ryanair's 737s even more. Out of reach for A220's in terms of capacity it seems, those are really aimed at 100-150 seats and not many airlines fly those on long flights.

That's why I think a A220-500 might be aimed at more premium regional and feeder flights, 2 class.

They're all NBs, though, as you say, mostly at the larger end. But if the A220 is going to be a success beyond occupying a niche it can't ignore these leisure/LCC markets globally. Which is why Airbus has been so keen to add payload/range, I imagine. A -500 would seat around 170 in a LCC configuration - halfway between EZ's A319 and A320's for example. Could make an attractive Hi/Lo combination for an airline with A321's.

rrbsztk wrote:

VV wrote:

In order to improve the production rate, it would be better f they mothball the A220-100 first and focus on A220-300 deliveries.

They absolutely need to deliver as many CS300 first to improve the revenue.
They can revive CS100 later on when Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (CSALP) will have better cash position.

So what would you have them do with Delta's order and the entire Mirabel assembly facility? They are planning on 24 A220-100 deliveries this year for Delta. That's in the vicinity of half of 2019 deliveries planned. They already have 6 A220-300 for STLC that were meant for Red Wings with deliveries supposed to start in June to figure out what to do with. And they are actively building new facilities to increase production.

Unless you think someone is magically going to buy about 20 A220-300 for 2019 delivery it seems your suggesting to increase production they should stop delivering planes for the time being.

Delta would be very happy to convert its CS100 to CS300 because in reality they do not need it. By the way they already converted 35 CS100 to CS300 in January this year (click here).

Mirabel assembly facility produces both CS100 and CS300. So, what's the problem?

The total order for CS100 is today at 85 units with very shaky orders from Odyssey airlines (10), Gulf Air (10), Braathens (10), Lease Corporation INternational (3). I would even categorize Air Vanuatu's order for 2 as a shaky one.

CS300 has 451 orders so far. I guess it clarifies the priority.

It would be a total waste of time and money to continue producing the CS100 when the production system is not ramping up quickly.

Mothball CS100, get all CS300 on-going design modification done and drop non-essential ones, that's what they need to do to increase the production rate and reduce cost.

Once a stable production system is achieved they can then start to think about "improvements". The way they are doing things so far is just ineffective and borderline amateurish.

I just want to add another thing. The E195-E2 is luring behind and it is a huge mistake to underestimate this aircraft.

Babyshark wrote:

VV wrote:

In order to improve the production rate, it would be better f they mothball the A220-100 first and focus on A220-300 deliveries.

They absolutely need to deliver as many CS300 first to improve the revenue.
They can revive CS100 later on when Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (CSALP) will have better cash position.

Problem is delta wants 221s for e175/crj900 missions. So I don't think they can afford to stop 221s because it would irritate their largest real operator.

No. Delta does not need CS100, it is way too capable and expensive for routes currently operated by E175/CRJ900. Bombardier did a good job placing CS100 at Delta, but other US airlines might not fall into that trap.

VV wrote:

Delta would be very happy to convert its CS100 to CS300 because in reality they do not need it. By the way they already converted 35 CS100 to CS300 in January this year (click here).

Correct, Delta converted 35 A220-100 to A220-300 but at that point kept 40 A220-100 orders. Maybe Airbus told Delta they needed to take 40 A220-100 and Delta really wanted 90 A220-300. Or maybe Delta feels they do need 40 A220-100. Do you have any firm supporting evidence Delta does not need the 40 A220-100 as they look to move flights from large regional jets to small mainline aircraft.

VV wrote:

Mirabel assembly facility produces both CS100 and CS300. So, what's the problem?

Correct, Mirabel can build both the A220-100 and A220-300. However, there are a lot of questions surrounding whether or not an A220-300 built in Mirabel can be imported to the USA. I do not know the answer, and what I have seen reported is that the only A220-300 coming from Mirabel to USA are for the Mobile Assembly Line to finish at least some of the assembly.

Do you have any firm supporting evidence that it is a safe enough option to import completed A220-300 that Delta and Airbus would be comfortable taking the risk of causing another Tariff headache?

VV wrote:

The total order for CS100 is today at 85 units with very shaky orders from Odyssey airlines (10), Gulf Air (10), Braathens (10), Lease Corporation INternational (3). I would even categorize Air Vanuatu's order for 2 as a shaky one.

CS300 has 451 orders so far. I guess it clarifies the priority.

Correct. The A220-300 has a lot more orders than the A220-100. I agree Odyssey, Gulf Air, and Braathens are shaky. I don't really know much about leasing aircraft orders so I have no opinion on LCI. I think Air Vanuatu's are more solid given when they were ordered in the life of the program, but either way 2 is a small order.

VV wrote:

It would be a total waste of time and money to continue producing the CS100 when the production system is not ramping up quickly.

They are working on it. There is construction at both Mirabel and Mobile to increase production. Airbus has had less than 12 months to make changes. They came in, evaluated the assembly process, and in less than 6 months were working on new buildings in Mirabel, that are nearing completion.

VV wrote:

Mothball CS100, get all CS300 on-going design modification done and drop non-essential ones, that's what they need to do to increase the production rate and reduce cost.

Once a stable production system is achieved they can then start to think about "improvements". The way they are doing things so far is just ineffective and borderline amateurish.

I just want to add another thing. The E195-E2 is luring behind and it is a huge mistake to underestimate this aircraft.

Bottom line, my biggest issue with your argument is that at this precise point in time it is not feasible.
Let's say Delta says yep give us A220-300 from Mirabel instead of the A220-100s. How is that going to happen? They are already working on the A220-100s. Should they scrap the ones that are already assembled or do rework to turn a near completed A220-100 into a -300? Where are they going to get the longer fuselage pieces to make these into -300s? They can get at most 6 planes worth from the STLC order that was meant for Red Wings (and that isn't going to be easy), but that's not going to be enough to switch every Delta A220-100 to a -300. Should they not deliver planes while they wait months for the fuselage pieces to be manufactured and delivered? What about all the other components they need to build a -300 instead of a -100. Where are they going to get these parts so quickly? What about late delivery costs to Delta?

Airbus has been working on the A220 for a year to get production going faster. Part of that plan is to build 24 A220-100s for Delta in 2019. This is part of their broader plan, with multiple construction projects underway and some nearing completion to increase production. They are also working on selling more A220s and working with suppliers to build more A220 pieces so they have the parts to build more planes.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND how they can switch to building Delta A220-300s instead of A220-100s at this point in time without just stopping production. I can see an argument that in the past a decision to focus on the CS300/A220-300 could put them in a better position today, but it's too late for that. How can they today abandon the A220-100s they are building for Delta while increasing production and not damaging themselves economically?

rrbsztk wrote:

HELP ME UNDERSTAND how they can switch to building Delta A220-300s instead of A220-100s at this point in time without just stopping production. I can see an argument that in the past a decision to focus on the CS300/A220-300 could put them in a better position today, but it's too late for that. How can they today abandon the A220-100s they are building for Delta while increasing production and not damaging themselves economically?

Very simple.

First, assess how many CS100 are already in the pipeline in different stage of production, this includes the WHOLE supply chain.

Second, Negotiate with Delta such that the airline defers the CS100 that have not yet entered the production system at all after the first step is done.

Third negotiate with Delta, which would be happy to accept, the conversion of the delivery slots initially earmarked for CS100 to CS300. It simply means that they will have to take delivery of their 50 or so ordered CS300 first ahead of their CS100. There is a reason Delta converted 35 CS100 to CS300.

Fourth, complete all design changes on the CS300 and drop non-essential "bricolage".

Fifth, execute CS300 ramp up properly.

rrbsztk wrote:

VV wrote:

Mirabel assembly facility produces both CS100 and CS300. So, what's the problem?

Correct, Mirabel can build both the A220-100 and A220-300. However, there are a lot of questions surrounding whether or not an A220-300 built in Mirabel can be imported to the USA. I do not know the answer, and what I have seen reported is that the only A220-300 coming from Mirabel to USA are for the Mobile Assembly Line to finish at least some of the assembly.

Do you have any firm supporting evidence that it is a safe enough option to import completed A220-300 that Delta and Airbus would be comfortable taking the risk of causing another Tariff headache?

Which tariff headache?

The complaint by Boeing to the US International Trace Commission was rejected. Boeing did not appeal, albeit with a reserve they would file another one if the CS300 is sold below cost. As long as there is tangible proof that CS300 is not dumped to the US there will be NO other complaint.

That's exactly why reducing cost is essential. Mothball the CS100, clean the backlog of modifications and drop non-essential modifications on the CS300 to reduce costs and then execute the production properly.

They already lost a lot of time doing the bricolages with CS300. It is time to get things done properly.

VV wrote:

rrbsztk wrote:

VV wrote:

Mirabel assembly facility produces both CS100 and CS300. So, what's the problem?

Correct, Mirabel can build both the A220-100 and A220-300. However, there are a lot of questions surrounding whether or not an A220-300 built in Mirabel can be imported to the USA. I do not know the answer, and what I have seen reported is that the only A220-300 coming from Mirabel to USA are for the Mobile Assembly Line to finish at least some of the assembly.

Do you have any firm supporting evidence that it is a safe enough option to import completed A220-300 that Delta and Airbus would be comfortable taking the risk of causing another Tariff headache?

Which tariff headache?

The complaint by Boeing to the US International Trace Commission was rejected. Boeing did not appeal, albeit with a reserve they would file another one if the CS300 is sold below cost. As long as there is tangible proof that CS300 is not dumped to the US there will be NO other complaint.

That's exactly why reducing cost is essential. Mothball the CS100, clean the backlog of modifications and drop non-essential modifications on the CS300 to reduce costs and then execute the production properly.

They already lost a lot of time doing the bricolages with CS300. It is time to get things done properly.

As you said, Boeing has left open the option of another complaint. I know internationally there are a lot of complicated disputes in aircraft manufacturing and I don't fully understand it. Airbus and Delta know more than I do if they import an A220-300 what might happen. I can see them choosing to avoid the risk and wait for 2020 Mobile A220-300s as currently planned.

And given that no one has definitively shown Delta wants -300s instead of -100s maybe the risk of trade dispute isn't there but they are delivering -100s because that is what Delta wants.


Please help me understand what it is you think Airbus should do with the A220-100s being built, the parts being delivered for new A220-100s to start on the line, and the many employees being paid to build these A220-100s. Logistically what do they do with these resources instead of producing airplanes that will lead to more airplanes being produced?

Hey VV you remind me of politicians. From their viewpoint everything they want to do is "easy". We in the UK have been sold that things are "easy" in the BREXIT debate. Real life proved much more complicated.

Airbus have actually moved, in my opinion, at considerable speed in this market place. What we see and know about is just the big things. There will be a thousand and one small decisions made, suppliers negotiated with, customers negotiated with, designs modified for simplification etc.

It takes years to bring these things to fruition. Even with narrow bodies long lead time items are produced well over a year ahead of final delivery.

I suspect it will be another 12 to 18 months before we see the changes really feed through.

rrbsztk wrote:

As you said, Boeing has left open the option of another complaint. I know internationally there are a lot of complicated disputes in aircraft manufacturing and I don't fully understand it. Airbus and Delta know more than I do if they import an A220-300 what might happen. I can see them choosing to avoid the risk and wait for 2020 Mobile A220-300s as currently planned.

And given that no one has definitively shown Delta wants -300s instead of -100s maybe the risk of trade dispute isn't there but they are delivering -100s because that is what Delta wants.


Please help me understand what it is you think Airbus should do with the A220-100s being built, the parts being delivered for new A220-100s to start on the line, and the many employees being paid to build these A220-100s. Logistically what do they do with these resources instead of producing airplanes that will lead to more airplanes being produced?

I repeat there will be no other complaint as long as there is tangible proof the aircraft is not sold below cost or if there is one and there is not solid ground then new complaint will be rejected again. That's not difficult to understand, I guess.

As far as the CS100 that are being built is concerned, they need to finish them. However, they absolutely need to stop starting all new units. When I say stop it means even the manufacturing of all sub assemblies in the WHOLE supply chain. There are not so many units that are already in the production system (including suppliers). If there are so many of them then their production system is way too clumsy and ineffective.

Didn't Bombardier boast there is 95% of commonality between CS100 and CS300? So some sub-assemblies and other CS100 parts can easily be reallocated to CS300.

I do not understand why you do not understand.

By the way, Delta ordered 15 CS300 plus 35 conversion from CS100 to CS300 for a reason. That's a total of 50 CS300.
They need CS300 more than they need CS100.

VV wrote:

rrbsztk wrote:

VV wrote:

Mirabel assembly facility produces both CS100 and CS300. So, what's the problem?

Correct, Mirabel can build both the A220-100 and A220-300. However, there are a lot of questions surrounding whether or not an A220-300 built in Mirabel can be imported to the USA. I do not know the answer, and what I have seen reported is that the only A220-300 coming from Mirabel to USA are for the Mobile Assembly Line to finish at least some of the assembly.

Do you have any firm supporting evidence that it is a safe enough option to import completed A220-300 that Delta and Airbus would be comfortable taking the risk of causing another Tariff headache?

Which tariff headache?

The complaint by Boeing to the US International Trace Commission was rejected. Boeing did not appeal, albeit with a reserve they would file another one if the CS300 is sold below cost. As long as there is tangible proof that CS300 is not dumped to the US there will be NO other complaint.

That's exactly why reducing cost is essential. Mothball the CS100, clean the backlog of modifications and drop non-essential modifications on the CS300 to reduce costs and then execute the production properly.

They already lost a lot of time doing the bricolages with CS300. It is time to get things done properly.

Boeing has its hands full at the moment, I highly doubt they would attempt another trade complaint. That ship has sailed

INFINITI329 wrote:

Boeing has its hands full at the moment, I highly doubt they would attempt another trade complaint. That ship has sailed

Agree on the low probability of another complaint by Boeing on the C Series.

Since day one, I suspected the complaint was a domestic affair or a preemptive strike to protect their new joint-venture with Embraer that has been in advanced discussion in summer 2017. Basically I suspect they are jus saying, "Give me the regulatory approval or I will strike again with another complaint." Fortunately for them, Bombardier and Airbus also formed a partnership for the C Series, thus there is probably no need for another complaint.

The Mobile factory (hopefully it is just a completion center) makes any new Boeing complaint dead on arrival.

SteelChair wrote:

The Mobile factory (hopefully it is just a completion center) makes any new Boeing complaint dead on arrival.

It is however very surprising they talk about a second assembly line when the one in Mirabel is way way way below capacity.

VV wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

The Mobile factory (hopefully it is just a completion center) makes any new Boeing complaint dead on arrival.

It is however very surprising they talk about a second assembly line when the one in Mirabel is way way way below capacity.

Well to be fair, its not clear whether it will be a completion center or a full production line in Mobile.

And they can't get more sales unless they can get production up.

Its a great airplane. Thats the real source of the Boeing complaint.