Go to ground.news/coby to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Sign up for free or subscribe for unlimited access if you support the mission.
The asymmetrical cooling is exclusive to the A320 as it uses only 2 bolts front and rear. The other users have a 3 bolt lay out, front middle rear. They LEAP is also almost a ton heavier engine. Adding almost 1800~2000 kg to the empty weight will hit payload, and fuel consumption.
I will never fly on the max. Airbus should not change anything. Passengers love the 220. I would pay more just to fly on the A220. It's the mercedes of the sky.
They don’t have to even rename it. They are just slapping on a new engine. The NEO usually have other updates along with it like wings, interior redesigns, and more.
@@Lexoka I don't think the LEAP would damage the branding, as the video points out the LEAP is part of the A320 neo, but it would certainly seem strange. I think Paul's right, unless they added the design refresh it would probably just be part of the base A220.
@@Anolaana The LEAP is part of the A320 neo, but if adding it to the A220 resulted in lower performance when neo versions are supposed to be better, that wouldn't be great, I think.
I love the A220...I recently flew Delta out of Atlanta and got lucky and got an A220. fast takeoff, rocket-ship-like climb, and amazingly quiet. When we landed, it literally stopped in the first third of the runway.
The 737MAX and A320neo families of aircraft have larger engines, a bit more power, climb faster and have better fuel efficiency than their predecessors. The A220 is something else: giant engines, oversized state-of-the-art wings. Even if you load an A220-300 full of transcontinental fuel, people and a big payload, it still absolutely slays short runways on takeoff, outclimbing, outflying and outgliding every airliner on the market.
I'm a gate agent and I turn A220's regularly. Flying on them is amazing. It's quiet, powerful, extra roomy, and you even get a lavatory with a view. But man they can be annoying when you work with them. More often than not these will come in and have some fault message in it's ECAM that the pilots got during cruise or landing, and it will render the entire plane inoperable. These planes are almost entirely electronic so they're very prone to having little faults pop up somewhere for whatever reason. And you can't just write off a ECAM fault or put it on MEL, they need to be cleared for the aircraft to be airworthy. A220's make our maintenance team look more like geek squad than AMT's lol. I've seen more delays, cancellations, and even diversions from this plane more than any other aircraft we have in the fleet. I'm thinking (and hoping) that these are just growing pains though, and after a year or two these issues will be easily resolved whenever they pop up again.
And yet the A220 has good despatch reliability overall. I think that's because purely electronic glitches may be more common than hardware problems, especially in multiply redundant systems (three identical systems triples the chances that one of them fails, even while it reduces to nothing the chance that all of them will). But they'll usually be a helluva lot quicker to fix - instant diagnostics, no waiting for spare parts, often no return to the hangar.
Interesting information. If more electronics result in more little faults on an airliner, what may be happening in the more complicated 5th gen fighters? Are they also having geek squads pushing paper to clear caches and cookies? 😁🍪
Safety first tho. Hopefully, none of these minor errors ever get ignored. Heard of deadly accidents that occured because minor errors made pilots misinterpret what was working/not working and making incorrect decisions based off of assumptions.
The A220 is an amazing plane. I flew on a Swiss one into Zürich one, back when we still called it the C series. Had a great chat with the cockpit crew afterwards, they told me they love flying it. Looking at how organized the cockpit seemed, I can 100% understand that. As passenger, best short & medium experience I ever had.
As someone who more or less followed the C-series saga since Bombardier announced it, it's so funny to see how things turned out for the plane compared the many that were making fun of it many years ago.
In the late 1990, I thought it was pretty cool when Laurent Beaudoin open up about his own dream of building great planes and despite reserves from so-called experts, he’d push for something bigger, beyond regional jets, I was surprised at the tepid reaction from the media outside Quebec. They seemed either unimpressed or hostile to the project. Questioning if/why a small Quebec company could/should design by v build a plane able to compete with the big boys. Then in 2004, the ageing CEO officially announced Bombardier is going ahead with its new C-series platform, despite most in Canada look against the project. In Toronto, I haven’t heard a good word about Bombardier or the c-series in years. Amongst its most influential detractors, The Globe & Mail diligently kept publishing articles after articles criticizing the C-series program. Then around 2016 when Bbd asked for another loan ($600 millions) the venom spewed by Canadians irritated me tremendously. The government refused, it would have been political suicide had they agreed. Loud critics of Beaudoin, and the “antiquated” family owned and controlled company. Pundits everywhere, on T.V, at work, social media badmouthing Bombardier, management, the C-series, even Quebec, why not?. May god have mercy for the politicians who caved in, giving corporate welfare bums from Quebec, any subsidies. “Stop pandering to Quebec”,”If Bombardier can’t finance it themselves, let them die”. “Fold the company” “Put this dog out off its misery” “The government shouldn’t “waste” Canadian taxpayers “hard earned cash to support scoundrels from Quebec”. “Canadian taxpayers are tired of financing this banana republic” “and the life style afforded by these wealthy executives”. Plenty of Canadians swore to boycott Quebec and Bombardier. On multiple occasions Bombardier and the C-series could have been saved. There’s 4 or 5 instances when Canada could have EASILY stepped in, but CHOSE not to. Not a Single voice in the RoC in support of the great company who had build, according to many, probably on performance, the best plane ever. The “nice” Canadians vilified BBD and their handling of the program and ridiculed the Company management as bumbling corporate welfare bums, as Canadians gleefully watch it die in slow agony. The Schadenfreude Canadians felt towards the country’s most reputable company, funded by Armand Bombardier, the inventor of the snowmobile. The transport giant was a source of great pride in Quebec. Yet certainly not in Canada. Nothing ever is. So now that suddenly, it’s getting press internationally, as a great plane, I see Canadians who loves to say great “Canadians” plane, basking in the limelight. who seemed to need something to be proud of. When Canada did it’s all to sink BBD AND the plane. Some people in Canada just didn’t like the Beaudoin family. Always reports about how bad that family was and this and that, WITHOUT THE OLD MAN, this plane would not exist. THEY VILIFIED BOMBARDIER AND THEIR HANDLING OF THE PROGRAM, ON NEWSCASTS TO EVERYONE THAT WOULD LISTEN, Smug Canadians badmouthed them. Many explaining WHY and HOW it failed, as if they were insiders. Brazil buys Brazilian planes. USA buys Boeing France and Germany buy Airbus, Spain buy Airbus. Canada did not buy a single plane. That means 0 planes. To be fair, Porter ordered 40 but was Forced to cancel. Political suicide to let that happen The excuse? Too noisy quietest aircraft by 35%) they get away with that shit all the time. Air cash Canada from Montreal, bought 60 only DAYS after it wasn’t a Bombardier plane no more.
So, could you tell me that without Airbus this fantastic plane would never be produced? Would Bombardier airliners ceased to exist because of the program cost? Thank you!
@@alexpessoa791 I don't know a lot of detail, but Bombardier had to be helped by the federal and provincial government several times, and it was facing very serious opposition by Boeing in the USA (Bombardier scored a sale with Delta and Boeing alleged that Bombardier was dumping the price, which prompted the US government to put significant tariffs in place). Without Airbus' weight, it's not clear how many sales Bombardier alone would have scored. And even now it's not entirely clear that the program is safe.
An A220-500 would also rival their A320neo, so I suppose it would be smarter for Airbus to not develop that variant in the near future. The A220-300 already drastically reduced the sales of the A319neo, I can't see them kill the next plane in their current portfolio.
They won't mind because the backlog on the A320 is massive, and is biasing more and more towards the A321 end, and that will only be more true once the XLR is certified. Basically, Airbus would not only afford, but might benefit from this move, moving the A220 and the A320 series more upmarket.
@@ChristopherBurtraw agreed. I would prefer them to just retire the lower capacity options for the A320 family and have the A220 replace them. This way, airbus can optimize their resources and end the inter canibalization dilemma.
While it might cannibalise A320NEO sales, it would allow airlines to go either for the A320F or A220F and not loose out too much (at the bottom or top) depending on demand and thus required seats. Considering that quite a few A321 carriers have no NEOs on order, switching them to A220 only could be an interesting market. Look at Austrian, Helvetic and other smaller-ish carriers
I am surprised how little he said about the A320neo in this video. However, Airbus did say "when" not "if" in regards to the A220-500. Yes, an A220-500 will cannibalise the A320neo but it will cement Airbus in the 140-180 seat market.
As a Scandinav of 190 cm, I really appreciate these newer and more roomy cabins, as most plane trip is close to torture. Its a question of how much. Good idea and also the 500 model, so they can start cutting into the 737-8 market. The supply chain mainly reduces cost if more planes are sold, and while 700 is good, it can become much better. The 500 can also ease the pressure on the 320 line slightly.
Problem is that the A220 production line is under more pressure than the A320 line.They have only 2 sites making the A220 and they are rushing to increase capacity on both.
I have a bad experience with the 220... the airlines I flew in them have the cabins cramped up and I snuggly fit in the seat... 191cm and my knees are dug into the back of the seat in front. Business class is amazing in these planes
My mom worked on the CSERIES’s interior and bathroom before it was called the A220. I couldn’t be more proud of her and her work. I’m glad that the plane didn’t die as people predicted and that the airbus management and sales is lightyears ahead of bombardier.
I know they all look similar to one another, but among smaller jetliners, the A220 and Embraer E Jets to my eyes are the prettiest. Thx for the good video
same here, I often fly with Embrear's from Schiphol to Stuttgart and they're beautiful and very fun to fly, but imo the A220 is the better looking jet and I would definitely want to fly with it at least once
To be fair I think the Leap has had some Oil System Woes, including IFSD’s in 2022. From my experience the gear system is bulletproof, we have tried to destroy it and as long as she gets oil while reverse windmilling, the FDGS is truly one of the most incredible pieces of craftsmanship. It will outlast the airframe from what I have seen. We have also been developing the 1524 and 1527 since I started in their test area and I don’t know how long it would take GE to come up with a baby leap. If you think it just scales down, it doesn’t work that way 😂. Flutter in a fan might be a perfect example, stall margins, etc. We were running HCF (Fatigue) C-Series engines back is 2011, that’s a long development cycle. Great video man!
Not to mention too that sure, GTF is new to the turbofan market but PWC has been making gearboxes forever (I know PWA did GTF). It seems a bit of a stretch to me that a gearbox suddenly in a new implementation would cause fleetwide reliability issues, especially as widespread as the 787 Trent 1000 problem.
i have been flying the CS-300 for 5 years now and i see the new issues with engines, combustion chamber, so you should know it better, i would love to hear from you
@@zenjempire CC cracking with shedding of pieces and downstream turbomachine damage was identified in public documents from India which resulted in the deletion of the impact sensitive final ceramic stage, which in turn added weight and LCF issues to the 1157. Very curious if this was all fixed in the GTF2.
From Av Herald this weekend (like it heard us 😂)….. A Gol Transportes Aereos Boeing 737-8 MAX, registration PS-GPB performing flight G3-1999 from Maceio,AL to Brasilia,DF (Brazil) with 164 passengers and 6 crew, was descending towards Brasilia when the crew received a low oil pressure indication for the left hand engine (LEAP) and shut the engine down. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on Brasilia's runway 11L about 20 minutes later.
@@richardkudrna7503 it was fixed before Advantage, but the aircraft still have to go thru an MRO Cycle to get newer block “legacy” 1100’s overhauled. Airlines are also very guilty of squeezing every cycle they can out of revenue making flights. Normally with a promise on their end to “complete additional borescoping until removed from service”. Eventually fatigue wins the battle and she gets a new combustor.
Airbus narrowbody fleet should be: A220 (100/300/500) for the 100-180 seat market A321/322 (with a new wing design, perhaps) for the 200-275 seat market *seat numbers reflect 100% economy seating like JetBlue has used on some 321Neos.
While the A318 has fallen by the wayside, I feel that it would be a monumental mistake for Airbus to abandon the A320, especially for airlines who operate significant numbers of A321s, and/or use hold containers, a feature not available on the A220, E2, or Max. That is not to suggest that I don't believe that an A220-500 would make perfect sense for Airlines with the A220 as the backbone of their fleet, or using the A220 on certain of their routes who would like something a little larger to supplement. However, it will probably be the market that decides, and while the A319neo may never be the success of its predecessor, volumes may be sufficient to justify its continued existence. While a streamlined product line may make sense to the bean counters, isn't it better to compete with and loose to yourself, rather than to someone else? A lesson Boeing should have learnt with their 737 and 717, where the failure to develop larger 717 variants to replace those from MD because of the overlap with the smaller 737s has probably been responsible for a significant part of the A220s success.
But the 318 and 319 have a profitable niche with airlines who mostly run bigger 320 series but need some smaller planes to cover their thinner routes. They don't have to retrain anyone. So the 318 and 319 do not compete with 220s as much as their comparable size and range suggests.
The leap 1b has issues as well I’m a mech and we’ve been changing the internal fuel nozzles pretty often now due to poor design and they still haven’t changed it. It takes 3 days with testing so it’s a lot of down time
Some of my family flew with the A220 from BUD to Zurich with Swiss Airline, and it's an amazing plane, roomy quiet and safe. To me the A220 will always remain a Bombardier C as a Canadian plane.
Good thinking! Combined A220NEO and A220-500 options would be Verry attractive to most 737Max carriers! Most market analysts believe the differences between A220 and A310NEO allow an optimised buying experience for the airline, particularly carriers moving away from Boeing, resulting in strong sales of Both types!
It will be attractive mostly to existing a220 operators, most airlines value simplicity and commonality. At least 80% of 737MAX operators will prefer operating a single fleet type, at least 80% of a320neo operators will also prefer operating a single fleet type too. Lastly, the a220-500 won't enter service for least 2 -4 years from now, and together with it's low production rate. It won't be as attractive to most airlines as it seems. It will be a great aircraft thou
This plane looks small, but it's actually longer than an A320! Fuselage dimensions are in the range of 737 / A320 which is nuts! P.S. That was one really good landing shot! I'm flying on my first A220 in a few months.
The CSERIES was designed for future growth beyond the CS100/CS300 from the beginning. As a 'Clean Sheet Design' aircraft, all programs have this option built into them.
It makes sense on paper , but business wise, it makes more sense to put resources into hiting it out of the park with the A321XLR while also saving more resources for a brand new revolutionary tech narrowbody to replace the A321neo/B737max.
Doesn't even really make sense on paper. Each one delivered still loses money for Airbus since it's expensive to built and struggling to increase production. Bombardier left it with a mess in terms costs and the supply chain for the aircraft.
Over the years flying from London lhr or cty to zrh on Swiss or BA I've experienced ...E195,Bae146,A340 (covid days along with a repatriation BA 787) A319 320 320 neo 321 and 321 neo.My last flight on this route was an A220 Zrh to Lhr and maybe because it was the last it was the best.Well done A220
A new engine A220-500 makes sense in particular if it comes with a cabin extension. It could start cannibalising the A320neo but it could also be a pre-emptive counter to a 737 replacement.
Only bad thing about the 220 is fuelling (aircraft refueller here) it takes fuel way slower than the 737 and needs special tall ladders or custom made stairs to service it, otherwise it’s a great plane!
Great analysis, as always, Cody! I think airbus would definitely be wise to consider a secondary engine option. Just look what happened to Boeing in the 777, they decided to go with a single engine manufacturer for the 777X, and it’s definitely had a less than desirable outcome with getting it in the air.
Engine choices are important, for many reasons including all those pointed out. One additional reason is an airline fleet may use Rolls Royce engines and doesn’t want to get in bed with P&W as well. Not that RR was mentioned in the video.
It make sense for Airbus to offer another engine supplier for the A220 programme, considering the A220 in all variants is building it is on market independently from the A320neo/A321neo programme.
Somewhere, very early in the contracting/procurement/production process, the ability to change engine selection evaporates. Well ahead of discovering there is a supply or performance issue with one or the other engine types, many months later. Lead times are extremely long. Engine types, by different manufacturers, in an aircraft, are not plug and play. And the development, including engineering, test flight and approval process, is far more involved than you suggest.
This is really just a battle between new innovation and stagnant old tech: I wish the best for Airbus's comfy A220 line and look forward to an A220-500. If that happens, new engine choices are likely. Not as clear is whether the company will continue its technological lead by introducing a desirable RR narrow body version of its Ultrafan, or even the GE-Safran open rotor engine that could return a 20%+ increase in fuel efficiency.
I did get a ride on one of these across the country and it was very nice I didn't know about it at the time I checked it out later and it was a breeze it was a absolute awesome experience.
I’m a big Boeing fan, have flew on basically every modern boeing except for the 787-8, but i flew the a220 with Swiss a week ago, and oh my god it’s the most comfortable aircraft ever.
Airbus also has one other problem. The A220 uses the PW engines which are currently uhhh not necessarily failing but they’re needing service extremely early and pw can’t keep up. Because the A229 only has PWs I wonder how this issue will affect A220 sales if it’s not resolved soon
Yeah I agree an A220 with more than one powerplant option would be probably a good thing however I wouldn’t say the neo as that makes it sound like the A220 is an older inefficient design that needs a new engine model completely! Considering Airbus wouldn’t want to tarnish the neo naming or brand system I think it should just be a called like the A220mep Multi Engine Program or just no new name at all… Anyways great video Coby! Cheers 🥂 I love the A220
Everyone except the ground crew loves it. The bins are weird sizes, galleys are odd to clean, and there's always broken whenever it arrives. Every time it arrives, there's something new that's wrong with it. Source: I deal with these headaches daily
I was passenger of AirBaltic's A220-300, the most powerful plane I was in, not A321 NEO or 737 can challenge this power that engines are giving to such a small plane, both of them(321 and 737) are underpowered planes, A220 is bullet fast for me. Why to hide, I love this small plane, powerful, small and lovely plane that gave me best impressions, and btw A220 was my first plane I was in and this gives another charm to all of this. I love it
A few years ago Air Baltic announced 52 engine replacements on a tiny fleet. The time between replacements was roughly 1000 engine hours. How much has this improved? The Cobra engine swap system helped fast engine changes. Leased maintenance costs protected the airlines from the extreme costs associated with frequent major engine maintenance (say roughly 3 million a visit). But aviation analysts pointed out a rule of business- no one will keep losing money. In other words, PW was obliged to solve the durability issue. On A320NEO they issued the “GTF2”, but not on A220. Does that mean that they have solved the durability issue? What time on wing are Spirit and AirBaltic experiencing? Have the altitude restrictions been lifted? Very curious. Someone here might share.
When the aircraft engines turn at a certain frequency during landing, it creates a resonance in the engine's combustion chamber. The noise is caused by those vibrations (resonance). The noises and vibrations are nothing to worry about, but it does sound different to what you are used to.
Having talked with people who work with the A220, I'm told that the engines make it a hangar queen when it's new, but once it's broken in, it's pretty reliable. There's definitely been WAY more than 3 inflight shutdowns on the A220, you just don't hear about most of them because from a news perspective, they are really non-events. I personally know of one plane that had two in two days; the second happened as it was being ferried to a maintenance base for deeper inspection.
I always though when Airbus took over the A220, they would offer the CFM engine option. Sure will cut cost on airlines already operating the A320 family with the CMF56 or LEAP engines, making it easier to welcome the A220 into the fleet.
I flew in one for the first time a few days ago, and it's way more comfortable than the 737s, or heck even the A350. It's also super nimble, I bet that the pilots are having tons of fun with it.
Your analysis is on point, and i agree 100% with you. But choosing the CFM Leap engines might be potential challenge in the conception and performance of the the eventual A220-500. Airbus acquired the basic blueprint for the A220-500 with the program, but development is another issue. Airbus might want the A220 to achieve A320neo performances, but there is a bigger market to come, that might be interesting for Airbus to explore, and therefore make the CFM-Leap engine inadaquate. See, i live in Luxembourg. One missing, although crucial, pilar to a national airline the size of Luxembourg, is low capacity - long range aircraft. Filling an A350 is not easy for the flag carrier of Luxembourg, so any trip to N-America, S-America, Asia/Pacific, Oceania, and S-Africa, is a huge challenge. Currently, Luxemburgers will need to transit through CDG, DUS, AMS, FRA or MUC (maybe VIE) to change onto a Long Haul Carriers flight. Problem being, transfer to those airports is long and expensive, with waiting times of a few hours. Airbus might rise to the challenge with a. A220neo/stretch, and design the A220 in a way that point-to-point travel with distances over 10k km might be a possibility. That is the market that will make Airbus THE leading manufacturer. The 'Single Aisle - Long Haul' market.
Interesting video; the A220 is a mini-beauty of an airliner. Maybe in a future video you could talk about the costs of certifying a new engine for a plane. Keep up the good work!
The NEO concept is where older engine designs are replaced with much more efficient newer ones. It is NOT replacing it with something similar from another manufacturer or increasing the number of similar engines to choose from. Having said that, I have always considered having a single engine choice far from ideal, although suitable alternatives are not always available, or the projected numbers are insufficient for multiple engine manufacturers to recover their development costs and make a worthwhile profit. Hopefully, the success of the (now) A220, thanks in part to the financial backing and marketing from Airbus, will make alternative engines possible. It would certainly be good news for airlines with a significant fleet of narrowbodies using CFM engines. However, it could be bad news for the Embraer E2 if some of their potential customers are swayed by engine commonality with their existing fleet.
Delta A220 from SLC to Houston. Sat on the aircraft for nearly an hour past ETD while a leaking oil component was exchanged on the #1 GTF. Flew first class and yet felt like I was in a next generation commuter plane. Would rather passenger in the 737 or A320.
A few items, the 737 Max is not based on a 60 year old design. It is based off the 737 NG which was designed and first flew in 1997. Yes, the 737 goes back to the 60s. The 737-100 classic started as a 100 seater like the A220-100 and is now scaled up to nearly the size of a 757 in the 737-10 that can seat 230. I also think it is a bit misleading to compare A220-300 vs 737-7 MAX sales as it has been clear 737 max operators are going with the -8 and -9. In other words airlines are up-gauging. We see this more and more with the A320 vs A321. This IMO makes it a tougher proposition for a A220-500 as the market is moving bigger. Moving to Leap1B would require re-engineering due to the size of the fan. Also Leap1B provides quite a bit more power than the PW1500g and thus consumes more fuel. It would become a mini 757 including higher fuel costs. Thus removing the fuel cost benefits of the A220 vs 737-7 or A320.
For more information regarding the motors from P&W, the last President of Bombardier Aviation, Mr Bellemare, was in the President of P&W for Canada, then after Bombardier he is now Vice President, In-Flight Entertainment and Connectivity Strategy at Delta Air Lines.
As long as Airbus can't scale up the production significantly and stop losing money on the plane, there is no need for another engine. The production line is busy for the next couple of years delivering the orders, they already have. Furthermore the current low production rate will shy airlines away from ordering the type. As long as they won't fix these issues, there won't be a 220-500 and another engine option...
Great information as usual... thank you for that. There is so much we don't know about the marketing involved in design and manufacturing. Eye opener 👏👍
A common engine pylon to mount engines from all three engine manufacturers, new fuel tanks for long-haul flights, and plenty of engine power to catapult the A220-500 from airports with short runways in hot-and-high conditions. Airlines such as Breeze, JetBlue and Delta are enamoured with the A220-300's impressive operating economics while reigning supreme in a wide array of flight capabilities, which includes steadily gaining a reputation as a heavy-lifting, fast-climbing shortfield runway rocket. How many airlines would place orders for the A220-500 if it came out of the box as a long-haul jet with a standard range of 4,000 nautical miles?
You need more than a common pylon to fit other engines. Unless they are physically close in shape and weight (and a GTF is probably not) you may need expensive aerodynamic changes. You also have to make sure all fuel, hydraulic, bleed air and electrical connections are in the right place on each engine. And you definitely need software changes - hopefully avoiding MCAS ones!
@@richardkudrna7503 Look again! The PW1500G series are both bigger (73 inch fan) and lighter at 4800 Ibs. The 757's RB211-535 engine can theoretically fit under the A220 wing! (though it's too heavy) The smallest LEAP 1B (69 inch fan) for the 737 weighs a whopping 6,130 Ibs. CFM GE- Safran needs to cut its weight by at least a thousand pounds.
@@texasabbott I’m thinking there’s something up here with weight comparison. On the Airbus there was a 500 lb wing structural penalty to support the GTF. That’s why the original ability to swap engines after build was deleted. Now you can only go from GTF to GE as that engine is lighter, because the A320 wings built for GE are lighter. It might be that the weights you are looking are less nacelle. Bottom line is that the fan drive gearbox with all those leaded bearings is very heavy.
The thing is, if you are a new airline, right now, the MAX makes zero sense. You are not buying commonality (because you have no existing fleet and crews), you are not buying into an evolving program (as the MAX is the end of the road for the 737) and you are not getting any large price cuts (because you are a newcomer). In that light buying into a newer platform makes perfect sense. If, on the other hand, you are an older carrier, already operating the 73 it isn't very likely that you'll switch.
True. Akasa Air, Bonza and Lynx Air shouldn’t invest on the MAX since it wasn’t make any sense. The A320 rating is common than the 737 rating nowadays.
If Airbus is forward looking it would be considering a more comprehensive plan to integrate the A220 family with the A320 family. In addition to a choice of engines, it should work to provide cockpit commonality with the A320 family. Then the A220 family can be considered a replacement for the A318/319/320. The A320 family can move on to being larger and longer range airliners.
Can you do that after the aircraft has been designed? I assumed since the A220 is an ex Bombardier, the controls and workflows are significantly different
If you start putting 175 to 200 passengers on an A220, it's quickly going to become a NOT passenger favorite. Part of it's charm is that it's smaller, more passenger friendly aircraft with bigger windows. You start pouring 4 busloads of people into a stretched version, it gets claustrophobic real quick. But we all know airlines couldn't care less about passenger comfort, so it's probably a moot point.
And if the plane runs off the smell of an oily rag as a result so fares cost practically nothing then people will put up with it. Airlines couldn't care less about passenger comfort because passengers don't care about it if it saves a buck. Which for A220 ranges is perfectly OK.
Airbus could even go one step further and offer two versions of the 220Neo: First the standard option, but second a variant that has the same type rating like the 737Max - or even like the 737NG. That way airlines wouldn't need to pay for re-training their pilots. - That's quite a considerable cost factor when switching from a large Max (or NG) fleet to the 220Neo.
I have just flown it as passenger and i don’t agree with your statement as a quiet aircraft at all. A380 and A350 are! Thank you for all your work and videos.
Coby...The real reason that BOMBARDIER CSERIES only had 1 engine choice was because of 'BIG BAD BOEING' putting a lot of pressure ($$$$) on GE-CFM to NOT allow BA to offer a 2nd engine choice.
Not likely you can just swap a Leap CFM from a 737 or 320 to the A220. Most likely it will require a reduced diameter fan case and a new nacelle. The PW GTF used on the A320 is not the same as the one used on the A220, lots of commonality but it does have a different fan diameter. The GTF will likely have future improvements in efficiency by planned core changes. The leap is not as efficient and is probably at its optimum design without a major design change, like a gear box fan. The GTF is going to get better by a few more percentages. I worked at P&W supporting the new GTF until I retired and the GTF certainly had some hiccups, however the Fan Gear was remarkably robust. Only one incident I can recall dealing with the Fan gear.
GTF always had better SFC at TO sea level, but analysis of block fuel burn comparing the two NEO done by leasing company found the CFM slightly better. The engine durability issue I’ve lost touch with, but on wing for 1500 was maybe 1000 hours at one point. That must have improved but I see no data on the internet. How do the two compare on 320/321? LEAP a few years ago was far ahead.
Ha. Ever play poker? Airbus loves these stories. Next, they'll dial up P&W and mention "did you see where we're considering adding a second engine to the A220? If you want to protect your 100% share on our wings you need to give me a 10% price cut.". Let the games begin.
Yep, this is why Boeing's "no new plane for at least the next decade" announcement was crazy. Imagine the phone calls Airbus is now making to the big airlines pondering their longterm strategy ....
@@kenoliver8913 Boeing has been a multi-program C-F for decades now. 787? Grounded. 737MAX? Grounded. AF1 - Many years & $B in red. KC-46? Many years and $B in red. 777X? Many years behind. And what happens when you tell your VP-Engr that "we don't need you for a decade"?. It would be a comedy of errors if it wasn't so tragic.
10:43 - Without knowing how big that fleet is and the amount of hours flown/ran, that number says **nothing**. Give me failures per hours flown. And terminal failures per hours flown. That’ll tell you way more.
The C-Series aka A220 should have the most efficient engine. Having an airplane that quiet and comfortable is a game changer. It is basically a baby Dreamliner or A350 but with a more advanced engine. Reducing efficiency would reduce range and the optional engine is far louder. I would chose to avoid flying with that option if possible
I love when people say the A220 is “short haul.” 5+ hours doesn’t feel short haul. All these MAX jets and NEOs are making little planes long-haul jets.
The main advantage of the 737 is that it is already in use with basically any US carrier. Similarly the A320 is the standard anywhere else because they successfully locked in. The total cost of ownership are only driven by retraining pilots. It's no question the 737 Max is an already outdated jet and possibly still dangerous. Even before the MAX troubles the A320neo was outselling it substantially. The A220 that competes with the smaller 737 could be the final nail in the coffin for Boeing. Boeing was terrified of the A220 when it was still the CSeries that's why they attempted to kill it by lobbying the US government to introduce prohibitively high import tariffs. Now it is prodcued in the US for the US market to circumvent the tariffs.
I currently fly a Bombardier aircraft, and they are built differently to other manufacturers. Reliability, performance, and fuel economy make them hard to beat. Ever since trump essentially banned them, and airbus became the majority share holder of the C series, it has just gotten even better. Lets hope it does eventually take over the SH market.
It should be said that during the Cseries flight test program, the original engine design nearly killed the Cseries program. Following the operating limitations for cool down on the ground after a test caused an on ground engine fire that destroyed the engine. P&W had to do a significant redesign effort and get it in service ASAP. Even then aircraft when certified was almost two years late and more than a few customers had cancelled or put orders on permanent deferal. So yes, the engine was revolutionary but it wasn't pain free and it did almost destroy Bombardier. Also, as others have noted, the landing field distance required is much shorter than almost any narrow body out there including the Embraer E2s, and the take off field length is much shorter than the 737 or A320 - A318 line no matter which engine option is equipped with Maximum Gross Weight.
The 220 will likely be lighter and more efficient, due in large part to its narrower fuselage and composite wings. However the A320 will still likely have more range. The A220-500 would likely replace the A320 and allow Airbus to upsize the family - focusing on the A321 and potential A322
Go to ground.news/coby to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Sign up for free or subscribe for unlimited access if you support the mission.
The asymmetrical cooling is exclusive to the A320 as it uses only 2 bolts front and rear. The other users have a 3 bolt lay out, front middle rear.
They LEAP is also almost a ton heavier engine. Adding almost 1800~2000 kg to the empty weight will hit payload, and fuel consumption.
I will never fly on the max. Airbus should not change anything. Passengers love the 220. I would pay more just to fly on the A220. It's the mercedes of the sky.
Rather than neo. I would prefer it called AEO. Alternative engine option. That leaves the NEO naming available for later engine updates down the road.
Also makes more sense considering how new the current one is
Yes, I don't think they'd want to damage the "NEO" branding by associating it with a less efficient engine, cheaper though it might be.
They don’t have to even rename it. They are just slapping on a new engine. The NEO usually have other updates along with it like wings, interior redesigns, and more.
@@Lexoka I don't think the LEAP would damage the branding, as the video points out the LEAP is part of the A320 neo, but it would certainly seem strange. I think Paul's right, unless they added the design refresh it would probably just be part of the base A220.
@@Anolaana The LEAP is part of the A320 neo, but if adding it to the A220 resulted in lower performance when neo versions are supposed to be better, that wouldn't be great, I think.
I love the A220...I recently flew Delta out of Atlanta and got lucky and got an A220. fast takeoff, rocket-ship-like climb, and amazingly quiet. When we landed, it literally stopped in the first third of the runway.
You can land a lightly loaded 747-200 on 1/3 of a runway to be fair. But the rocket climb is cool
@@Flexflex744 it depends of the size of the runway
The 737MAX and A320neo families of aircraft have larger engines, a bit more power, climb faster and have better fuel efficiency than their predecessors. The A220 is something else: giant engines, oversized state-of-the-art wings. Even if you load an A220-300 full of transcontinental fuel, people and a big payload, it still absolutely slays short runways on takeoff, outclimbing, outflying and outgliding every airliner on the market.
I love it
It is regularly landing on runways that are anywhere between 5000 and 11000 feet, so saying it lands in the first third is meaningless.
I'm a gate agent and I turn A220's regularly. Flying on them is amazing. It's quiet, powerful, extra roomy, and you even get a lavatory with a view. But man they can be annoying when you work with them. More often than not these will come in and have some fault message in it's ECAM that the pilots got during cruise or landing, and it will render the entire plane inoperable. These planes are almost entirely electronic so they're very prone to having little faults pop up somewhere for whatever reason. And you can't just write off a ECAM fault or put it on MEL, they need to be cleared for the aircraft to be airworthy. A220's make our maintenance team look more like geek squad than AMT's lol. I've seen more delays, cancellations, and even diversions from this plane more than any other aircraft we have in the fleet. I'm thinking (and hoping) that these are just growing pains though, and after a year or two these issues will be easily resolved whenever they pop up again.
And yet the A220 has good despatch reliability overall. I think that's because purely electronic glitches may be more common than hardware problems, especially in multiply redundant systems (three identical systems triples the chances that one of them fails, even while it reduces to nothing the chance that all of them will). But they'll usually be a helluva lot quicker to fix - instant diagnostics, no waiting for spare parts, often no return to the hangar.
Interesting information. If more electronics result in more little faults on an airliner, what may be happening in the more complicated 5th gen fighters?
Are they also having geek squads pushing paper to clear caches and cookies? 😁🍪
737 seat width - 17 inches. 220 seat width - 19 inches. Someone is thinking ahead.
Safety first tho. Hopefully, none of these minor errors ever get ignored. Heard of deadly accidents that occured because minor errors made pilots misinterpret what was working/not working and making incorrect decisions based off of assumptions.
ya ya that explains why i some maintenance guys wearing "best buy" T-shirts lololol
Thought I was drunk when I read the title... Turns out I AM actually drunk, but also, you kind of have point lol
I thought i was also thought i was drunk when i read the title 😆 😂
@@CP_7010_Productions 😂😂😂
💀💀💀
The A220 is an amazing plane. I flew on a Swiss one into Zürich one, back when we still called it the C series. Had a great chat with the cockpit crew afterwards, they told me they love flying it. Looking at how organized the cockpit seemed, I can 100% understand that.
As passenger, best short & medium experience I ever had.
Swiss was banned from buying the Jet by Bombardier, followed by Airbus.
As someone who more or less followed the C-series saga since Bombardier announced it, it's so funny to see how things turned out for the plane compared the many that were making fun of it many years ago.
In the late 1990, I thought it was pretty cool when Laurent Beaudoin open up about his own dream of building great planes and despite reserves from so-called experts, he’d push for something bigger, beyond regional jets, I was surprised at the tepid reaction from the media outside Quebec. They seemed either unimpressed or hostile to the project. Questioning if/why a small Quebec company could/should design by v build a plane able to compete with the big boys. Then in 2004, the ageing CEO officially announced Bombardier is going ahead with its new C-series platform, despite most in Canada look against the project. In Toronto, I haven’t heard a good word about Bombardier or the c-series in years. Amongst its most influential detractors, The Globe & Mail diligently kept publishing articles after articles criticizing the C-series program. Then around 2016 when Bbd asked for another loan ($600 millions) the venom spewed by Canadians irritated me tremendously. The government refused, it would have been political suicide had they agreed. Loud critics of Beaudoin, and the “antiquated” family owned and controlled company. Pundits everywhere, on T.V, at work, social media badmouthing Bombardier, management, the C-series, even Quebec, why not?. May god have mercy for the politicians who caved in, giving corporate welfare bums from Quebec, any subsidies. “Stop pandering to Quebec”,”If Bombardier can’t finance it themselves, let them die”. “Fold the company” “Put this dog out off its misery” “The government shouldn’t “waste” Canadian taxpayers “hard earned cash to support scoundrels from Quebec”. “Canadian taxpayers are tired of financing this banana republic” “and the life style afforded by these wealthy executives”. Plenty of Canadians swore to boycott Quebec and Bombardier.
On multiple occasions Bombardier and the C-series could have been saved. There’s 4 or 5 instances when Canada could have EASILY stepped in, but CHOSE not to. Not a Single voice in the RoC in support of the great company who had build, according to many, probably on performance, the best plane ever. The “nice” Canadians vilified BBD and their handling of the program and ridiculed the Company management as bumbling corporate welfare bums, as Canadians gleefully watch it die in slow agony.
The Schadenfreude Canadians felt towards the country’s most reputable company, funded by Armand Bombardier, the inventor of the snowmobile. The transport giant was a source of great pride in Quebec. Yet certainly not in Canada. Nothing ever is. So now that suddenly, it’s getting press internationally, as a great plane, I see Canadians who loves to say great “Canadians” plane, basking in the limelight. who seemed to need something to be proud of. When Canada did it’s all to sink BBD AND the plane.
Some people in Canada just didn’t like the Beaudoin family. Always reports about how bad that family was and this and that, WITHOUT THE OLD MAN, this plane would not exist. THEY VILIFIED BOMBARDIER AND THEIR HANDLING OF THE PROGRAM, ON NEWSCASTS TO EVERYONE THAT WOULD LISTEN, Smug Canadians badmouthed them. Many explaining WHY and HOW it failed, as if they were insiders.
Brazil buys Brazilian planes. USA buys Boeing France and Germany buy Airbus, Spain buy Airbus. Canada did not buy a single plane. That means 0 planes. To be fair, Porter ordered 40 but was Forced to cancel. Political suicide to let that happen The excuse? Too noisy quietest aircraft by 35%) they get away with that shit all the time. Air cash Canada from Montreal, bought 60 only DAYS after it wasn’t a Bombardier plane no more.
So, could you tell me that without Airbus this fantastic plane would never be produced? Would Bombardier airliners ceased to exist because of the program cost? Thank you!
@@alexpessoa791 I don't know a lot of detail, but Bombardier had to be helped by the federal and provincial government several times, and it was facing very serious opposition by Boeing in the USA (Bombardier scored a sale with Delta and Boeing alleged that Bombardier was dumping the price, which prompted the US government to put significant tariffs in place). Without Airbus' weight, it's not clear how many sales Bombardier alone would have scored. And even now it's not entirely clear that the program is safe.
Off-topic, but looking at those Air Baltic A22Os in the colors of the Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian flags, very clever and eye-catching.
couldnt agree more!
An A220-500 would also rival their A320neo, so I suppose it would be smarter for Airbus to not develop that variant in the near future. The A220-300 already drastically reduced the sales of the A319neo, I can't see them kill the next plane in their current portfolio.
They won't mind because the backlog on the A320 is massive, and is biasing more and more towards the A321 end, and that will only be more true once the XLR is certified. Basically, Airbus would not only afford, but might benefit from this move, moving the A220 and the A320 series more upmarket.
@@ChristopherBurtraw agreed. I would prefer them to just retire the lower capacity options for the A320 family and have the A220 replace them. This way, airbus can optimize their resources and end the inter canibalization dilemma.
@@ChristopherBurtraw thus it depends of Airbus ability to reduce hit cost production!
While it might cannibalise A320NEO sales, it would allow airlines to go either for the A320F or A220F and not loose out too much (at the bottom or top) depending on demand and thus required seats. Considering that quite a few A321 carriers have no NEOs on order, switching them to A220 only could be an interesting market. Look at Austrian, Helvetic and other smaller-ish carriers
I am surprised how little he said about the A320neo in this video. However, Airbus did say "when" not "if" in regards to the A220-500. Yes, an A220-500 will cannibalise the A320neo but it will cement Airbus in the 140-180 seat market.
As a Scandinav of 190 cm, I really appreciate these newer and more roomy cabins, as most plane trip is close to torture. Its a question of how much.
Good idea and also the 500 model, so they can start cutting into the 737-8 market. The supply chain mainly reduces cost if more planes are sold, and while 700 is good, it can become much better. The 500 can also ease the pressure on the 320 line slightly.
Problem is that the A220 production line is under more pressure than the A320 line.They have only 2 sites making the A220 and they are rushing to increase capacity on both.
I have a bad experience with the 220... the airlines I flew in them have the cabins cramped up and I snuggly fit in the seat... 191cm and my knees are dug into the back of the seat in front. Business class is amazing in these planes
I recently flew on board an Air Canada A-220, and I agree; what a wonderful aircraft to fly in. Well done Bombardier/Airbus.
My mom worked on the CSERIES’s interior and bathroom before it was called the A220. I couldn’t be more proud of her and her work. I’m glad that the plane didn’t die as people predicted and that the airbus management and sales is lightyears ahead of bombardier.
I know they all look similar to one another, but among smaller jetliners, the A220 and Embraer E Jets to my eyes are the prettiest. Thx for the good video
I like the A220 the best. (“Prettier”) 😂
same here, I often fly with Embrear's from Schiphol to Stuttgart and they're beautiful and very fun to fly, but imo the A220 is the better looking jet and I would definitely want to fly with it at least once
Thanks for all your hard work.
To be fair I think the Leap has had some Oil System Woes, including IFSD’s in 2022. From my experience the gear system is bulletproof, we have tried to destroy it and as long as she gets oil while reverse windmilling, the FDGS is truly one of the most incredible pieces of craftsmanship. It will outlast the airframe from what I have seen. We have also been developing the 1524 and 1527 since I started in their test area and I don’t know how long it would take GE to come up with a baby leap. If you think it just scales down, it doesn’t work that way 😂. Flutter in a fan might be a perfect example, stall margins, etc. We were running HCF (Fatigue) C-Series engines back is 2011, that’s a long development cycle. Great video man!
Not to mention too that sure, GTF is new to the turbofan market but PWC has been making gearboxes forever (I know PWA did GTF). It seems a bit of a stretch to me that a gearbox suddenly in a new implementation would cause fleetwide reliability issues, especially as widespread as the 787 Trent 1000 problem.
i have been flying the CS-300 for 5 years now and i see the new issues with engines, combustion chamber, so you should know it better, i would love to hear from you
@@zenjempire CC cracking with shedding of pieces and downstream turbomachine damage was identified in public documents from India which resulted in the deletion of the impact sensitive final ceramic stage, which in turn added weight and LCF issues to the 1157. Very curious if this was all fixed in the GTF2.
From Av Herald this weekend (like it heard us 😂)…..
A Gol Transportes Aereos Boeing 737-8 MAX, registration PS-GPB performing flight G3-1999 from Maceio,AL to Brasilia,DF (Brazil) with 164 passengers and 6 crew, was descending towards Brasilia when the crew received a low oil pressure indication for the left hand engine (LEAP) and shut the engine down. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on Brasilia's runway 11L about 20 minutes later.
@@richardkudrna7503 it was fixed before Advantage, but the aircraft still have to go thru an MRO Cycle to get newer block “legacy” 1100’s overhauled. Airlines are also very guilty of squeezing every cycle they can out of revenue making flights. Normally with a promise on their end to “complete additional borescoping until removed from service”. Eventually fatigue wins the battle and she gets a new combustor.
Airbus narrowbody fleet should be:
A220 (100/300/500) for the 100-180 seat market
A321/322 (with a new wing design, perhaps) for the 200-275 seat market
*seat numbers reflect 100% economy seating like JetBlue has used on some 321Neos.
While the A318 has fallen by the wayside, I feel that it would be a monumental mistake for Airbus to abandon the A320, especially for airlines who operate significant numbers of A321s, and/or use hold containers, a feature not available on the A220, E2, or Max.
That is not to suggest that I don't believe that an A220-500 would make perfect sense for Airlines with the A220 as the backbone of their fleet, or using the A220 on certain of their routes who would like something a little larger to supplement.
However, it will probably be the market that decides, and while the A319neo may never be the success of its predecessor, volumes may be sufficient to justify its continued existence.
While a streamlined product line may make sense to the bean counters, isn't it better to compete with and loose to yourself, rather than to someone else?
A lesson Boeing should have learnt with their 737 and 717, where the failure to develop larger 717 variants to replace those from MD because of the overlap with the smaller 737s has probably been responsible for a significant part of the A220s success.
But the 318 and 319 have a profitable niche with airlines who mostly run bigger 320 series but need some smaller planes to cover their thinner routes. They don't have to retrain anyone. So the 318 and 319 do not compete with 220s as much as their comparable size and range suggests.
@@kenoliver8913 Very rare and is easily proven by the poor sales of these planes in -neo versions. Hardly anyone wants them.
The leap 1b has issues as well I’m a mech and we’ve been changing the internal fuel nozzles pretty often now due to poor design and they still haven’t changed it. It takes 3 days with testing so it’s a lot of down time
Last month CFM announced a fix for these issues at Paris Air Show. A retrofit kit to be available in 2024.
Another great video! Yeah, I think they’ll do it. Having more options is always better.
Some of my family flew with the A220 from BUD to Zurich with Swiss Airline, and it's an amazing plane, roomy quiet and safe. To me the A220 will always remain a Bombardier C as a Canadian plane.
Good thinking! Combined A220NEO and A220-500 options would be Verry attractive to most 737Max carriers! Most market analysts believe the differences between A220 and A310NEO allow an optimised buying experience for the airline, particularly carriers moving away from Boeing, resulting in strong sales of Both types!
It will be attractive mostly to existing a220 operators, most airlines value simplicity and commonality.
At least 80% of 737MAX operators will prefer operating a single fleet type, at least 80% of a320neo operators will also prefer operating a single fleet type too.
Lastly, the a220-500 won't enter service for least 2 -4 years from now, and together with it's low production rate. It won't be as attractive to most airlines as it seems.
It will be a great aircraft thou
I do love this aircraft! Really enjoy flying on it!
This plane looks small, but it's actually longer than an A320! Fuselage dimensions are in the range of 737 / A320 which is nuts! P.S. That was one really good landing shot! I'm flying on my first A220 in a few months.
I think the A220 just looks gorgeous. It is a credit to Bombardier and Airbus. I think it would look nice in some old classic airline liveries !
The CSERIES was designed for future growth beyond the CS100/CS300 from the beginning. As a 'Clean Sheet Design' aircraft, all programs have this option built into them.
Your content is just getting better and better, keep it up man!
It makes sense on paper , but business wise, it makes more sense to put resources into hiting it out of the park with the A321XLR while also saving more resources for a brand new revolutionary tech narrowbody to replace the A321neo/B737max.
Doesn't even really make sense on paper. Each one delivered still loses money for Airbus since it's expensive to built and struggling to increase production. Bombardier left it with a mess in terms costs and the supply chain for the aircraft.
Upscaling the A220 family to replace the A320 allows them to do just that. Then they can also upscale the A320 family to focus on the A321 and A322
@5:00 quote 'Boeing has perfected the 737 Max production' Are you sure?
Over the years flying from London lhr or cty to zrh on Swiss or BA I've experienced ...E195,Bae146,A340 (covid days along with a repatriation BA 787) A319 320 320 neo 321 and 321 neo.My last flight on this route was an A220 Zrh to Lhr and maybe because it was the last it was the best.Well done A220
A new engine A220-500 makes sense in particular if it comes with a cabin extension. It could start cannibalising the A320neo but it could also be a pre-emptive counter to a 737 replacement.
A220NEO - Bigger cockpit windows than ever before!
Only bad thing about the 220 is fuelling (aircraft refueller here) it takes fuel way slower than the 737 and needs special tall ladders or custom made stairs to service it, otherwise it’s a great plane!
Thank you for the information, did not know that! How big is the difference in terms of fuel load speed?
Interesting, how come it takes longer?
@@cobyexplanes smaller fuel pipes
@@henson2k 750max vs 1180-1200 with all tanks, or 400 vs 900 with just wings
Great analysis, as always, Cody! I think airbus would definitely be wise to consider a secondary engine option. Just look what happened to Boeing in the 777, they decided to go with a single engine manufacturer for the 777X, and it’s definitely had a less than desirable outcome with getting it in the air.
Engine choices are important, for many reasons including all those pointed out. One additional reason is an airline fleet may use Rolls Royce engines and doesn’t want to get in bed with P&W as well. Not that RR was mentioned in the video.
It make sense for Airbus to offer another engine supplier for the A220 programme, considering the A220 in all variants is building it is on market independently from the A320neo/A321neo programme.
Somewhere, very early in the contracting/procurement/production process, the ability to change engine selection evaporates. Well ahead of discovering there is a supply or performance issue with one or the other engine types, many months later. Lead times are extremely long. Engine types, by different manufacturers, in an aircraft, are not plug and play. And the development, including engineering, test flight and approval process, is far more involved than you suggest.
Yes..but he's known for proposing ideas likely never to happen. It's his thing.
@@johniii8147 just like how he proposed air india operating the A380.....
@@oadka Yeah that was funny
An A221XLR model like the A321XLR would be another great replacement option for B757 and another formidable competitor to B757 max 8.
This is really just a battle between new innovation and stagnant old tech: I wish the best for Airbus's comfy A220 line and look forward to an A220-500. If that happens, new engine choices are likely. Not as clear is whether the company will continue its technological lead by introducing a desirable RR narrow body version of its Ultrafan, or even the GE-Safran open rotor engine that could return a 20%+ increase in fuel efficiency.
I did get a ride on one of these across the country and it was very nice I didn't know about it at the time I checked it out later and it was a breeze it was a absolute awesome experience.
I’m a big Boeing fan, have flew on basically every modern boeing except for the 787-8, but i flew the a220 with Swiss a week ago, and oh my god it’s the most comfortable aircraft ever.
imo THE most beautiful short-haul narrow body on the market .😍
Airbus also has one other problem. The A220 uses the PW engines which are currently uhhh not necessarily failing but they’re needing service extremely early and pw can’t keep up. Because the A229 only has PWs I wonder how this issue will affect A220 sales if it’s not resolved soon
Yeah I agree an A220 with more than one powerplant option would be probably a good thing however I wouldn’t say the neo as that makes it sound like the A220 is an older inefficient design that needs a new engine model completely! Considering Airbus wouldn’t want to tarnish the neo naming or brand system I think it should just be a called like the A220mep Multi Engine Program or just no new name at all…
Anyways great video Coby!
Cheers 🥂
I love the A220
Everyone except the ground crew loves it. The bins are weird sizes, galleys are odd to clean, and there's always broken whenever it arrives. Every time it arrives, there's something new that's wrong with it.
Source: I deal with these headaches daily
I was passenger of AirBaltic's A220-300, the most powerful plane I was in, not A321 NEO or 737 can challenge this power that engines are giving to such a small plane, both of them(321 and 737) are underpowered planes, A220 is bullet fast for me. Why to hide, I love this small plane, powerful, small and lovely plane that gave me best impressions, and btw A220 was my first plane I was in and this gives another charm to all of this. I love it
A few years ago Air Baltic announced 52 engine replacements on a tiny fleet. The time between replacements was roughly 1000 engine hours. How much has this improved? The Cobra engine swap system helped fast engine changes. Leased maintenance costs protected the airlines from the extreme costs associated with frequent major engine maintenance (say roughly 3 million a visit). But aviation analysts pointed out a rule of business- no one will keep losing money. In other words, PW was obliged to solve the durability issue. On A320NEO they issued the “GTF2”, but not on A220. Does that mean that they have solved the durability issue? What time on wing are Spirit and AirBaltic experiencing? Have the altitude restrictions been lifted? Very curious. Someone here might share.
When the aircraft engines turn at a certain frequency during landing, it creates a resonance in the engine's combustion chamber. The noise is caused by those vibrations (resonance). The noises and vibrations are nothing to worry about, but it does sound different to what you are used to.
Those howling sounds are planned to be fixed by 2026
@@Roboseal2 and that would be a sad day, I love those whale sounds!
Having talked with people who work with the A220, I'm told that the engines make it a hangar queen when it's new, but once it's broken in, it's pretty reliable. There's definitely been WAY more than 3 inflight shutdowns on the A220, you just don't hear about most of them because from a news perspective, they are really non-events. I personally know of one plane that had two in two days; the second happened as it was being ferried to a maintenance base for deeper inspection.
I’m not sure anymore but I think mean time between in flight shutdown fell below 50,000 hours at one point. I assume it is far better now. Hope so.
I always though when Airbus took over the A220, they would offer the CFM engine option.
Sure will cut cost on airlines already operating the A320 family with the CMF56 or LEAP engines, making it easier to welcome the A220 into the fleet.
I love the A220, such a comfortable plane to fly on.
I flew in one for the first time a few days ago, and it's way more comfortable than the 737s, or heck even the A350. It's also super nimble, I bet that the pilots are having tons of fun with it.
Your analysis is on point, and i agree 100% with you. But choosing the CFM Leap engines might be potential challenge in the conception and performance of the the eventual A220-500. Airbus acquired the basic blueprint for the A220-500 with the program, but development is another issue. Airbus might want the A220 to achieve A320neo performances, but there is a bigger market to come, that might be interesting for Airbus to explore, and therefore make the CFM-Leap engine inadaquate.
See, i live in Luxembourg. One missing, although crucial, pilar to a national airline the size of Luxembourg, is low capacity - long range aircraft. Filling an A350 is not easy for the flag carrier of Luxembourg, so any trip to N-America, S-America, Asia/Pacific, Oceania, and S-Africa, is a huge challenge. Currently, Luxemburgers will need to transit through CDG, DUS, AMS, FRA or MUC (maybe VIE) to change onto a Long Haul Carriers flight. Problem being, transfer to those airports is long and expensive, with waiting times of a few hours. Airbus might rise to the challenge with a. A220neo/stretch, and design the A220 in a way that point-to-point travel with distances over 10k km might be a possibility. That is the market that will make Airbus THE leading manufacturer. The 'Single Aisle - Long Haul' market.
Made in Montreal Canada!!
Oui mon ami 🎉
I always though that the 737 max went against the a320 neo! You learn something new every day.
Interesting video; the A220 is a mini-beauty of an airliner. Maybe in a future video you could talk about the costs of certifying a new engine for a plane. Keep up the good work!
I love the a220, it looks like a baby 787. It's adorable.
WOW switching out the CFM-LEAP from B737 to A220!!! now I get it --- thanks Coby! Can't wait for A220-500 to arrive...
The NEO concept is where older engine designs are replaced with much more efficient newer ones. It is NOT replacing it with something similar from another manufacturer or increasing the number of similar engines to choose from.
Having said that, I have always considered having a single engine choice far from ideal, although suitable alternatives are not always available, or the projected numbers are insufficient for multiple engine manufacturers to recover their development costs and make a worthwhile profit.
Hopefully, the success of the (now) A220, thanks in part to the financial backing and marketing from Airbus, will make alternative engines possible.
It would certainly be good news for airlines with a significant fleet of narrowbodies using CFM engines.
However, it could be bad news for the Embraer E2 if some of their potential customers are swayed by engine commonality with their existing fleet.
Very solid arguments
Don't forget to make a lr and xlr version along with the new engine option on a220.
Delta A220 from SLC to Houston. Sat on the aircraft for nearly an hour past ETD while a leaking oil component was exchanged on the #1 GTF. Flew first class and yet felt like I was in a next generation commuter plane. Would rather passenger in the 737 or A320.
I can't wait to ride on this plane one day soon
A few items, the 737 Max is not based on a 60 year old design. It is based off the 737 NG which was designed and first flew in 1997. Yes, the 737 goes back to the 60s. The 737-100 classic started as a 100 seater like the A220-100 and is now scaled up to nearly the size of a 757 in the 737-10 that can seat 230. I also think it is a bit misleading to compare A220-300 vs 737-7 MAX sales as it has been clear 737 max operators are going with the -8 and -9. In other words airlines are up-gauging. We see this more and more with the A320 vs A321. This IMO makes it a tougher proposition for a A220-500 as the market is moving bigger. Moving to Leap1B would require re-engineering due to the size of the fan. Also Leap1B provides quite a bit more power than the PW1500g and thus consumes more fuel. It would become a mini 757 including higher fuel costs. Thus removing the fuel cost benefits of the A220 vs 737-7 or A320.
Well, the 737 NG has all the previous systems of the 737 classic, save for new engines and wings
great analysis coby
The Current A220 is my favorite plane to fly on. There is a large gap before my second favorite plane which is the 737MAX
For more information regarding the motors from P&W, the last President of Bombardier Aviation, Mr Bellemare, was in the President of P&W for Canada, then after Bombardier he is now Vice President, In-Flight Entertainment and Connectivity Strategy at Delta Air Lines.
I’ll take the A220 any day!
As long as Airbus can't scale up the production significantly and stop losing money on the plane, there is no need for another engine. The production line is busy for the next couple of years delivering the orders, they already have. Furthermore the current low production rate will shy airlines away from ordering the type. As long as they won't fix these issues, there won't be a 220-500 and another engine option...
Bombardier make really pretty planes 👍👍 Sounds weird when you say it out loud... but they do 🤣
As a 220 pilot… it needs new engines. The pratts have issues.
@codyxplanes Will the B-52 get new Rolls Royce engines keeping it flying for ove 100 years?
Great video!
Great information as usual... thank you for that. There is so much we don't know about the marketing involved in design and manufacturing.
Eye opener 👏👍
A common engine pylon to mount engines from all three engine manufacturers, new fuel tanks for long-haul flights, and plenty of engine power to catapult the A220-500 from airports with short runways in hot-and-high conditions. Airlines such as Breeze, JetBlue and Delta are enamoured with the A220-300's impressive operating economics while reigning supreme in a wide array of flight capabilities, which includes steadily gaining a reputation as a heavy-lifting, fast-climbing shortfield runway rocket. How many airlines would place orders for the A220-500 if it came out of the box as a long-haul jet with a standard range of 4,000 nautical miles?
You need more than a common pylon to fit other engines. Unless they are physically close in shape and weight (and a GTF is probably not) you may need expensive aerodynamic changes. You also have to make sure all fuel, hydraulic, bleed air and electrical connections are in the right place on each engine. And you definitely need software changes - hopefully avoiding MCAS ones!
You raise a good point. The LEAP weights much less. That might create pylon placement issues.
@@richardkudrna7503 Look again! The PW1500G series are both bigger (73 inch fan) and lighter at 4800 Ibs. The 757's RB211-535 engine can theoretically fit under the A220 wing! (though it's too heavy) The smallest LEAP 1B (69 inch fan) for the 737 weighs a whopping 6,130 Ibs. CFM GE- Safran needs to cut its weight by at least a thousand pounds.
@@texasabbott I’m thinking there’s something up here with weight comparison. On the Airbus there was a 500 lb wing structural penalty to support the GTF. That’s why the original ability to swap engines after build was deleted. Now you can only go from GTF to GE as that engine is lighter, because the A320 wings built for GE are lighter. It might be that the weights you are looking are less nacelle. Bottom line is that the fan drive gearbox with all those leaded bearings is very heavy.
The thing is, if you are a new airline, right now, the MAX makes zero sense. You are not buying commonality (because you have no existing fleet and crews), you are not buying into an evolving program (as the MAX is the end of the road for the 737) and you are not getting any large price cuts (because you are a newcomer). In that light buying into a newer platform makes perfect sense. If, on the other hand, you are an older carrier, already operating the 73 it isn't very likely that you'll switch.
True. Akasa Air, Bonza and Lynx Air shouldn’t invest on the MAX since it wasn’t make any sense. The A320 rating is common than the 737 rating nowadays.
The P&W gearbox has been flawless. Quality issues of other parts, components, etc, not so much.
If Airbus is forward looking it would be considering a more comprehensive plan to integrate the A220 family with the A320 family. In addition to a choice of engines, it should work to provide cockpit commonality with the A320 family. Then the A220 family can be considered a replacement for the A318/319/320. The A320 family can move on to being larger and longer range airliners.
Can you do that after the aircraft has been designed? I assumed since the A220 is an ex Bombardier, the controls and workflows are significantly different
Where does a320 feature on the pricing ? That also might be a big factor… I am sure airbus would want to maintain the a320 flagship too
A220-F. What size unit load device would fit in the A220 cross section?
nice to have a quiet interior, but you have 5 kids screaming at the same time, the nightmare is there !
Isn't the a320neo the main competitor to the MAX???
If you start putting 175 to 200 passengers on an A220, it's quickly going to become a NOT passenger favorite. Part of it's charm is that it's smaller, more passenger friendly aircraft with bigger windows. You start pouring 4 busloads of people into a stretched version, it gets claustrophobic real quick. But we all know airlines couldn't care less about passenger comfort, so it's probably a moot point.
And if the plane runs off the smell of an oily rag as a result so fares cost practically nothing then people will put up with it. Airlines couldn't care less about passenger comfort because passengers don't care about it if it saves a buck. Which for A220 ranges is perfectly OK.
Airbus could even go one step further and offer two versions of the 220Neo: First the standard option, but second a variant that has the same type rating like the 737Max - or even like the 737NG. That way airlines wouldn't need to pay for re-training their pilots. - That's quite a considerable cost factor when switching from a large Max (or NG) fleet to the 220Neo.
isn’t A320 the family competing with 737 …?
I don't see where Ground News is free? want to try before I buy. Good videos, thanks
I have just flown it as passenger and i don’t agree with your statement as a quiet aircraft at all. A380 and A350 are!
Thank you for all your work and videos.
Coby...The real reason that BOMBARDIER CSERIES only had 1 engine choice was because of 'BIG BAD BOEING' putting a lot of pressure ($$$$) on GE-CFM to NOT allow BA to offer a 2nd engine choice.
Not likely you can just swap a Leap CFM from a 737 or 320 to the A220. Most likely it will require a reduced diameter fan case and a new nacelle. The PW GTF used on the A320 is not the same as the one used on the A220, lots of commonality but it does have a different fan diameter. The GTF will likely have future improvements in efficiency by planned core changes. The leap is not as efficient and is probably at its optimum design without a major design change, like a gear box fan. The GTF is going to get better by a few more percentages. I worked at P&W supporting the new GTF until I retired and the GTF certainly had some hiccups, however the Fan Gear was remarkably robust. Only one incident I can recall dealing with the Fan gear.
GTF always had better SFC at TO sea level, but analysis of block fuel burn comparing the two NEO done by leasing company found the CFM slightly better. The engine durability issue I’ve lost touch with, but on wing for 1500 was maybe 1000 hours at one point. That must have improved but I see no data on the internet. How do the two compare on 320/321? LEAP a few years ago was far ahead.
Non-GTF engines should universally have smaller nacelles than any PW GTF, so the larger diameter fan issue doesn't exist.
Ha. Ever play poker? Airbus loves these stories. Next, they'll dial up P&W and mention "did you see where we're considering adding a second engine to the A220? If you want to protect your 100% share on our wings you need to give me a 10% price cut.". Let the games begin.
Yep, this is why Boeing's "no new plane for at least the next decade" announcement was crazy. Imagine the phone calls Airbus is now making to the big airlines pondering their longterm strategy ....
@@kenoliver8913 Boeing has been a multi-program C-F for decades now. 787? Grounded. 737MAX? Grounded. AF1 - Many years & $B in red. KC-46? Many years and $B in red. 777X? Many years behind. And what happens when you tell your VP-Engr that "we don't need you for a decade"?. It would be a comedy of errors if it wasn't so tragic.
Great but what about cabin space?
I love this channel
Longevity, not longetivity. That's not a word. That said, nice piece.
wouldn't a220-500 eat up a320neo?
I don't think so, but it would definitely kill the A319 for good.
5:47 yes, but guess which one has also been grounded and crashed twice…
10:43 - Without knowing how big that fleet is and the amount of hours flown/ran, that number says **nothing**. Give me failures per hours flown. And terminal failures per hours flown.
That’ll tell you way more.
That video aged very well
The C-Series aka A220 should have the most efficient engine. Having an airplane that quiet and comfortable is a game changer. It is basically a baby Dreamliner or A350 but with a more advanced engine. Reducing efficiency would reduce range and the optional engine is far louder. I would chose to avoid flying with that option if possible
I love when people say the A220 is “short haul.” 5+ hours doesn’t feel short haul. All these MAX jets and NEOs are making little planes long-haul jets.
The main advantage of the 737 is that it is already in use with basically any US carrier. Similarly the A320 is the standard anywhere else because they successfully locked in. The total cost of ownership are only driven by retraining pilots. It's no question the 737 Max is an already outdated jet and possibly still dangerous. Even before the MAX troubles the A320neo was outselling it substantially. The A220 that competes with the smaller 737 could be the final nail in the coffin for Boeing. Boeing was terrified of the A220 when it was still the CSeries that's why they attempted to kill it by lobbying the US government to introduce prohibitively high import tariffs. Now it is prodcued in the US for the US market to circumvent the tariffs.
I currently fly a Bombardier aircraft, and they are built differently to other manufacturers.
Reliability, performance, and fuel economy make them hard to beat.
Ever since trump essentially banned them, and airbus became the majority share holder of the C series, it has just gotten even better.
Lets hope it does eventually take over the SH market.
It should be said that during the Cseries flight test program, the original engine design nearly killed the Cseries program. Following the operating limitations for cool down on the ground after a test caused an on ground engine fire that destroyed the engine. P&W had to do a significant redesign effort and get it in service ASAP. Even then aircraft when certified was almost two years late and more than a few customers had cancelled or put orders on permanent deferal. So yes, the engine was revolutionary but it wasn't pain free and it did almost destroy Bombardier. Also, as others have noted, the landing field distance required is much shorter than almost any narrow body out there including the Embraer E2s, and the take off field length is much shorter than the 737 or A320 - A318 line no matter which engine option is equipped with Maximum Gross Weight.
Good video and nicely sliced. would love to know diff between 220 and 320 and why an airline would buy 220 instead of 320.
The 220 will likely be lighter and more efficient, due in large part to its narrower fuselage and composite wings. However the A320 will still likely have more range. The A220-500 would likely replace the A320 and allow Airbus to upsize the family - focusing on the A321 and potential A322