A220 Stretch - to launch or not to launch...

The speculations about the official launch of a stretched A220 comes up again at regular intervals. Airbus position is that it is not a question if it will be launched bot only when…

Next spring at the latest, in the run-up to the Paris Air Show, speculation about a launch at the show will be rampant again. So let's start early, say now... what are the reasons for or against a stretched A220, what options are there in terms of engines and what could that mean for the A320neo and B737MAX successors?

To launch or not to launch?

What speaks for a stretched A220? Let's start with what no longer speaks against it: the A320neo. In the past, the popularity, the number of open orders and the profitability (for Airbus) for the A320neo were cited as the main economic obstacles to the launch of the A320neo. As soon as the A220 Stretch is announced, customers would cancel the A320neo and order the A220 instead, which is significantly more expensive to manufacture (today). However, if you look at Airbus' current order backlog, over 70% of the open orders for the A320 family are for the A321neo. The A321neo accounts for 87% of orders from 2024. The importance of the A320neo for Airbus has declined significantly in recent years and the A321neo is even more profitable to sell than the A320neo.

The next reason in favor of a launch could just as well be one against it: Boeing's situation! Boeing is still busy getting the B737MAX-7 and especially the Boeing 737MAX-10 certified by the FAA, EASA, etc. - and also the B777-9, whose EIS has just been postponed again. It is questionable whether Boeing can even provide enough resources for the certification issues while at the same time having to deal with general quality issues and now also with the strike of its unionized employees (a new offer from Boeing is out and the vote is expected in the coming week). A ramp-up of B737MAX-8 and -9 production is currently not in sight and the B787 has its own problems. Boeing will therefore lack cash flow in the next few years and the company must now urgently mobilize money on the capital market. Boeing bonds could soon have junk status. Two very different conclusions could be drawn from this situation:

a) Pro: Airbus is launching the stretched A220 to put the B737MAX-8 under even more pressure. This would force Boeing, if they were financially able to do so, to launch a successor to the B737MAX family earlier than planned. Currently, the optimal time window for a launch would be after the end of the analysis of the X-66 flights, which are currently scheduled to launch in 2028. After the first series of flights, for which the GTF engine of the A220 and Embraer E2 will power the aircraft, the CFM RISE engine may also be tested with the X-66. Boeing would then have a real comparison of the installation effects. But not before 2030! An early start to the development of a B737MAX successor by Airbus would deprive Boeing of many options, the solution would probably be a traditional "tube-and-wing" aircraft with an advanced LEAP engine and/or a PWA GTF or Rolls Royce Ultrafan variant. For Airbus, this would have the advantage of being able to wait a few years, analyze the Boeing design and meanwhile evaluate the CFM RISE engine in flight tests earlier (currently planned from 2026). This would give Airbus and the engine manufacturers more time to prepare additional technology. However, this is exactly where the first sticking point comes in: are the engine manufacturers prepared to develop two different engines in a relatively short period of time? Do they have the resources for this? Do they see a business case? It could end up with the engine manufacturers demanding a "single source" solution from Boeing, because Boeing's market share compared to Airbus would probably continue to decline.

b) Contra: from a market share perspective, Airbus has no reason to invest in the development of an A220 Stretch. The market share of the A320neo has grown steadily compared to the B737MAX in recent years, and Boeing can not and does not want to afford to launch a successor. Airbus can therefore sit back, relax and wait until Boeing takes the first step, perhaps in the early 2030s, and counter it after carefully analyzing the Boeing design.

These two scenarios have very different effects on the engine manufacturers.

In scenario a) the most likely engine variant is a further development of the PW1500G engine, similar to the further development of the PW1100G engine into the GTF Advantage. CFM, on the other hand, would probably have to make a completely new development for the A220 Stretch, as the LEAP-1B is significantly heavier and has a worse SFC than the PW1500G. It would be difficult to build a sound business case here, especially as some of the sales for the A220 Stretch would be no extra sales, but just drawn from the B737MAX.

What consequences would a A220 Stretch launch have for Airbus? I think that it will not be a "simple stretch": firstly, Airbus will use the opportunity to integrate further detailed improvements, e.g. further developed winglets, which can then also be used on the A220-100 and -300. But I think the question of whether the way the aircraft is produced will change is much more important. At present, it is not yet clear how a production rate of 10 aircraft per month could be achieved in Mirabel. The so-called pre FAL, which Airbus built in Mirabel after taking over the program based on the A320 line in Hamburg, has not led to a significant increase in production even two years later; currently only 4-5 aircraft per month are being started for assembly.

If demand for the A320neo does indeed fall further with the release of the A220 Stretch, it should be possible, for example, to convert one of the existing A320 lines in Hamburg, Toulouse or Mobile to the A220 and at the same time optimize the entire production process. This would also enhance profitability of the A220 program.

What about the consequences for Boeing? This depends on the exact positioning of the A220 Stretch: if it is placed close enough to the capacity of the B737MAX-8, Boeing would have to react as described under a). As described, this would come too early for the CFM RISE, the aircraft would probably (obviously) get a second generation LEAP engine and possibly a second option. But here lies the problem: would Pratt & Whitney or Rolls Royce be prepared to invest in a completely new development, knowing that a few years later Airbus would demand an engine that is significantly better in response, and perhaps if development has progressed far enough by then? This makes it clear that Boeing is in a dilemma.

But there could be a solution that - ironically - was close to completion a few years ago and was then shortsightedly discarded: this solution would be Embraer. A few days ago, Embraer CEO Francisco Gomes Neto confirmed that Embraer is (once again) considering developing a "big narrowbody". A new attempt at a merger between the commercial aircraft division of Embraer and BCA would have the advantage for Boeing that it would be able to face a competitor to the potential A220 Stretch without Boeing having to decide on the design and technology of the real successor to the B737MAX family. An Embraer/BCA narrowbody could initially cover the field above the E195E2 up to the (then) A220 Stretch. This would keep the market share large enough from Boeing's point of view.

Scenario b) is much easier, especially for the engine manufacturers. All have enough time to work on the next generation of aircraft and engines. The option for an Embraer/Boeing Joint Venture would be there as well. But that would most likely concentrate on the lower end of the narrowbodies and then maybe “force” Airbus t launch the A220 Stretch.

Speculation of course, all just speculation... but all major suppliers, but above all the engine manufacturers, must or should deal with all variants and prepare for them.

The Paris Air Show 2025 begins on Monday, June 16, 2025, and we will know more about how the story (of the narrowbodies) continues by Friday, June 20, 2025 at the latest.

Bavarian Airlines! Bavarian... What???

This week a "new airline" was announced: Bavarian Airlines, to be based in Munich. According to founder Adem Karagöz the airline wants to offer better service than their competitor(s). Looking at the routes the new airline wants to start with (MUC to FRA, BER, DUS, AMS) there is almost only LH and their affiliates (KLM as well in case of AMS) the compete with.

For LH and KLM these flights are important as feeder flights for their longhaul routes from MUC, FRA and AMS and these will fly with LH and KLM anyway. So Bavarian Airlines could only shoot for business travelers which want to go from MUC to FRA, BER etc. for a day-trip and for leisure traveler. Not too much to gain here I think.

But there is another doubt I have: the airlines wants to fly with leased E195E2, getting their first of planned twelve plane(s) this year. Now I tell you something: there is no chance Bavarian Airlines will get a E195E2 this year unless other customers jump from Embraers customer list! I even doubt that Embraer will fulfill their delivery commitments they gave to their existing customers (Porter for example wants to have their full first batch of 30 aircraft until the end of this year.

So for now I take Bavarian Airlines as a very early April fools joke!

And I can only wonder why there are so many press articles out there (especially in the german press) which are reporting the airlines and their CEO's plans without any critical question!

 

Boeing's big gamble

A recent article by Bloomberg about the new composite wing that could replace the current wing on the A320neo, a project called “The Wing of Tomorrow” by Airbus, spurred some discussions about the future Airbus narrowbody product line and how Boeing would/could react.

The subject, as Scott Hamilton writes, is not new at all. I heard about it in 2013 for the first time. Airbus at that time thought that Bombardier would launch a CS500 (today discussed as the A220-500) and thought that the CS300 was about 5% better in economics than even advertised by Bombardier to customers. This gives us a first indication of how good an A220-500 could be, as the A220-300 has at least the same costs per seat than the A320neo, if not better. A stretched aircraft always tends to have better seat costs than the original one, so the A220-500 has better seat mile costs than the A320neo “by definition”.

If the A220-500 it would be an A320neo and B737-8 killer, as Scott Hamilton thinks, is another question though and depends on how the A220-500 exactly would look like and what the mission is an airline is looking for.

Start with the current payload-range diagrams of the A320neo and the A220-300.

Looking at the payload-range diagram we see that indeed with 165 x 220lbs per passenger = 33klbs of payload the range is in the 3400nm range.

The payload-range diagram of the A220-300 is not yet updated by Airbus (at least not for the “flying public”) and still shows around 3100nm range with 140 passengers and 149000lbf MTOW. If we believe in the Airbus claim that with the new MTOW of 156000lb range would be 3550nm we get the new range-payload line approximately as a parallel line to the old one. Now let us seat 165 in that aircraft (knowing that it would not work of course) and we see that range would fall to around 3000nm by the addition of the extra 25 passengers of payload.

To seat these 25 passenger we would need to stretch the aircraft by five rows of about 4m of 13ft. This is about the same difference in length than between the A220-100 and the A220-300.

For simplicity, let us consider that the difference in OEW between the A220-300 and a potential A220-500 with unchanged MTOW would be same as the difference between the OEW of the A22-100 and the A220-300: 4100lb. Then we would get a range of the stretched A220-500 aircraft of around 2500nm.

On one hand, this is enough for probably around 95% of all flight a A320neo of a B737-8 is used for today. On the other hand, flexibility is key for many airlines, so the limited range of an A220-500 would be a problem for many airlines.

Now we can increase the MTOW of the A220-500 to increase range.

Start with a comparison of the wing loading: the A220 wing has 112.3 square meter, the A320neo 122.6. To get to same wing loading we could increase the MTOW of the A220-500 by about 3500lb. This would increase the range by approximately 300nm to about 2800nm. The original CS300 was advertised with this range. With the same wing loading and the same generation of engines, especially with a bypass ratio that is in the same range, runway characteristics should be comparable as well then.

So would the A220-500 be a A320neo and B737-8 killer? If you definitely do not need more range than 2800nm it could be.

For Airbus, with their “Wing of Tomorrow”, this would not be such a big problem. They could do the A320.5neo++ (or whatever it will be called). For Boeing, not having a competitive product against the A220-100 and -300 to begin with, the A220-500, together with a A320.5, could turn into a bigger problem. Both aircraft would squeeze the B737-8 from both above and below, the A320.5 with better range and economics and the A220-500 with dramatically better economics.

But the ball is in Boeings court. As it looks, they have to move first, either with an aircraft that aims at the so called Middle of the Market, that is now captured by the A321XLR, but leaving the B737-8 alone. Or by replacing the MAX family soon, which could counter an A220-500 on the low end but leaving the A321XLR and even more a potential A322 alone on the playground.

Canceling the joint venture with Embraer could have been a big failure going forward, as “Boeing Brazil” could have worked on the lower end of the narrowbody product line.

Disclaimer: these thoughts are just easy considerations without going through all the (engineering) steps necessary. But it gives us a hint where the different aircraft are relative to each other.

5X – what 5X?

During the last weeks Aviation Week had a few articles (here and here) about an alleged new Boeing widebody aircraft code-named -5X. More or less a NMA reloaded, this aircraft would be targeting the A330neo family, but in turn as well the 787-8/9.

Stop –say what? The 787 is right now not selling like hot cakes, but the A330neo not as well and the main reason is COVID-19, although also without the pandemic both aircraft would see lower production rates today than until 2019. So where is the point in developing a new aircraft there? The NMA, which was not able to produce a business case for Boeing, was shelved and was probably almost the same aircraft. Part of the problem back then was that the engine companies did not see the market as attractive as Boeing (officially) did and both CFMI and P&WA only wanted to develop an engine as a sole source.

So where is the reason to believe that now, two years later, it actually looks better for an aircraft like this?

The only thing Boeing should concentrate on is a new Single Aisle aircraft family! If Boeing would start an aircraft like -5X now with an EIS not before 2027, themselves as well as the engine companies would not have the resources to be able to counter an A320neo++ family with a new wing and engines that will then get a performance improvement package from the -5X engine(s). Also, as Scott Hamilton from Leeham writes today, the A220-500 is only a question of when, not if. So the lower end of the B737MAX would get increasing pressure once the - 500 is on the market. The B737MAX would be dead then, "killed" from the A220-550 from the lower end and from the A320neo++ and A321neo++ from the upper end – and in turn BCA would be dead!

But is it possible to design an aircraft family that can compete with the A220-500 on the lower end and a future (possible) A322? No, but the Airbus narrowbody aircraft family has two wings, two fuselages and different engines as well. So a clever scaling of the fuselage and the wings could do the trick for Boeing. Starting with the larger (6 abreast) family, starting just north of today's 737MAX-8 up to a A322 sized aircraft. After that scaling fuselage and wings down to a 5 abreast aircraft with a second or third generation of the PW1500G for example.

Just my 2 cents of course - but I see less than these 2 cents of value in a -5X! 

GE and the Geared Turbofan

There was quite a lot of hype in the last days around a story, first reported by Bloomberg, saying that GE talked with Airbus about a new engine for “a narrow-body jetliner in development”. In the article (and many that followed that first story) there is a lot of speculation about the aircraft: If it would be a successor of today's A320, a future stretched variant of the A220 or if that aircraft would in the end be the ZERO E (E for Emissions) aircraft announced by Airbus in September and the engine GE and Airbus discuss here would be an engine that would be used for that aircraft until a ZERO E engine (technology) would be available.

To make it short: this last consideration is – sorry to say it that way – bullshit! Whatever the source of energy of the future ZERO E aircraft would be – hydrogen or electricity comes to mind- the aircraft has to look very different from the design of a jet fuel powered aircraft and it would make no sense at all to hang a Geared Turbofan on an aircraft designed and optimized for zero emissions.

The fact that GE and Airbus talk about a new narrowbody is not a big story in the first place, as there are always discussions between airframers and engine companies about all kinds of possible future projects. But Bloomberg made a lot of noise due to the fact, that the design proposed by GE would be a geared turbofan, which is the engine design that today only Pratt & Whitney uses. GE always more or less dismissed the geared design in public because of the added complexity of the gear. Rolls Royce began developing their own geared engine concept called Ultrafan a few years ago.

So does GE not believe in the conventional turbofan anymore?

Not necessarily: believe it or not, but it is not the first time that GE proposes a geared design to an aircraft manufacturer. For the B777X, today's B777-9, GE also pitched a geared design towards Boeing, as did P&W at that time (I believe RR proposed a 3 spool design). But obviously Boeing went down the low-risk path of the GE9X engine, an evolution of the GE90-115B and the GENx engines, although the geared engines would have had a better fuel burn.

For the now (forever?) dormant NMA, Boeings reference engine was a geared turbofan. This makes sense, as at least in the beginning two of the three possible engine provider offered a geared design (P&W and RR), so we can only guess that GE (or CFM) also offered both variants (geared and non-geared) to Boeing. Later RR went out of the discussions as the aimed EIS timing was too early for the UltraFan.

So when today GE talks with Airbus about a geared engine, there is nothing sensational in there. Most likely the geared engine is just one out of two or more designs. And it most likely not more than a paper study, in which P&W and RR are involved as well. It is not more than the usual business of the future concept groups of all parties involved.

So do not expect an announcement of a new aircraft in the near future. Even a stretched A220 (-500) seems not to be on the horizon too soon...