Easy. Air Canada, and that's just off the top of my head. Literally worked with their books when I worked at SeaTac airport.
wow, AC. They must know the answer with that humongous A320NEO order that they made. Oh wait, they never made one. They picked MAX over NEO and only picked XLR because they need a plane like that for TATL markets
But your question is actually a trap, because a specific airline's CASM is not how individual airlines determine new aircraft acquisition. CASM in general is a metric that's much better at assessing the commercial value of existing and prospective routes. It can also serve as a valuable tool to determine whether to order more airplanes of the same type, or as a baseline comparison for acquisition of new aircraft types.
The fundamental questions you should be asking, is if the A220 and A320 market segmentation overlaps, if they do, how do their cost curves (curves not case-by-case fixed numbers like you are asking for) compare, and if they do, which aircraft is better?
I can assure that A220 can serve every route that A320 can serve and serve them better.
I will give you an example, A220 has now been put on BOS-SJC by B6. That's a route they served for many years with A320CEO. Guess what, it just can't make the westbound fly a lot of the times in the winter due to strong wind. Not a problem with A220-300.
A220-300 CASM is a lot lower than A320CEO despite 22 fewer seat
Let's see, DL topped up their A220 order book multiple times
So did Jetblue
So did AirBaltic
Pretty big endorsement all the way around.
Singapore, Qantas, Thai Airways. The NMA needs to have a capacity of 220+, possibly up to or beyond 260. The range should be at least 4,500, with a possible variant looking at beyond 5,500 though I don't believe there is large demand for ranges beyond 4,500. The NMA needs to be a people hauler that can take people medium-long distances.
The details of how that's done is for the engineers to figure out, but there is a need for such a plane. There is a reason why the A321XLR is not more successful. A ground-up airframe is likely needed to address this market segment. There are definitely prospective routes that can be opened up in the West for such a plane, and considering the dynamics in Asia, the need for such a plane is likely even greater.
lol, A321XLR already has over 500 orders before it joined service
that with minimal investment from Airbus. On top of getting additional orders, it incentivizes airlines to order more A321NEO. XLR is a huge winner. Airbus is charging a nice premium on every XLR it sells, because it knows it has a winner on the hand.
There is a reason why I asked you what NMA looks like. Boeing struggled for a long time before giving up on the project because the market size is 4000-5000. Sounds like a lot, except it knows XLR would get a huge fraction of that. More importantly, NMA could never achieve cost advantage vs XLR due to the fact that it has 2 aisles instead of 1. It can't fit in your standard 737/320 sized gates. And it could not achieve fleet flexibility due to the fact that it would not have cost advantage over A321NEO for short routes.
You don't need to have 2 separate seniority lists, support staff and a bunch of other things when introducing XLR on top of your existing A320 fleet. You do have to do that when adding a NMA.
So, let's go by your example, how is TG going to compete against AirAsia on sub 5 hour flights with a twin-aisle aircraft against single aisle aircraft?
As for SG, how many routes out there would you rather have NMA sized aircraft over 787/350 or 737s? Is that going to be large enough to warrant an order?
Again, Boeing looked at this and realized that not many airlines want a separate fleet type for something that can be done by A321 on the bottom and 787 over the top. So it didn't go for it.
Now, if you look at COMAC's business case, it gets even weaker. the largest market needing something like NMA is for TATL airlines, which they don't have access to. So, what's their business case?
And there are definitely airlines that could benefit from a slightly bigger A220-500, but we have to look at why they want such a plane, and whether we can extrapolate it to the market at large.
But anyway, if we want to discuss whether the A220-500 should exist, we shouldn't be looking at which airlines want it. We should be looking at air routes, not airlines.
On the topic of the C919, is there any commentary out there on flight deck ergonomics vis-a-vis the duopoly? Curious if the necessary type rating training also comes with some quality of life improvements for the pilots
btw, airlines don't cares about this
Air France and JetBlue? Or are these Chinese airlines?
there we go, AF and B6 are major ones.
Right now, B6 has need for replacing over 100 A320CEOs. It's economics are horrible by today's standard. It has resisted ordering A320NEO for a reason.
The current NEO lineup is optimized around A321NEO. That's what everyone is getting now. It's only taken this long to launch A220-500 because concerns of cannabilization. However, it's going to move beyond that when enough airlines are banging on the table.
Airbus's case of A320 vs A220 is exactly what COMAC needs to be looking at. C919 will slowly get upsized until it can fly with HD variants of 240 seats. You can't downsize C919 for sub 160 seat market, because it's not optimal. So, you need to have an aircraft optimized for about 120 seat in 2-class layout that can have a stretched version of about 150 seat in HD layout.
I thought the shortened 787 was meant to service this market?
You mean 787-3? There is a reason it didn't sell in the market.
Yeah the GTF is terrible and is literally bankrupting airlines.
COMAC was smart to choose the technically more conservative LEAP engine for the C919.
I mean longer term, GTF is the more efficient engine. It just has more room to grow.
