Hello All, The Airbus A220 is a clean-sheet design from the 2010s, while the A320 is from the 1980s and the 737 from the 1960s. Passenger comfort is excellent in the five-abreast configuration. Airbus is in the process of...
Hello All,
The Airbus A220 is a clean-sheet design from the 2010s, while the A320 is from the 1980s and the 737 from the 1960s. Passenger comfort is excellent in the five-abreast configuration.
Airbus is in the process of ramping up production up to 14 A220s per month by 2026 and pondering the launch of a larger variant, the A220-500. This blog thought it relevant whether the aircraft cross-section could be used as the base to ultimately replace the A320neo family.
Passenger comfort negatively impacts efficiency
A previous post mentioned that the cross-section circumference per passenger is a suitable metric for assessing the overall aircraft’s potential efficiency. The A220 also has the advantage of being circular with a 3.5-meter diameter, facilitating manufacturing.
The cross-section needs to be as efficient as the A320 family. Unfortunately, this is not the case: the circumference per passenger is around 4% higher on the A220 than the A320. Only the Boeing 767 and E-Jet families have less efficient cross-sections than the A220.
Too low capacity limit
One also needs to estimate the maximum potential passenger capacity of an A220. We assume that the fuselage can be stretched up to around the 50-meter length limit for single-aisle gates. The fuselage fineness ratio (length to diameter) then goes slightly above 14, which is a bit higher than the 757-300. It would be challenging but feasible to manufacture.
The passenger capacity of such a stretched A220 would be around 190 passengers, vs. 200 for the A321neo. Given the tendency of airlines to order larger aircraft and the (unstoppable) commercial success of the A321neo, airlines will want an even larger single-aisle for the next generation. If the largest single-aisle capacity is smaller than the A321neo, it is going to be a commercial problem.
Comparing the A220-500 with other aircraft
The two above arguments show that the A220 cross-section is not a viable A320 family replacement. It is less efficient and provides a potential passenger capacity too small for what airlines will likely want in future decades. Once a new single-aisle family is developed the A220 would not be able to compete.
What does the above mean for the launch of a larger A220 variant, the A220-500? It reinforces what this blog wrote a few months ago. It makes sense to develop the A220-500 but Airbus should keep the development simple:
Stretch it to a length that does not require a structural wing and landing gear redesign (a new winglet is ok) and that the A220 GTF engine can handle with a throttle push; No new second engine option that would further increase development costs; Achieve a range around or close to 3,000 nautical miles. It would allow some US transcontinental operations and be more than adequate for intra-Europe or intra-Asia operations.The A220 would serve well the segment below the heart of the market (it is now slightly above the 737-8) for airlines that have enough routes to justify a dedicated fleet.
Below is an updated payload range diagram for mid-sized single-aisle aircraft:
This blog estimates the A220-500 would be close to the A320ceo or 737-800 in payload-range capabilities.