Airbus’ 2021 results; Delivery of record net profit as it exits the pandemic

February 17, 2022, © Leeham News: Airbus presented its results for 2021 today. The company announced record net profits of €4.3bn as it exits the COVID restraints of 2020 and first half 2021.

Airbus’ problem is no longer a depressed market but how to ramp the A320/321 production to capture the demand. It expects to know by mid-year if it can go beyond a planned 65 deliveries per month by 2024.

The strong result came from deliveries of 611 commercial aircraft compared with 566 last year. Guidance for 2022 is 720 airliner deliveries, an operating profit of €5.5bn, and a Free Cash Flow of €3.5bn.

Group-level results

Revenue for 2021 was €52.1bn (€49.9bn 2020), operating profit €4.3bn (called EBIT adjusted, -€1.4bn 2020), and net profit was €4.2bn (-€1.1bn). The results include a €1.1bn writeoff due to COVID impacts on the company. Airbus announced it will pay dividends to its chairholders again.

Free cash flow 2021 was €3.6bn (-€6.9bn including 3.6bn penalty), and the net cash position end 2021 was €7.6bn (2020 €4.3bn).

Guidance for 2021 is now:

  • Airbus targets 720 commercial aircraft deliveries for 2022.
  • Airbus expects an EBIT Adjusted of €5.5bn
  • Free Cash Flow of €3.5bn.

Airbus will worldwide hire 6,000 people during 2022 to manage its production increases. In the analyst call, a net cash position of €10bn by the end of 2022 was seen as probable.

Commercial aircraft

The division had 507 net orders during 2021, with a backlog now at 7,082 aircraft.

Of the 611 deliveries during 2022, 483 was A320/A321 (221 A321), 50 A220, 55 A350, 18 A330 and 5 A380.

Demand for the A320 series is coming back faster than anticipated, and Airbus’ problem is to ramp the production to keep pace. It’s in a dialog with the supply chain to see if it can go beyond 65 deliveries per month after 2023. It expects these talks to give clarity by mid-year.

Airbus is intensifying the work to prepare all FALs for A321 production. The new FAL in place of the A380 production in Toulouse will go live in 2023. The first A321XLR entered the FAL in November 2021 and will be used for flight testing and certification of the variant during 2022, with deliveries starting next year.

The A350 family is experiencing a strong pickup in A350F freighter orders, with Ethiad as the last customer singing an LOI for seven A350F this week.

The rate increase to 14 A220 (10 in Mirabel and four in Mobile) by mid-decade will bring the program to a cash positive position by then.


Helicopters had an order increase with 55% in a recovering market. Revenue increased 4% to €6.5bn (€6.3bn) and EBIT 18% to €0.54bn (€0.46bn).

Defense and Space

Revenues were slightly down at €10.2bn (€10.5bn) with EBIT at €0.57bn (€0.41bn).

Eight A440M were delivered in 2021. The losses in the program are now in the low hundreds of millions, on the way down.

105 Comments on “Airbus’ 2021 results; Delivery of record net profit as it exits the pandemic

  1. Taking certification, production issues, backlog, portfolio and development potential into account, the duopoly balance is gone.

    Deep down we knew this already. Both Airbus and Boeing have been downplaying it for different reasons..

    • Perfect timing for another player to step in and take the place of BA — which is teetering on the brink of extinction.
      Richard Aboulafia speculated about this just last week.
      Coincidentally, the Russians have just certified the MC-21-300, and COMAC is still aiming for C919 certification in 2022. Work on the CR929 seems to be progressing smoothly. Indonesia is about to green-light use of the ARJ-21 for use by TransNusa.

      The sun is indeed setting in the west and rising in the east.

    • Your comments are absolute rubbish!!
      How you allowed to spew out your obvious bias based comments is beyond belief..
      Should also enact the Bryce factor!!
      Limit ones posts to 5 max..
      Instead of having you take up half of the space with your meaningless dribble..
      Guess being outsold last year left a foul taste in your mouth..
      Even with all the C-series orders thrown in as well.
      AB still cane up short!!
      Not bad for a company on the brink!!!

      • Shoot the messenger because you don’t like the message…that’s fresh 😏

        Looks like AB’s 2021 financial results have put someone into a VERY bad mood.

  2. “Defense and Space: Revenues were slightly down at €10.2bn (€10.5bn) with EBIT at €0.57bn (€0.41bn).”

    Don’t worry: that will change when the USAF selects the LMXT 😉

  3. It is interesting to analyse what would have happened to Airbuses profit and growth had MCAS been implemented correctly the first time. How much of Airbus’s gain is due to Boeings tragic mistake.

    • That scenario still wouldn’t compensate for the success of the A321neo/LR/XLR and A220, and for the mess of the 787, KC-46A, and 777X.

    • Some but Airbus was gaining sales percentage before the MAX crashes.

      Only reason not as much market share was limitation of mfg where both were making about the same numbers (when the end of the year shutdown is taken into account)

      Now, Boeing went to nothing delivered and Airbus kept rolling and always good sales in the A321 area Boeing never had a match for.

    • ” tragic mistake” ?

      They have been working hard on those 🙂
      that is not what I would tag “tragic”.

      Then where do you see the transfer?
      What I see is :
      Boeing rather carefully _burned_ a lot of everything.

      2+ decades back Airbus was alleged to have unfairly poached from Boeing market share. AFAIR: WTO findings from that time frame noted that it was exclusively self affliction shared between the US manufacturers.

    • Has BA taken a fundamental analysis of what happened? Nope.

      It’s almost as if BA considers business as usual.

    • Why stop there?

      It is interesting to analyse (sic) what would have happened to Airbuses profit and growth had :

      1) The 787 was done properly, back in the day – and new builds weren’t grounded for a year and BA didn’t have to write off $3.5 billion and counting

      2) The 777X was done properly and in a timely fashion and BA didn’t have to write off $6.5 billion

      3) The 767 tanker was done properly – heck, what if Airbus won the tanker contract and BA didn’t lose it’s shirt on the project

      4) The space program was done properly and they didn’t have to roll rockets out to the pad and back, stack and re-stack things, fix rusty valves and lose money there

      5) Boeing embraced the C-Series, instead of shunning it and trying to use the Trump admin to kill it – effectively pushing it into the waiting arms of Airbus. Then Airbus would have had the scrambling abortion of an attempt at a tie-up with Embraer and that mess to deal with and Boeing would have an extra 750 orders on it’s books.

      6) Boeing not spent $43 billion on stock buybacks, then when the troubles hit (like the pandemic) they wouldn’t have had to go into some $60 billion of long term debt and put themselves into a death spiral

      If, if, if…

      Coulda, shoulda – didn’t.

      It’s like those morose guys at a bar, after a few libations, lamenting to anyone who’ll listen:

      “If I just would have done this, then everything would have worked out…”

      • Frank:

        While the KC-46A has cost Boeing, its not the major hit the MAX was (something around 20 billion)

        Also the 787 at (22 billion still on the books last count?) nor its current grounding (not sure how that plays out, its a loss but a lot recovered)

        777X? Phew. With Covid the delay might be a good thing.

        Tentatively there looks to be a major recovery occurring in Pax traffic and with some sustainment (fingers crossed) then fleets will assess the A350 vs the 777X and we will begin to get some idea on viability.

        So Boeing really rules the smallest wide body segment, Airbus has a lock on the middle and the upper is in flux. So in wide body there is still a duopoly.

        The 929 will follow the 919 into obscurity. If China can’t pull off a government program two dictators running the show is a match made in hell. The 919 almost makes the 787 program look good!

        • Nevertheless BA had to write off more than six billion cost of 777X (TW: it’s billion with a b) in 2020.


        • TW

          Program accounting spreads the costs (non-production) over the life of the expected accounting block. If BA wrote off $3.5 billion, it means they are not going to be able to recover that money. Same with the 777X and $6.5 billion. Same with the 767 tanker. Same with the 747-8. I haven’t looked at the DPB lately on the 787/777X to see what it is and the guys on the financial website have done an analysis yet. But the thought process is that when you take a charge, the remaining order book can clear the balance, but you don’t cover the write off.

          However, a loss, is a loss, is a loss.

          What use is it, to ‘rule’ a segment – if you don’t, at the very least, break even? Everybody claims, this is a two horse race – if you can get the other guy to use resources (in this instant – cashola) to cover the losses in other programs, guess what happens? That’s less resources that can be used, say…in developing a new narrowbody to compete with your A321/A220 line.

          Let’s leave the A330Ceo out of the equation for a second, but let’s say that at the end of the production run of the 787 and A330 Neo, BA has made 1500 units and lost $3.5 billion and Airbus has made 400 units, but has broken even.

          Who’s the winner? If you had the choice of being the owner of either program, which would you choose?

          Remember SDI? Star Wars? The US never launched it, but made enough noise about it to cause the USSR to spend a ton of money, which was a factor in eventually bankrupting them and got things changed .

          “In 1986 Carl Sagan summarized what he heard Soviet commentators were saying about SDI, with a common argument being that it was equivalent to starting an economic war through a defensive arms race to further cripple the Soviet economy with extra military spending,”

          It’s akin to driving up the price in an auction, just to make the other guy pay more.

          With wins like these, who needs losses?

          Anyways, the previous comment was directed at the OP, with his wishful thinking about what would happen in an alternate universe if things had been different at Boeing. I guess he’s a big Marvel fan…

      • MCAS is something it could have done right and should have done right. It was a relatively trivial fix. There were several improvements. The most prominent was the use of two sensors, a sensor disagree alert on the artificial horizon displays and retriggering MCAS only once per trigger cross over event instead of every 20 seconds. Just the last one (one trigger per cross over) would have been enough to save both flights.

        The rest of the losses are the kind that result from undertaking complex programs.

  4. It will be a treat to see the A220 go cash positive.

    Helps when you were smart to take advantage of the fire sale. Great deal but a lot to invest to get it on track as well.

    It would be neat to get a flight with an A220 to see from the inside, from the outside in person, its even better looking and impressive than the pictures and it is photogenic to start with.

    • AB tells suppliers to cut prices in double-digit percentage. AB has a plan and working it thru.

      When will BA’s MAX turn profit again? How about the 787?? And how about the 6.5 billion written off for the 777X? Will BA ever be able to recoup them???

      • You can easily pizz-off suppliers with price cut demands without working together and make sure they get volume enough to make a profit from investing in new production technology and both make money from the exercise.

        • Nope. You forgot lower prices from suppliers in return for higher volume has been AB’s strategy (same as the A320/321’s continously ramp up). AB also invests $900m.

          If suppliers no longer make any money, they won’t participate, don’t you think??

          • Suppliers want to participate in Success.
            ( Boeing has tainted the “Partner” tag quite a bit in recent decades.)

          • Fleeced by PFS, that’s why suppliers/contractors bulk up to fight back where they can, leaving small/medium size firms vulnerable.

          • Pedro:

            You continue to insist the A220 is a normal Airbus program and its not.

            The suppliers have a long term lock on pricing and sourcing. BBD had to give a lot away to get that support.

            Airbus can get deals, but they have to offer something to do so.

            So if the supplier can get a firm commitment to other Airbus programs with a guaranteed profit ala the A220 prices, then yes.

            But Airbus can’t work the suppliers in this case the way they can a from the start Airbus program.

          • @TW

            What some (Americans?) fail to understand is

            ” [a]n aviation program is something that must be judged over 20 or 25 years”.

            A focus on quarterly profit and FCF sank the whole industry.

    • Nice airliner, got recently a flight on Air Baltic. Quiet, spacious.
      Some curious loud noises on takeoff and landing (likely hydraulic pumps).
      Some noise at the spinoff of the GTF (few seconds, guess nobody else noted that around me).
      Waiting for a cheaper, better, new wing to be a real success.
      The order of qualities is not casual.

      • “Waiting for a cheaper, better, new wing to be a real success (A220)”


      • Really!
        Cheaper to get the A220 “cash positive”.
        Better because with the new “design for manufacturing” as per WoT program you can also add some % efficiency to get an extra edge on competitors.
        New because that is WoT (Wing of tomorrow).

        • IIRC – the A-220/C-Series already has a plastic wing. Remember, BBD had this program before and invested into it:

          The composite wings are manufactured and assembled at a purpose built factory at the Bombardier Aerostructures and Engineering Services (BAES) site in Belfast, Northern Ireland.[120

          The Wing of Tomorrow, is already flying today, on the A-220

          • I think the “blade’ wing of tomorrow is true laminar flow. It uses a sort of bottom retracting slat to keep insect damage of the leading edge and secrets a detergent to keep the wing clean.

        • The wing of A220 is CFRP but the manufacturing has a lot of labor touch.
          The answer is to rethink and retool the existing factory with the technology developed for WoT.

          • Its easy to say change the wing, but you have sunk costs the mfg of said wing has to recover.

            Are you really going to add 4 billion or so to the program that is in the red (even given away as it was) to those costs?

            Do the math. Take the cost of the so called WOT from the existing wing (including all the investment for production) from the current wing build costs (production tooling is paid for)

            You wind up in major negative numbers.

            Then figure out how long or how many aircraft it takes to recover from the negative as well as close to zero performance improvement.

            So no, you make existing as efficient as possible (or the wing mfg does because they get more profit from their fixed pricing)

            The WOT only applies to the A321 future bird (or a new bird)

          • TW:

            You forget AB is CF positive and had record net profits last year (even though WB market was suffering), unlike hmm its major competitor. It also continue to invest in R&D, didn’t take any massive layoffs and able to continue production without any pause, unlike that *”sinking ship”*.

      • There will not be a new wing for the A220. The A220 wing is already very modern. It is a resin infusion in autoclave process built in just 4 pieces – top. bottom, front spar, back spar. Dry fabric is machine cut and then hand placed. stringers are molded at the same time as the skin using special tooling.

        I’m sure there is still learning going on and perhaps some room for automation but there is no way the existing wing will be scrapped. If Airbus needs to build wings faster they will just add more auto-claves and molds. As an aside, I suspect the post-molding assembly and systems installation takes much longer than the molding of the major pieces. This is a pretty interesting video of the wing and the process.

        Finally, the “wing of tomorrow” is not finished design or even prototype. It is a R&D project proving out various concepts.

          • We can take part in verbal jujitsu, but it is not a prototype in the sense of being the first in a series. Rather it is a R&D exercise mimicking a hypothetical wing proving out new engineering concepts.

            “The program involves testing the latest composite materials and new technologies in aerodynamics and wing architecture, and explores how wing manufacturing and industrialization can be improved to meet future market demands as the aerospace sector emerges from the pandemic.”

            This is Airbus trying to understand how they want to build their next wing.

          • You might see it as a hypothetical wing, nonetheless, AB has a definitive timeline to put it into production, and it know what plane will be the first application.

        • Rethink and retool the existing factory.
          With cheaper tools and automatic laydown of layers.
          It would be also a fantastic proof of concept and experience to start the work for a completely new factory for the new A320 wings, launch 2026 EIS 2030.
          And yes, the WoT exist.

          • Airbus would have to pay for it, that is not an Airbus mfg making that wing.

            They have contracts in place.

            It ain’t happening. The -500 would be the next priority

          • @TW:

            Did BA pay suppliers to join PFS?? LOL.
            AB have new contracts ready for higher volume, replacing the current ones.

            This is how the “real world” works.

          • TW: “Airbus would have to pay for it, that is not an Airbus mfg making that wing.”
            Spirit is the new owner of the Belfast factory; they are one of the biggest part of WoT program (and they joined in 2018, three years after the launch of the program).
            They are ready to invest in the factory if the production goes up.
            And something everybody here is missing: the new production method will be far cheaper! That’s why the WoT program was launched seven years ago (seven years ago!!!).

          • Pedro:

            No, its not.

            If there is a firm contract in place, which there is for A220 bits and pieces, then you cannot unilaterally change that.

            Severe penalties and you still have to buy what you agreed to.

            When you are the sole source and the contract states that, you have no where to go.

            Airbus is not in the drivers (pilots) seat.

            The mfgs will be willing to discuss and take offsets for other contracts but they can ensure profits on the other contracts and those contract will be binding as well.

            Airbus is not stupid and you have not seen it show up, they are quietly working on what and where they can.

            Boeing was ham handed at best and has incurred major costs when they dumped the gear mfg for the 777X.

            As there are no new Airbus programs in the works they can’t threaten anyone with not allowing them to bid on those future possibles.

            Mfgs are not stupid either and will work out a good deal.

          • @TW

            Suppliers are smart, they want to partner with a rising star, not stuck on a sinking boat. 😜

            Continue your fight against the windmill with your exhausted horse!

          • TW

            -> They have contracts in place.

            See Spirit’s SEC filings and count how many contract amendments between Spirit and BA that are material enough for immediate disclosure.

            This is how businesses are run in the real world.

    • Good chance many will get that ride on The A220. JetBlue just upped it’s firm orders to 100, Delta should have about that, Breeze, Air Canada flies them. Total firm orders approaching 800 before too long.

  5. Boeing desperately needs a replacement for the Max if they want to stay competitive.
    Upper management has been focused on playing with the gush of free money coming from the Fed. with quantitative easing that they have neglected their primary business of designing and building airplanes. To be fair, the entire US manufacturing segment has done the same thing.
    They need a shortcut, perhaps buying the MC-21 design and developing it for the Western market.

    • Who says the MC-21 design is for sale?
      And what US Admin would tolerate BA becoming a “local rep” for a Russian aerospace company?

      Greenland wasn’t for sale, either 😏

    • There is no ‘Free’ money coming from the Fed for Boeing.

      yes a small amount of bonds ( must be repaid incl interest hence not free) that Boeing issued that the Fed bought. But its small compared to total amount of Boeings outstanding bonds and was inline with Feds purchases of other blue chip industrials bonds

      • -> There is no ‘Free’ money coming from the Fed for Boeing.

        The issue is the Fed flooded the mkt with free money, and people used the free money to buy debts of companies in precarious fin. position like BA.

        • And now the Fed is reversing that action, and that’s having the reverse effect — the easy money is gone, the mass bond buying is stagnating, and equity investors are becoming far more choosy.
          Investors are now looking for quality companies with solid revenue and strong pricing power.

    • The MAX is selling fine now that things are recovering. There is not a lot of innovation possible at this point. The B737 is a highly refined optimised airframe. I do see the PW 1100G evolving to such an degree it will give the A321 series a big advantage. Options for boeing are
      1 The more radical modifications of the B737 that give a taller undercarriage and allow larger engines.
      2 A Aluminium Lithium Airframe 6 across seating with a plastic wing. (Essentially B777-X tech and the same as used in the A220 “C” series)
      3 A Aluminium Lithium Airframe 5 across seating with a plastic wing.
      4 The Flattened Ovoid NMA slightly bigger than the A321 and capable of higher speeds and practical range. (MIght be quite revolutionary)
      5 Truss winged airliner read for RISE

      Boeing might need to enter the 5 seat abreast market it abandoned when it discontinued the B717.

      The NMA and Truss wing are the only aircraft that Airbus cant respond to with just an improved A320 or a streched A220-500.

      • “The MAX is selling fine now that things are recovering.”

        Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.
        In 2021, there were 749 MAX orders, but 374 MAX cancellations.
        Most of the orders were concentrated in a series of bumper “fire sale” moves at the start of the year; thereafter, things got considerably quieter. At the 2021 Dubai airshow, AB outsold BA 4-to-1, and the only MAX order was a 72-unit deal from Indian Startup LCC Akasa.
        At the 2022 Singapore Airshow, the current order tally is zero for BA and 37 for AB, of which 30 A220s.

        • -The B737 MAX versus A32x neo backlog is respectively about 6000 versus 7500. Last year both makers sold just over 500 aircraft. The MAX is selling well enough to keep Boeing busy. When the B737-10 enters service, probably 2013, Boeing will have something to take on the A321neo. Yes Airbus will win but by what margin? 5% to 45% market share? (not counting A220)
          -The time for Boeing to launch an aircraft will probably be late 2014 or to mid 2015. The B737-10 will be in service for over a year and the B777-9 for about 6 months. That will give Boeing engineering resources to take on a new program. It will also give it revenue from B737, B787 and B777.

          • What? 6000 Max’s? You, uh – got a source for that?

            Meanwhile, in the real world, and right off the Boeing website (which would kinda be straight from the horses mouth)


            4,162 (less ASC 606) – 721 = 3441.

            The whole blasted backlog of ALL aircraft is 5,179 less 863 for a total of 4,316.

            as of Jan 31, 2022

            Reading some of your posts, it is obvious that you are given to exaggeration. You’ve mentioned it yourself. But this isn’t even close…

            It isn’t Youtube, in here. There are airplane guys who know their stuff and you will get called out. If you’re gonna bullshit, make it good BS. This is laughable…

          • Time to ignore those who never cease to spread mis-information/live in alternate universe

          • William:

            Amazingly charitable to call the MAX highly refined.

            Boeing engineers pulled a lot of rabbits out of the hat, far less refined than simple fact aerodynamics for a tube setup has no real advances.

            The issues is while the MAX competes fine with the A320, it does not vs the A321 and if you want a dual package or just A321, you have no where to go but Airbus.

            Airbus has options (A220) and A321 and or new wing, Boeing does not

          • As you are pretty certain that the MAX 10 would be certified by … what … 2023, tell us why BA failed to meet its own estimate to certify the MAX 7 by mid-2021.

            Oh BTW BA had on various occasions talked about restarting the delivery of 787 and failed.

            For the deluded or fiction writer, they don’t matter.

        • The MAX is selling so “well” but BA has a hole in it’s product lineup; UAL has to order A321 in addition to its massive MAX order; many in the industry believe BA *must* launch a new program to cover the hole and a variant to replace both the MAX 9 and 10 in a decade or so. 🤣

      • The MAX can evolve for another generation? Can its out-of-date fuselage do more (which happens not to meet current safeties)??

        Paper planes easy in imagination, better stay in imagination.

      • -> “Boeing missed with 747-8I and, it appears so far, with 777X”

        Nevermind, another derivative program would be a massive success, according to some.

  6. I can see Raytheon, Boeing, Spirit board members and Government getting around the table and discuss long term US civil aerospace. And Calhoun being asked to talk facts & stay low.

  7. The Airbus/Qatar battle continues to degenerate:
    “Qatar Airways to Challenge Airbus A321 Cancellation in Court”

    “(Bloomberg) — Qatar Airways plans to fight the cancellation of an aircraft order by planemaker Airbus SE in court, the latest escalation of an acrimonious dispute.

    “The Middle East airline asked the court for an injunction to stop Airbus from trying to cancel the contracts because it will “severely affect” the airline and is “misguided and legally invalid,” according to documents prepared by Qatar’s lawyers for a London hearing on Friday.

    ““My clients have been in the queue now for four years,” Philip Shepherd, Qatar’s lawyer, said in court. “It’s only on January 17 that this changed.”

    “Airbus has said it’s within the company’s rights to scrap the order due to a “cross-default” clause in the contract. ”


    Poor AAB is “severely affected”…looks like he bit off more than he could chew.

    • Qatar is crying cause they want the A321’s, but have an MoU for 50 – 737’s…just in case.

      How do you think BA feels at this point.

      Translation: We really want to date this girl, but if she dumps us because we’re such an a$$hole…well, we’ll give you a shot….sigh

      • Continuing your analogy, and if Scott will permit:
        In this instance, BA is a hooker who is happy with any dollar available — regardless of who’s offering it 😉

  8. Kindly notice that the article mentions huidance for 2021. It should be corrected to read 2022.

    • Airbus does not own any engine mfg.

      They are now stuck with RR, and the never ending Trent series, ungh.

      • Gosh, I was under the impression that the A320 family uses engines from PW and CFM, and the A330ceo (e.g. MRTT) even has 3 engine choices.

        Furthermore: the reference to “engine wake” wasn’t intended literally 🙄

      • Tell the one who wrote the title. 😉
        Can’t it be engine on AB’s plane??

        Miss the forest for the trees? 😂

      • > Airbus does not own [own ?] any engine mfg.
        They are now stuck with RR, and the never ending Trent series, ungh. <

        Interesting comment- thanks.

  9. Interesting point made, over here at Skiesmag today, talking about the A220. Not sure if there is a backup source for it, but:

    “From the latter half of 2021 to date, four airlines have received their first A220s — the first being Air France. The French flag carrier received its first A220-300 on Sept. 29, 2021, and took delivery of its sixth example on Dec. 20. In addition to 60 firm orders for the type, Air France holds options for another 30 units and purchase rights for an additional 30 aircraft. Fifteen aircraft are slated to arrive during 2022 alone. The airline says that the A220 will ultimately make up close to 60 percent of its medium-haul fleet, alongside its remaining A320s and A321s.”

    Point I am referencing is the AF and 60% of it’s medium- haul fleet. I guess he also means part of it’s med/short haul fleet.

    Here’s the current fleet at planespotters:

    They have no Neo’s on order, and their 320’s avg 12 years old and the 321’s avg almost 20 years old.

    No slots at Airbus for 5 years in the Neo family, so they couldn’t get some Neo’s if they wanted – with options for another 60-A220’s, that’s 120 total.

    Those options are for the A220-500, most likely.

    Air France is gonna eventually dump everything A320 from it’s fleet and exclusively fly the A220, aren’t they? This is a legacy carrier, dumping it’s entire A320 family – for the little plane from Canada.

    I wonder if there are other candidates to do this, out there…

    • I have no doubt the coming A220-500 also impacts QF & KLM’s decision to switch.

      ” I like to hear questions on the stretch to the A220 because the -500 will be a very good version of the A220″


      BA’s product lineup will be severely challenged, not only because of the hole in its product lineup. The future of the MAX (including the MAX 8) looks dim.

    • The A220-500 seems a useful A320 replacement intra Europe.

      Still smaller in single class than A320 and no container options.

      The gap in payload- range between an A220-500 and the A321s is large though.

      • I don’t see the need to have the A220 anywhere close to the A321.

        Operators are looking for more range from the A220 though.

  10. -> The A220 is primarily used out of JetBlue’s base at Boston Logan Airport (BOS). This month, it operates primarily to the southeastern U.S, Florida and some mid-continent routes — including four cities in Texas.

    By this summer, JetBlue plans use the A220 on transcontinental routes, including on its first-ever service to Canada. Flights to Vancouver International (YVR) begin on June 9.

    Revised delivery schedule

  11. Regarding Boeing 787 fuselage QC, this was an interesting quote from July 2018:

    “..Sanchez notes that Spirit has been working on Section 41 fabrication — either developmentally or in actual production — for almost a decade. Any bugs, kinks and idiosyncrasies that might have existed were long ago identified and worked out..”

    from Composites World, July 2018.

    Will deliveries of Boeing 787s- presently delayed by QC issues- resume soon ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *