Insight: Understanding JetBlue’s A220 selection over the E2 |

It has been several years since the airline made its selection. The selection leaked the day before the summer air show at 2018 Farnborough and shocked Embraer. Senior Embraer officials believed they had a deal. Airbus pulled its then-new card and trumped Embraer’s offer. Airbus subsequently played that card, the A220/A321 combo, several times and typically wins. It is a strong hand. It is crucial to understand JetBlue’s A220 selection over the E2. Back to JetBlue and its choice. Embraer sold 60 E190s to JetBlue, and despite some teething issues, the aircraft performed well. The E2 promised over 17% better economics. The E2 showed over 1% better fuel burn than projected during its flight test program. The E190-E2 also offers 600NM more range from hot and high airports like Denver and up to 1,000NM more from London. A crucial data point, one would have thought, for JetBlue was the promise that the E190-E2 offered 10,000 hours between basic checks. All told, the E2’s improvements are substantial for an E190 customer. No new crew training is needed. A “plug and play” situation, right? The top brass at Embraer had every reason to be confident. That Airbus won the order had more to do with JetBlue’s then-existing A320neo order being upgraded to the A321neo. Moreover, the Airbus/JetBlue deal timing was deliberate - it was announced shortly after Airbus closed its deal on the C Series to become the A220. Airbus exploited the news to maximum effect. Airbus wanted a big brand deal ASAP. Let’s look at 2022 numbers from skailark’s excellent data model. First, let’s look at the numbers for JetBlue’s fleet by ASMs. The E190 shows comparatively high costs because it is flown on shorter legs. If we reduce the E190’s costs to what the E2 promised, 17.3% less, we end up at $23.50. We get the following numbers using the same data but focusing on costs per seat rather than ASM. Here we see a very different picture for the E190, especially compared to the A220. The E190 seats significantly fewer passengers than the A220-300. The E190 seats 100 compared to 140 on the A220-300. The E190 has a 9% per-seat cost advantage. It is important to know JetBlue these aircraft quite differently. The A220-300 has a typical stage of 1,200 miles compared to 550 miles for the E190. This helps explain the lower fuel burn for the E190 on a per-seat basis. The A220 flies twice as far and burns 1.6 times as much fuel. The A220 is more fuel efficient than the E190 but serves a different role at JetBlue. Another data point worth noting: the A220 has an ownership financing cost of $6.97 per seat compared to $8.64 per seat for the E190. JetBlue got a great deal on those A220s. Winning that deal was important to Airbus – especially since most of the sales effort had been undertaken by Bombardier. We mentioned the E2’s promising maintenance numbers. JetBlue reports $7 per seat MRO costs for the A220 compared to $17.29 on the E190s. That is a huge gap. But is it fair to compare them since the aircraft perform vastly different missions? Shorter routes incur more wear and tear. Here are comparative numbers for North American operators of these aircraft. Breeze operates stages of 1,000 miles using the A220-300 and 600 miles on the E190s. Like JetBlue, the aircraft are doing very different kinds of work. Where does this leave us? Had JetBlue considered the E2, it should have focused on the E195-E2, not the E190-E2. In terms of the E195-E2, we have very interesting comps. At KLM, the E195-E2 delivers per-seat numbers better than the 737-900ER. Moreover, the per-seat MRO costs are $3.88 vs. $8.94. These numbers justify Embraer’s claims of the E2 offering economics of larger aircraft and excellent MRO costs. Finally, comparing the A220-300 and the E195-E2 numbers, acknowledging different airlines, the E195-E2 looks like a substantially lower-cost aircraft. Indeed, KLM is seeing 2% better economics on a per-seat basis for the E195-E2 over their E190s. Crucially, the E195-E2 delivers 11.6% better fuel burn per seat. Had JetBlue selected the E195-E2, they would likely be getting better per-seat economics than they are getting from their A220-300s. But Airbus seemingly was able to paper over that by offering a cost of ownership on the A321neo at $12.93 per seat and $6.93 per seat on the A220-300. The A321neo is the more important model, given JetBlue’s trans-Atlantic ambitions. Embraer could not have countered. Even if Embraer and Boeing collaborated, they probably could not make a more compelling offer. The A220 likely won the competition because of the A321neo, not because it is inherently a better performer than the E195-E2.

US Flight Planner - US DoT On-Time Data	Airbus vs Boeing - Official OEM Data
US Airline Schedule Performance - US DoT Data	Daily OEM Production & Deliveries -

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

Air France-KLM Beats Estimates, Cuts Capacity

Airbus reports 1H 2026 Financials and Affirms Guidance

JetBlue’s Problem Is Fuel. Everything Else Is Working.