There is currently no demand for either Airbus or Boeing to replace their current small NB option. The airlines want a revolutionary technology, not an evolutionary technology. The limiting factor right now is primarily the engine technology. The new C-Series uses a geared turbo fan, which, while advanced, does not meet the demand to reduce fuel burn, noise, and environmental impact enough to justify Boeing and Airbus creating a new aircraft for the engine technology. Why else would P&W say the following (the bold is mine):
FlightGlobal.com
“Saia (Bob Saia, P&W vice-president next-generation product family) says for the GTF's full benefits to be achieved, the fan diameter would need to be larger than those of the incumbent engines on any given airframe, which could compromise the re-engined aircraft's performance if it cannot be accommodated. "You have to look at it from the airplane perspective and whether the engine would be optimum if you've got to limit the fan diameter to make it fit," he says.
So beyond the CSeries and MRJ, P&W's goal is to find its way on to narrowbody replacement aircraft from Airbus and Boeing at the end of the decade. With that in mind, and the threat of advanced powerplants from GE and R-R, Saia says P&W is already well on its way to defining an "advanced GTF" design that should deliver another 8-10% improvement in fuel burn. A full-scale demonstrator should take to the air in "late 2012-13", he adds.
As you can see, P&W believes that even for the current technology GTF to work, it has to have a larger fan diameter than that of the current 737 and A-320 engines. Do you think the C-Series can do that, given that its
smaller than current Boeing and Airbus offerings? Of course not - the C-Series is doing
exactly what P&W brings up as 'what not to do', "limit the fan diameter to make it fit". Not to mention that a GTF has only flown on 2 aircraft, the 747 and the A-340 – not exactly similar in size to the C-Series application.
In short, Bombardier is hanging a ‘mini’ GTF on the wing, one that they acknowledge needs to have a 10% fuel burn improvement even @ full size to really be considered as the next generation NB engine.
Furthermore, the C-Series is composed of 46% composites and 24% aluminum lithium. While both the 787 and A-350 will have even higher composite content, the ability for composites to withstand the demands of increased cycles is unknown, and the 787 will be the test bed. The C-Series will already be set in design as a 'composite' aircraft before the lessons learned from the 787 are known - that's an awfully big gamble.
Flightglobal.com
“On the smaller end of the aircraft spectrum, narrowbody replacement appears to be pushed out beyond the next decade as robust build rates and backlogs on the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 continue, though the material of such a replacement for Airbus and Boeing remains undefined. The manufacturers have each discussed openly that the benefits of composite technology in low-cycle long-haul operations may not carry over to high-cycle short-haul operations.”
The C Series is far from replacing the 73 or 320 series in any mainline operations or being seen as a direct competitor to the next generation NB, but will hopefully be flown @ the same rates as other similar sized aircraft, be it @ mainline or regionals.
Why not fly it @ the regionals if the regionals can secure the same pay, work rules, and benefits for he aircraft as current mainline? The argument should not be 'hope the regionals don't get it', but rather, 'hope whoever gets it flies it for a good package, rather than a substandard one'. If you must be a 'mainline pilot group' to have the self-respect and fortitude to secure a good package to fly this, then yeah, let's keep it @ mainline.