Good insight.

Eh. UA is saying it's pulling its 145s from EWR because it's trying to get business travelers from small cities to fly to EWR instead of LGA. It'll realize that won't work, and then it'll back out of that statement.

AA is pulling their 50-seaters from NYC because it's giving up on NYC. Totally different.

And most of those SINGLE CLASS 50 seaters are being replaced by the 550/170/175 or even 319/737-7.

I predict more and more A220-100 and A220-300 will be in the works for more and more airlines. The jump from 76 seats to much bigger (like the 160 seat B737-800) seems like too big a jump.

I don’t see Airbus pushing to sell more new A319 while those lines are filled with A321 orders and B737-700 are not being sold with the -800 and Max being pushed (I take the long view that Maxs will be accepted again).

The A319 and B737-700 that are flying are aging out. A 100 seat and 120 seat option just seems to fit a need between 76 and 160.

I think you thinking in the right direction and will add that we should start seeing I orders of the E195 too

KLM’s E2 is beautiful

https://www.klm.com/travel/us_en/pre...aer_195_e2.htm

That's a nice aircraft.

It's pretty, but Embraer probably tanked its midsize viability stateside with the E190's abysmal reliability.

No middle seats, a big win, why on earth did the CSeries go with a middle seat?

Because the DC-9 / MD-80 had a 2-3 seating configuration. Although a clean sheet design, they went with that size fuselage.

It also helps fuel efficiency for that seating, as well as baggage capacity. Think about a 1-1 seating configuration 50 seats long. Think about a 5-5 seating configuration 10 seats long (both for 100 seats). Both extremes are inefficient. There is a sweet spot in between.

Dispatch reliability:
E1 E170 / E175: 99.8%
E1 E190 / E195: 99.4%
E2 E190: 99.9%
Expected is 99.7%

Reliability and maintenance costs have substantially decreased with the E2’s.