Respectfully, the A220 100/300 are both used extensively in Europe on both short & long/thin flights. For example, Air France uses the A220-300 between CDG and London Heathrow multiple times daily and Swiss uses them between Zurich and Paris 7-8 times per day. In the US, both JB and Breeze use the A220-300 on a mix of shorter and longer/thinner routes while Air Canada uses the A220-300s on short flights from Toronto to both LGA & BOS. I understand that the A220 was designed to fly longer/thinner routes, but it can easily do both - even Delta uses the A220 on shorter flights out of SLC (e.g., Idaho Falls & Spokane). It has better unit economics (CASM) than any 737 version or the A319/20. Compare the operating economics of a Delta A319 vs. an A220-300 and there is NO comparison which is more profitable for Delta.

Clearly a big limiting factor is slow production from Airbus and P&W. The production numbers are pathetic. And you can add Boeing's lawsuit against Airbus soon after the acquisition from Bombardier to force US airlines to have their airplanes finished in Mobile instead of BOTH Mobile & Montreal. Why? Because Boeing can't compete and they had to make it a trade issue.

Regardless, if Ed is sincerely interested in improving the inflight experience for business travelers, the 717 will need an interior upgrade. Either that or start rotating more A220s through ATL to serve more business markets. I talk to business travelers in the Dallas area who love the A220 for flights to LGA & BOS.

Still hope that Airbus makes the decision to build the extended A220-500 and announces it at the next big air show this summer (Farnborough or Paris Air Show). Every A220 operator has expressed interest in the A220-500 including Delta, AC, Air France, JB and Breeze. No doubt it would take years to be delivered, but the economics would be very attractive - especially compared to the 737-800/900 and A320/21. Fingers crossed!

 

It's true - I was a fan back in 2017 and I am still a big fan. Of course it is not a perfect airplane by any means. It experienced several teething issues early-on and the P&W groundings were a disaster. No airplane is perfect. That said, I appreciate "newer" technology and I remember reading about the aiplane while it was being designed and I was impressed that Bombardier had the BALL$ to bet the farm on this airplane (nearly bankrupted the company). Thank goodness Airbus bought it vs. Boeing. I have friends who fly it - some love it (especially the upgraded cockpit technology) while others couldn't care less about the technology upgrades. Again, you can't please everyone.

 

Would Airbus want to build the 220-500 if it cannibalizes their 320 sales?

 

It’s not going to happen…they will upgauge to 737-8 or A319/320. And those will be replaced by 737-9 and 321s on those plane’s original routes, etc.

The 220 allows us to provide an enhanced experience on long, skinny routes. DFW-BOS is a great example, as DFW is AA country, and it allows us to compete for business travelers out of there.

There is much less money to be made on routes like ATL- MLB/ASH/TLH/GPT/LIT where ticket prices are the driving factor.

I admire your 220 fandom, but the 220 simply won’t be coming to ATL anytime soon.

 

If they can free up spots to sell more 321's, it might make sense.

 

hey? How many A220 orders did Airbus receive in 2024? I mean for such a great airplane with the -500 on the horizon.

also for such a Cseries A220 fanboy you think your knowledge of the Boeing lawsuit would be a little more accurate. Airbus took control of the CSeries months after Boeing lawsuit was finished.

 

Airbus's slow production rates + the P&W engine issues have not helped with orders. Existing customers want the extended version because they see low CASMs already with the 300 - adding more seats to a slightly extended airframe will further reduce the CASM and improve profits.

In terms of cannibalization, I guess that is possible with the A320 Neo - but Delta hasn't ordered any of them. However, most airlines (like Delta) are ordering the bigger A321 NEO which would not compete with the proposed A220-500 in terms of seat numbers. Instead, the A220-500 would be a very cost-effective replacement for older A319/20s and 737-800s - and Delta has a BUNCH of these older airframes to replace. Just the lower CASM alone on the proposed A220-500 means the required breakeven load factor is reduced and per-flight profitability increases at a lower occupied seat number. Imagine being able to generate more profit with fewer seats filled on the same routes.... Bottom line: your profit checks would be FATTER with more A220-330s and 500s.

 

I mean, how much are they stretching to get the -500? People should learn from the 737. An airplane should only be stretched so much…

 

Boeing’s problem is the 737 sits so much lower to the ground compared to the 320 and the 220. That drove the need for MCAS on the maxes since there wasn’t enough room to hang the bigger engines under the wing and why the Max-10 has some sort of double action gear strut so that it sits higher off the ground but the wheels can still retract into the sand wheel well as the other models.

 

I was thinking transcon meant "all the way across North America." I'm pretty sure a 717 has never even dreamt about flying a Transcon. I'm going to call MSP to any coast a "half con."