Airbus Has Made A Very Small Mistake...

/ foundandexplained
Airbus has a little bit of a problem. Emphasis on little. It now has two aircraft on its books that occupy the same size category, and a future in-demand project that threatens to cannibalize the very cash cow A320 that put them on the map. What are the aircraft and what can be done about it? Let's explore the tricky Airbus small plane problem.
After Airbus launched the A300, they looked at developing a new smaller aircraft for travel within Europe and for airlines in North America called the Airbus A320. Some airlines requested a smaller plane with a greater range that they could use for hops between cities.
This new aircraft, code-named the AE31X would fly 125 passengers in a 2-3 configuration to a range of 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 kilometers). Unfortunately, the deal fell through and Airbus decided to go it alone - they shrunk the A320 airframe to fit the market demand without doing a clean-sheet design.
The two models they created were the A318 and A319 and they would be able to fly 136 passengers to a bigger range of 3,100 nautical miles (5,740 km). Airbus would sell a few of these aircraft, notably to Air France who would fall in love with the Airbus A318 babybus.
However, flash forward to modern times to the arrival of Bombardier - With gusto, this Canadian firm got to work building a new type of aircraft called the CS300.
Boeing didn't take this move well, despite not being in the market category since the early Boeing 737s, they still moved to block the sale of the new plane in the United States.
However, there was one way for Bombardier to get its CS300, and the CS100, in the United States - if the aircraft was technically built there then it would be considered a domestic product and no longer trade embargoed.
If not Boeing, then the only other firm with sites to build planes would be Airbus with their Alabama finishing plant. This came at a huge cost, with Airbus acquiring the majority share of the CS program and naming rights - calling the new plane the Airbus A220 series.
Specifically, the A220-300 has a range of 3,400 nautical miles (6,297 km) and can carry up to 150 passengers in its most dense configuration, while the A318 and A319 can fly up 3,750 nmi (6,945 km). We should also mention that the a220 has a more comfortable interior with a larger space inside and a different 2-3 configuration, allowing couples some privacy in flight. The plane also has a multitude of other improvements from LED lighting, a quieter cabin, and better pressurization that make it the next generation aircraft compared to the older A320 platform.
While in earlier times that lower A220 passenger load factor might have been a deal-breaker for some airlines, in the age of 2020 and the aviation crisis, airlines have more than ever asked for efficiency over passengers. A smaller plane that can go further is easier to fill up and make profitable than a lumbering aircraft - essentially the very same reason by aircraft like the Boeing 787 and A350 are favored over the A380 and Boeing 747.
But this is where the problem gets more interesting. These two aircraft cater to the same range and passenger market and its left Airbus in a situation where the promotion of either will cannibalize the sales of another.
And clearly looking at the sale numbers, airlines prefer the newer A220 with all the advantages of newer engines, modern cabin designs, and a better fuel economy. So much so that some airlines have asked for a stretch of the original A220-300 design. A major buyer of the small A318 baby bus, Air France, even mentioned the A220-500 stretch in a recent investor meeting as part of its fleet modernization strategy.
This A220-500 stretch would cover the inherent flaw of fewer seats on the A220 model and push the seats up to a maximum of 170 in a dense configuration - with an increase to the range to boot. But it would mean that the A220 series would now not only bite into the A318 and A319 but the A320 series as well.
Airbus has already committed to a new engine option of both the A319, A320, and A321, an investment it doesn't want to see go to waste with a new A220.
After all, the A320 order backlog is so huge that many airlines that have ordered the A320neo still have many years to wait before they see their aircraft in the sky. The a220 series avoids that problem by being of a different production line with its own supply chain -
And according to very recent news, Air France plans to make a move to buy the A220-500 stretch as soon as it can.... or it will swing right over and buy the Boeing 737 MAX instead.
Lastly, there is the matter of the third and very unknown Airbus NSR, new short-range project. This aircraft is supposed to be in development to replace the A320 family and usher in a new era of aircraft by 2030 - but with the a220 nipping at the heels of the small plane market, it is unlikely airbus is keen open a third product line.

[@sadmanh0]

it's not a mistake, Airbus basically got a next gen A320 family with a shoestring budget since Bomdardier pretty much gave away the whole CS300 project to them.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

the a220 is selling like hotcakes. thank you boeing :)

[@deryabaygan-robinett1220]

Well airbus said that they would partner not take so it’s kind of like karma seeing that airbus already has the a318 and a319 and yet basically takes another small plane from a company with potential

[@sadmanh0]

@@deryabaygan-robinett1220 it's a 'partnership' but Airbus owns 51% stakes in CS program so they basically own it. And the A318,19 are over 20yrs old now, they can only get so far with new engines, the CS program basically helped them have the next generation of small but long range airplanes that is new from ground up, unlike 737s, with next to no investment.

[@chrismckellar9350]

@@deryabaygan-robinett1220 - There is no 319neo only A319neo, A320neo, A321neo, A321lr and A321xlr in the Airbus product range. The A220 is far most flexible in flights options than the A319neo.

[@chunchoi4434]

Except it mean airbus don't need a replacement of a320

[@deiest2643]

If A220 is selling how come it is a mistake? If they didn't make partnership with Bombardier it would STILL be a direct competition of A318 and A319. I say they made a very good move.

[@judetoe]

L

[@greensphinx]

If the A220 is eating A320 sales, at least the money's going to the same company!

[@jonathanpusar5931]

Exactly. Ironically if we (US) didn't step in and try to meddle in by killing Bombardiers sales likely it would have hurt Airbus more than anyone else, since the 737 MAX was a failure anyway irregardless of the CS300, and the kinds of customers interested in the MAX did so because it didn't require retraining (which was also it's fatal flaw). Competition is always a good thing especially in the airline industry. Happy the A220 exists and is hurting the A320 family sales. Shows that it's disrupting the market for customers. The 321 NEO is still doing really well anyway. You're just not seeing them because of COVID. Most of it's customers are domestic carriers like JetBlue looking to expand transcontinental on a smaller, more fuel efficient planes that can work just as well domestically, giving a ton of fleet flexibility. The MAX 7 was competing in the same market but.....well that's a bust.

[@pedrorequio5515]

@@jonathanpusar5931 The extensive use of composites make it an excellent plane, airbus is studying a new short range product because the failure of the Max will put pressure on Boing to make the short range composite plane, but the advantage is so large that Airbus would have to do the same and both companies were trying to avoid it. First it's expensive to develop, second it's not clear it's advantages in this kind of plane as in the big long haul, because there fuel is an important expense there, but in short range planes the cost of the actual plane lease is important, that's why airlines pushed for the Max.

[@prisonermonkeys8613]

Boeing is much better than Airbus

[@jorge8596]

Not really, the A220-300 only kinda competes with the A319neo which wasn't selling too much in the 1st place, only an A220-500 could kinda compete with the A320neo, and it would still be smaller

[@dirgh1717]

Finally some facts

[@yanihat2369]

A318 (The Baby Bus) and A319 will be gone if A220 will be more successful 😇

[@benp9442]

@@yanihat2369 The A318 is already gone. It's not being made anymore and not a lot of airlines even operate it. Quite a pointless little plane. Only thing it does is look cute.

[@hodb3906]

@@benp9442 so weird that we find it cute though it truly is a cute lil plane. Especially next to a giant like the 77W or a380.

[@yanihat2369]

@@benp9442 yes

[@marcusrombo2391]

The CS300 /A220 is such an elegant plane! Something you canadians should be proud of!

[@HuckThis1971]

We are, but we gave it away for 1$. As an employee, I am happy and saddened at the same time. At least it won't die like the Avro Arrow!

[@franklegare7922]

We are pround of the plane, but the upper management at bombardier is rotten, working for their hefty retirement bonus....

[@franklegare7922]

Sad thruth is canadians and québec tax payers invested milions into a project that was sold off to another country without any benefits for us

[@KingOfTheSkies1]

True

[@loicjpj7463]

Well technically airbus owns 50.01% of the program so ... (But I get your point and I agree :) )

[@srinitaaigaura]

Airbus taking over Bombardier Aerospace was one of the smartest moves in Aviation History, and it saved a superb plane.

[@JD_-_]

Airbus is kicking ass right now, I’d worried more about Boeing at this point...

[@MrChrisCube]

Boeing who?

[@redshirt5126]

I love Boeing but my God I wish they would make a 757 replacement aircraft already and stop jerking around with the 737.

[@zachjones6944]

Boeing still had military contracts.

[@stevedgrossman]

@@redshirt5126 Do you realize how silly that sounds? They respond to market pressure... not to av geeks.

[@kh2b573]

@@stevedgrossman even that they managed to fuck up , like seriously it's just a copy paste of the A320 neo formula! But worse!

[@HuckThis1971]

Being a Bombardier employee on the shop floor for the private jet sector, I am happy Airbus took over. It is an awesome aircraft and ahead of its time. This aircraft has a bright future.

[@FoundAndExplained]

What a great point of view!

[@S1baar]

Why are you happy Airbus took ove

[@HuckThis1971]

@@S1baar because no airbus = Avro Arrow part 2

[@External2737]

It is a great plane when components are purchased by an organization with more negotiating leverage. The A319NEO is far too heavy and over-engined.

[@Aaron-ot1xs]

@@HuckThis1971 It was another Avro though. Seriously, we needed to get our parent-countries involved. We lost at least 1000 jobs nationally. Then Justin pissed away the investment the federal taxpayers made. At Mirabel I'm glad to hear Airbus is a good employer.

[@WChocoleta]

I was worried that Airbus would sideline the then-newly-acquired CSeries to make way for its own A320neo family (or specifically the A319neo). But no. The A220 has sidelined the A319neo and started to thrive. It is just too good. Respect to the Canadians.

[@FoundAndExplained]

Same. I thought that the Airbus buy was a tactic to eliminate the model - but its suddenly popular and getting attention of the big carriers is such a good thing. Its about time that we get a new plane.

[@valjoker7]

Delta had just bought a slew of 321's that Airbus had completed but the buyer reneged on. On top of that Delta loved the new Airbus Aircraft so much that they put in an order for NEO's and 350's. Delta was also looking for something to replace all the MD 88 and 90's they were getting rid of and they were really interested in the C Series. So when it all popped off between Boeing and Bombardier the decision was a no-brainer for Airbus. 1. Pick up a new, highly efficient aircraft program with lots of potential that was over 90% complete in its flight test program for $1.00 US. 2. Please our newest large US Customer with exactly what they wanted. 3. Stick it to Boeing who was obviously afraid of the new aircrafts potential.

[@asiaworldcity]

​@@valjoker7Delta simply so good at smelling opportunity and realize C-Series/A220's potential, no wonder other 2 us airlines ALWAYS copy Delta.

[@paxundpeace9970]

True.

[@paxundpeace9970]

The A319neo wasn't selling well even before Airbus took the 50,1 share of CS Programm.

[@ryanosullivan1946]

The a220 is a regional jet so it has cheaper landing fees, whereas the a318/19 are not classified as regionals and have to pay more. So on paper yes very similar but by classification standards they are distinct.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Ryan O'Sullivan. Yes, they are heavier Aircraft (B737 too)

[@texasabbott]

The A220 is not a regional aircraft! With a range of more than 6,000 km and ETOPS-180, it is a medium-haul small mainline aircraft for transcontinental, transatlantic or direct point-to-point service.

[@ryanosullivan1946]

@@texasabbott I agree with you 100% it is very very versatile and will open up the future of point to point small market travel.

[@vanni1803]

Regional jet ???

[@dufonrafal]

@@texasabbott it's classified as a RJ by airport taxes standard is what that means.

[@MichaelAChang]

Airbus got the A220 without spending a dime on development, so if it's a glorious problem if you want to characterize it as a problem.

[@idpro83]

Airbus should just cancel the A319 and make the A220-500. I don't know why they didn't do it already.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Will come. Am sure they reserved the brands A220-500, 700 and 900. We had the CS700 and 900 reserved in Canada.

[@kazedcat]

It is not easy to develop stretched variants. Right now Airbus is realigning the A220 supply chain to reduce production cost. It is not ideal to develop a variant when you are actively optimizing the components.

[@Uryendel]

the A319 is an A320, they're no reason to cancel it, it just a length variant.

[@georgie1240]

A lot of airlines would probably rather fly the A319 than train pilots to fly something different

[@haroldomiyaura912]

good question

[@louissikkema5399]

I don't think air france will buy 737's, but they will talk a lot about it to pressure airbus into developping the stretched a220 or sell them neos for a good price

[@filledwithvariousknowledge1065]

Yeah well if anything it will give leverage with future deals on either despite that as part of the bailout that Air France “must continue to be a good Airbus customer” when they are already are one of their best so that was a pointless statement I feel

[@paxundpeace9970]

If im not wrong they even order some A220 or had a MoU

[@lzh4950]

Maybe similar intent to IAG signing it's letter of interest for 200x 737MAXes (actually convincing them to switch over from A320s will involve alot of work I think e.g. bundling in pilots re-training into any aircraft deal)

[@johnny_eth]

The 737 reputation is tainted for the next decade. The only companies buying 737 maxes are the ones wanting to go bankrupt. I for one will not fly the max for a couple years at least. I don't trust the FAA nor Boeing, with great shame, because boeing has produced some utterly remarkable airplanes like the 777.

[@fabientre2800]

@@filledwithvariousknowledge1065 Not really... Air France has a lot of Boeing aircraft. And the group Air France KLM has an enormous amount of Boeing aircraft. For Air France: - 70 B777 - 10 B787 And then on more regional fleets, Bombardier and Embraer are used for the moment and will be replaces by the A220. KLM: - 13 A330 - 99 Boeing (including 29 B777, 18 B787, and B737). Transavia (subsidiary of the group): - 42 B737 ... And no, there are definitely serious questions regarding the next moves for the fleet, so this reminder is definitely needed.

[@josephcheng5949]

Airbus should develop the new A220-500. Most of their A320 buyers have already moved on to the A321 Neo and XLR programs anyway.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Am sure they reserved the brands A220-500, 700 and 900. We had the CS700 and 900 reserved in Canada.

[@ant2312]

I don't see EasyJet with A321s

[@dylansheridan970]

Airlines want smaller more fuel efficient planes right now. Any idea how many 777's sat on the tarmac for months? You claim has merit. Perhaps in small cases some do but they don't want a fleet of big airplanes in today's market. After covid i could see this being the cheapest

[@faizierazali3494]

@@ant2312 you said that and now they have it

[@RickTroutner]

"Boeing blocks sale... in order to sell more 737 max" Awkward in 2021.

[@99999bomb]

Delta airlines just missed a dissaster

[@SAMann729]

Delta never had any intensions to buy the Max, even before Boeing cried and lobbied for higher tariffs.

[@xianyuff8242]

Airbus Has Made A Very Small Mistake... But Boing Has Made A Big One.

[@FunFunFun8888]

Airbus has never made a profit and is bailed out by the European taxpayers all the time. Boeing does not steal taxpayers money. A380 was a total flop before it took off and the designer sold all his shares in Airbus because he knew it was going to fail because Airbus forgot to calculate the weight of 150 miles of wiring that had to be fitted inside the A380 so the fuel economy calculations were completely wrong and it was more expensive to fly the A380 cattle truck then the Queen of the skies Boeing 747-8.

[@fabientre2800]

@@FunFunFun8888 At least Airbus planes are safe.

[@michealphillips10]

Couple of pronunciation corrections: Bombardier and Mobile both have French influences on their pronunciation. Bombardier is bom-bar-dee-ayy, and Mobile is Mo-beel.

[@TWABoeing-]

I say it like Bomb-bar-deer

[@kostadinkondev829]

Shut up

[@ant2312]

yes but its a video in English so that overrides it

[@gs325jcbd]

Does it matter??

[@JedWilson96]

@@ant2312 No it doesn’t lol ... it’s the correct pronunciation

[@zenixlo]

Airbus would not mind not selling the a318, it’s an old plane and didn’t take much r&d. There is nothing wrong with selling the a220. They could get rid of it and it wouldnt matter. Its and old plane now and no one will buy it.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

the a318 never has been a very good seller. however times and epidemics change the aviation landscape.

[@chrismckellar9350]

There is no new engine option for the A318ceo only A319neo, A320neo, A321neo, A321lr and A321xlr in the Airbus product range. The A220 is far most flexible in flights options than the A319neo.

[@Hans-gb4mv]

Indeed, while the A220-300 can compete with the A318/A319, it doesn't compete with the bigger A320 variants. Therefore airlines have a choice of smaller aircraft or bigger aircraft. Air France in its statement makes it clear that if the -500 doesn't get built, the A320 family is an option, not just the 73M

[@zenixlo]

@@chrismckellar9350 exactly. They wouldnt mind getting rid of it. It never sold well.

[@zenixlo]

@@mrrolandlawrence exactly. They wont mind getting rid of it.

[@siviter]

I think airbus has played a blinder. They have essentially got a next generation aircraft that can be stretched to the same capacity as the A320 for very little outlay. They can now focus on making one MOTM plane to replace the A321 and A330 simultaneously.

[@chingweixion621]

Agree. The future lineup of airbus will be A220neo, MOM and A350neo. While boeing will still need an NSA, NMA and B787max

[@gilbertf]

Very little? Try "no money down"! The only cost to them was tooling the Alabama plant and training salespeople. Deal of the century!

[@steffenschiller3189]

You might argue that the A 318 never was a popular plane - even before the arrival of the A 220.

[@paxundpeace9970]

This is in indeed true but the A319 classic sold pretty well

[@srinitaaigaura]

It looked very cute though. 😂

[@groundstar69]

The A318 is dead anyway: I think we'll see that Airbus stops the A319 in favour of the A220. And basically the A220 is the more state of the art plane compared to the A320 series...

[@theskyline1425]

Your animations are just amazing

[@itstomatogear6806]

Congratulations 🎉👏 of being the top comment 👍😁 (as of now 😈)

[@mann2520]

Yeah

[@mann2520]

The a220 is too perfect for anyone👌👌👌👌👍👍👍👍👍😂😂😂😂😂

[@theskyline1425]

@@mann2520 yeah😂

[@NOOne-li1pj]

Thanks!

[@PeterJurasek]

A220 is not a problem for A318/319, it is the solution

[@faustin289]

"If you can't beat them, ban 'em". The only game the US excels at!

[@AutopilotAndChill]

Not at all. We are the worlds largest consumer in everything. Samsung, LG, Sony, BMW, Mercedes, you name it we buy it. Try again...

[@chingweixion621]

@@AutopilotAndChill I'm pretty sure that is no longer true. The Chinese Market has already outgrown the American Market several years ago. Only difference is the competition. Instead of 10 local and 10 international brands competing in the same market, you only have the 10 international brands competing in the American Market. It is no longer the largest market but it is still the most profitable ones.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

It was not USA, that won. Boeing won the battle, in Canada we loose, as we did with the CF-105 AVRO Arrow. Just that in this last case the Russian won the MIG23 and 25. At the end we lost the Military Industry. We might loose the Commercial too, if Airbus decides to developed the A220 derivative in Toulouse.

[@chingweixion621]

@@ForeverFebruary27 its undeniable that every country has some dirty trick up its sleeve. Depending on the opponent, different tricks are employed. For one since US had pissed off china, Boeing can probably say goodbye to the china single aisle market. The allocation is probably 40% to comac, 40% to airbus and the remaining 20% to boeing, Embraer, irkut etc. Btw I'm the first attempt of the Chinese to build their own jet planes is the ARJ21. Comac C919 should be the 2nd and CR-929 should be the 3rd.

[@andrewmarwick4880]

@@AutopilotAndChill 50 years ago most new planes departed Renton, Everett and Long Beach with names like American, United, Eastern, Continental and TWA. Today most planes departing Toulouse and Hamburg are headed to Asia. Fewer and fewer planes are coming from Renton and Everett, and Long Beach is completely out of the aircraft production business.

[@thecrabpulsar]

The Bombardier is such a beautiful airplane, love it.

[@perasperas]

The A220 (ex Bombardier) belongs to a much smaller class comparing to A320. The A220 is, smaller, narrower (seats 2+2 or 2+3 + small cargo space) for short to medium range trips. The A320 is a classic narrow body for medium range trips and became able to long range trips, with the NEO engined versions. We have enough confusion and misinformation on internet. Don't increase it.

[@jnvqc]

You are the one increasing misinformation the a220-300 matches the a319neo in all specs: a220-300 vs a319: Range 3,350nm vs 3,750 nm Max pax: 160 vs 160 Seat width economy: 47/51 vs 46 (cm) Seat pitch at max pax: 28 vs 27 (inch) Max payload: 18.7 vs 17.7 (ton) All that with a lower fuel burn. Airbus could increase airframe strength, fuel load and engine power making the a319neo much more capable than the 300 however it would be very uneconomical. As the a220-300 matches the a319neo, the 500 could do the same to the a320neo. The airlines agree, there's more a220-300 flying than a319neos ordered, the a319neo is at serious risk of being discontinued. 2+3 is much better than 3+3, more aerodynamic and less chance of getting a middle seat.

[@jnvqc]

​@@perasperas a220-300 vs a319NEO: *Cargo Containers:* non standard, standard *Leg room:* more or less the same. *Shoulder room:* 47/51 vs 46 cm The middle seat is wider *Chance of middle seat:* 20% vs 33% *Length:* 38.70 vs 33.84 meters +14% *Cabin width:* 3.28 vs 3.7 meters -12% *Cabin height:* 2.11cm vs 2.13cm *Bulk cargo total:* 31.6 vs 27/32.08 m3 net/water displacement *Max payload:* 18.7 vs 17.7 ton (passengers plus cargo) *Max takeoff weight:* 69.9 vs 75.5 ton -8% *Max thrust:* 23.3k lbf vs 24.1k lbf *Range:* 3,400 vs 3,750 nm -10% *Range in the future:* 4,000 vs 3,750 +6% *ETOPS:* 180min vs 180min Now read your original comment, I think you overreacted. First its range is within 10% of the standard NEOs, and in the future will have the same as the a321LR non XLR (4,000 nm). Currently the longest a220-300 flight is 2,359 nm 6:35h, and there's plans to operate a 3,800 nm flight from the US to Brazil with extra fuel tanks in the future. *So you were wrong in saying a220 short to medium / a320 medium to long. * Second their dimensions are neck and neck 12% narrow 14% longer. Payload weight and bulk cargo volume is also neck and neck. The only advantage in the end for the a319neo is the standard containers. *So you were wrong saying it was much smaller and much less cargo. * In video it's stated that the 300 and the a319N are occupying the same market position. And not the 200 or the a320N. And in the future the 500 variant will compete with the a320NEO.

[@michaelf.h8507]

The A 318 has never sold in any volume -way before the A220 arrived on the scene. The A 220 is a great ,largely complementary, addition as it is 30 years younger than the A 320 range . They should stretch it asap. I bet Boeing are kicking themselves for not getting there first with Bombardier instead of trying to ban it from US skies.

[@michaelrmurphy2734]

Boeing was always concerned about big planes. Never interested in small ones. A lot of good that does them now!

[@lukethompson5558]

Boeing: “We shouldn’t have neglected and canceled the 717” I think everyone here acknowledges that this is neither a problem nor a mistake. The A220 was a genius move by all parties involved

[@kyotokid4]

...originally a McDonnell Douglas design (the MD-95), the 717 was a very fine aircraft for it's role. Boeing also shouldn't have pulled the plug the concept for a 757 successor 9 years ago, which would have put them ahead in the long range single aisle twinjet market that Airbus now has all to itself. That's part of what happens when accountants instead of engineers call the shots and why you end up with situations like the Max/MCAS issue and poor quality control with your next best selling product (787).

[@TheFlyingMooseCA]

In the same vein that Airbus was willing to cannibalise the original A320 family with the neo to fight the original CSeries (before it was the A220), they're probably willing to sacrifice the neo to ensure sustained success of the A220 going forward against other competitors. Also the play here might be to offer such a superior small-capacity option (be it the A220 or A319/20), that the A321neo only has to achieve parity with the larger MAX models - which currently beat out the 321 on some metrics. Offering a more compelling small product would make bundling orders easier, for example

[@dafiltafish]

I think the double production line thing is the reason why this isn't a problem, it solves a demand issue without turning away customers, even if Airbus doesn't make as much on the planes Bombardier builds.

[@danielweiss3810]

I disagree, the C-Series is better optimized for the A318-A319 category

[@rayologyxm]

Exactly

[@d4ss577]

Any changes in size would make it quite possibly inferior to what the A320 is.

[@rayologyxm]

@@d4ss577 true indeed. A lot of people don't understand that the A220 is for regional and the A320 is for short-haul. Totally different sectors.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

@@d4ss577 Maybe the -900 (at their limit) but a more advance design and materials should work till -700

[@hds66nl29]

@@rayologyxm Noticed that as well. Yes a stretched A220 will compete with the smallest A320. But the base models are quite different from eachother in passenger capacity. Airbus has to clean up their small jet offering line-up, but that isn't something to rush. And lets face it the A220 was just an early Christmas gift, with the compliments of Boeing.

[@gteixeira]

The mistake they did was to shorten the A320. Shortening of fuselages usually don't sell well, look at the A340-500, the 747SP or the E-170. They weren't planning to buy the A220 program before, however, so it is understandable why they proceeded with the A319neo.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Agree. When you add plugs to the fuselage. You run into the Load and Dynamics department, then the Stability and Control Department, finally the Performance Department. And when you think you are ready you get the Stress department showing you reality. You think you are done until you check with Weights Department, so you have to tell Integration to do a Miracle. You finish stretching the Tail, the wings or reinforcing the LDG.

[@gteixeira]

@@francisdexaviermaurinus4695 The strength usually ends up overdimensioned, which is great for a plane with a lot of cycles. That's why the A319 is usually used in short haul routes, with less than one hour flight. However the short fuselage ends up less stable and the tail has to grow, so it ends up being not really good for the longer flights where the lower weight gives little advantage over the worse aerodynamic.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Gabriel Teixeira Agree - that is what I thought

[@CanadianStarships]

Major miss-pronunciation on Bombardier - Think more Bum-bar-di-ay

[@MarcusNesbitt4]

Bom-bar-dee-ay

[@jeff92k7]

Also Mobile (AL) is pronounced "mo-beel" and not "mo-byl".

[@kmoneyyy_12]

Lasagna

[@RedLP5000S]

Nah. It's "bomb-ar-deer".

[@9999AWC]

@@RedLP5000S No it's not. Bombardier is the french word for bomber, and is pronounced Bom-bar-dee-ay. Bombardeer is the guy who releases the bombs in a bomber. They're pronounced differently.

[@Sanginius23]

there is no A318neo and the A319neo is not selling well at all. Maybe it would be a good move for Airbus to scrap the A319neo and strech the A220 to fill the gap without getting in the way of the good old A320neo

[@hodb3906]

Yeah. It truly is bizarre yet it makes sense. Normally going for the a319neo would be beneficial since you save on crew training and maintenance costs. Either airbus scraps the a319neo or they should sell them cheaper.

[@Sanginius23]

@@hodb3906 I think Airbus was not planing to buy the C-Series when they laid out the neo Program. It just so happen when Boeing startet to make it's moves against our canadian friends that Airbus got the once in a lifetime opportunity to get a brand new, very promising Airplane without the risky and expensive development.. Well if the the A319neo is the victim of this process, I am more than fine with that :)

[@hodb3906]

@@Sanginius23 true. The c series was a sudden event. As long as the a320 and a321 are untouched by the c-series, i’m fine with that too.

[@matsv201]

A318 neo would just ve bizzar. "Lets make a plane as short as possibel, the cram in as many seats as possible". A319neo is kind of outside the sweetspot. Where i live the a320 family is very popular. But they mostly just buy the A321 series and have a few 320 as backups. So i flown the A321 neo quite a few times alreddy. (My operator of choice was one of the first to get them). But they have a problem. Senior citizens with mobility scooters. Thay are way to heavy. If there are just one or two on the plane, its not a issue. But when there is 20 or 30, it really change the economical balance. Also.. the A320 frame is getting old. The A300 series was replaced years ago. A320 series need a new airframe for the next itteration that can implement the lesons of the A350 program as well as the A22p once

[@d4ss577]

@@matsv201 It’s not that old, the 737 is from the 1960’s and it still does fine in terms of design. The A320 still has high potential for upgrades since it’s about 20 years newer with a modern design. In addition, the height of the aircraft means it can likely be re-engined again in the future, unlike the 737, which has reached its limit and will likely need replacement when their orders are fulfilled.

[@mytmousemalibu]

The 220 will always be the C-series to me. I worked Experimental Flight Test for it for most of it. Its a nice jet, very efficient. Just need to get the Pratt & Whitney PW1524G's to a more reliable status.

[@foxtrot2320]

Same for me, although I didn't have a say into it.

[@kenreynolds1000]

Understood. I worked on the RC-135. The 1950’s loft line drawings refer to it as the 717. Not the MD rebranded as the 717.

[@mytmousemalibu]

The C-series was bought and rebranded to Airbus long after my time working in Experimental and long after it was certified for commercial service. Fun fact: the C-series has the same fuel burn at cruise as a Challenger 300/350! That is astounding considering how much larger it is! Not as fast as the 300/350 but very impressive nonetheless.

[@External2737]

Pratt now has 99.98% dispatch reliability. It took a while and possibly the production slowdown of Covid19 to fix the issues.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Airbus got an entire family of a more advance aircraft than A320 and B737, the Bombardier for just $1.00 and Boeing got nothing.

[@yegfreethinker]

As a Canadian I'm overjoyed Boeing got middle finger salute it so sorely earned by trying to screw over Bombardier. Never mistake our Canadian kindness for weakness. I know some corporate execs in Chicago who wish they hadn't

[@flightmaster999]

Well in fact Boeing got something: a big f-you from Canada (you really need to be a top caliber dumbass to get that!) along with the cancellation of an F/A-18 Super Hornet contract (16 planes) that would have placed them in a great position to obtain the next Canadian fighter jet replacement contract worth North of $20B. Well done Boeing!

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

@@flightmaster999 RIght Dominic.

[@jurgenkniffki1276]

Very good video well done mate

[@vincentkaltenbach]

In my sight the "A220" isn't an Airbus. It's an Bombardier.

[@vanni1803]

Despite Airbus renaming the aircraft, it will always be a CSeries

[@pandaDotDragon]

Without Airbus it's only dead meat... A220 is a win-win for Airbus and for Canadian employees

[@sparqqling]

So what mistake did Airbus make exactly? Buying the C series program?

[@jctripplesticks]

They own both And they are essentially competing with each other for the same market. The problem is is that they're up with Embraer and Mitsubishi (owners of the CRJ side), but they can't do anything without cannibalizing the other side of their industry. So they've invested a lot of money into both even though, from a business perspective, eventually one of them is going to have to go.

[@andrewmarwick4880]

@@jctripplesticks Airbus invested nothing in the A220, Boeing and trump handed Airbus the Cseries on a high tech composite platter. Eventually the A220 will dominate the under 200 seat market, and incriminatal upgrades to the A321, A322 etc will fill the narrowbody market above 200 seats. Boeing will be stuck with a basic design rooted in the dawn of the jet age, barely 50 years after the Wright Brothers.

[@remi_gio]

There are no plans to make A220-500, a decision has been made to phase out A318 and A319 anyway so I don’t really get the “too many planes” reference...🤗

[@chingweixion621]

Bombardier design the C-series with the cs500 stretch in mind. All the airlines know it and many A220 customers are pushing airbus for it. In fact airbus did confirm that and that they will introduce the A220-500 sometime in the future. But problem is that airlines like air France don't like the wait and they want to know when.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

@@chingweixion621 I have not checked if the Airlines want them. They all want but they all wan to wait before reserving orders. In any case the Aircraft can be extended. We reserved the CS500, 700 and 900 in Canada.

[@remi_gio]

So… it’s selling rather well isn’t it? 👍🤗

[@robo9725]

I’ve been on the A220 and it’s brilliant, really comfortable, more space as the seats aren’t as crammed since it isn’t 3-3 layout. Quiet smooth efficient and powerful

[@kronsclips]

Very nice information thanks for every video!

[@redballthing]

Woah KZbin is quick on notifications this time!

[@cordorne]

ikr

[@ateilewis]

sure

[@FoundAndExplained]

notification squad!

[@hds66nl29]

Mistake? Airbus has a huge offering in the small jet market based on two jets, the A220 and A320. They have this offering in the most popular jetmarket, the small single isle jets, I don't think Airbus worries to much about it. Boeing basically gave the C-series to Airbus and now Airbus has to implement it in their line-up, but no rush. The Airbus NSR was a replacement for the A320, same story, Airbus improved the A320 series, so again no rush.

[@rockerobertson4002]

Its brilliant. The new clean sheet A320 replacement, I introduce to you the A220-500 and A220-900. This could be done much easier that start a new A320 replacement.

[@jakobflugel]

The A220 is my favourite plane right now. It looks so elegant and has such a modern cockpit

[@LesOReilly]

You never factored in Pilot Type Rating. A Pilot on the 318/319/320/321 can fly all of those with that Type Rating. Training and scheduling becomes a major player in this. Also the A220-100 was the first model... the -300 was the second release to market..

[@stephenvoss6092]

A220 fills the gaps left by the disappearance of the Boeing 717.

[@LesOReilly]

@@stephenvoss6092 agreed ... but if you have a fleet of 320/321 and need some smaller planes then 318/319 can still make more overall financial sense. Not having to train pilots which can only then fly on some of the planes. A common type rating can be a big advantage and turn into huge savings in schedule planning and personnel management.

[@mra6308]

The A220 was a great move by Airbus. They now own 51% of its US sales which they wouldnt have had the opportunity to do so without Boeing.

[@jjthomas1357]

Hey there. Friendly local Canadian here. Bombardier is based on a French word so it’s pronounced “bombard-yay!”

[@AD-jq7ow]

I never understood how was it legal for the US to block Bombardier like they did...

[@haroldb1856]

The US doesn't always play fair.

[@natemcdonagh3760]

I can’t wait to fly again I’m looking forward to flying the A320 and or 737/8

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

You will is a duopoly. For the next 30 years.

[@Lapantouflemagic0]

so they are competing with themselves, but one of their two options has a ten year backlog of orders ? so they're just gobbling as much market shares as they physically can, no ? i really don't see the issue here.

[@justdont3998]

0:40 That's always soo satisfying

[@aspiringcaptain]

For some areas, A320 is simply to big and too expensive to maintain so the A220 is great because it has long range, it’s fuel efficient, and has good passengers capacity. It’s a win. Especially after the pandemic

[@oldpelican5181]

Mobile, AL pronounced "Mo-beal".

[@dimitrisavic4702]

Honestly, how does this channel have only 24k subscribers? I just found this channel today, and it’s phenomenal!

[@johniii8147]

I don’t think Airbus is really that concerned about developing the 220-500 in the short term. The 220 program is very low volume a 4 plane production a month. They have a lot of supply chain issues with it and it’s not looking like a high priority at the moment. They would much rather sell something from the 320 series much higher profit margin

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Supply Issues are normal issues.

[@johniii8147]

@@francisdexaviermaurinus4695 Not the extent of what used to be the C series. Airbus is having to completely revamp it but it’s just not a real high priority right now they got a Lotta other things to worry about right now

[@explorelondon3695]

I was going to wear my couch analyst suit but I see you have all beat me to it. One thing to add though, the CSeries sits well in the segment occupied by the A318/319, B73-7, MD80-90, the smaller CS100 is also ideally suited for the upscale market for instance from E195etc. There are over 1500 airframes from the above classic jets that need too be replaced, unfortunately the current offering in the NEO/MAX format doesn't make financial sense, the rest, time will tell but if Delta's purchase of the CSeries is any indication of the future, then keep your eyes on Southwest. If anyone made a mistake about the CSeries, it's McDonnell Douglas, they could have gotten the CSeries to compliment the 737MAX but as usual they ran to mum and dad in the Congress because they realised the threat posed to the 73-7Max sales by the CSeries. I said McDonnell Douglas on purpose as Boeing died after 1997, even the current Boeing Logo is the former McDonnell Douglas logo, they just kept the Boeing name above the shop because of the equity Mr William Boeing's name hold in aviation history. When Boeing was around, if Boeing was around, then we would not have witnessed the 787, MAX and 777X crisis. Other than that, good debate people. Regards.

[@nazmulhudajewel9825]

Apart from A380 (loved by passenger) Airbus currently in very favourable position in commercial aviation market. It,s safe to say 55-60% market belongs to airbus(ATR and AXXX family.) Its win win situation for airbus having all different range of products

[@timor64]

Love the video, but your pronuncialtion of Bombardier really grates

[@FoundAndExplained]

Sorry about that

[@alexnutcasio936]

would you rather he say Bom bar dear??

[@KennethScottHuntley]

Probably he’d rather it be pronounced correctly, ie how Joseph-Armand Bombardier, a French Canadian, would pronounce his last name.

[@TillFoerster]

Airbus has two planes to fit the market with the most demand while boing has zero, that does sound like a huge problem:)

[@neilpickup237]

I have regularly flown both on the A320neo and the A220, and as a passenger there isn't really a lot to choose between them. The larger windows may be great to look out of when you are next to them, but are very annoying when the sun is blazing through the windows across the isle and in your eyes! However, an operator has to consider costs, profits, and operations. If you already operate a fleet consisting of A220s (ie Baltic) and want something a little larger, a stretched version makes so much sense, as might the shorter versions of the A320 series if your operations are based around a single model (is easyJet) and the efficiency savings are not enough to cover the additional costs of having a mixed fleet. Whenever there are discussions around A220 v A320neo series (which are not as different in efficiency as some people perceive), little if any mention of lucrative cargo capacity is mentioned. The A320 series has the significant advantage of being able to take industry standard containers in its wider hold. We all know about freighter versions of aircraft but I would be surprised if many knew just how much cargo was being carried along with the suitcases! It is profit which matters to a business, and fuel efficiency is obviously a major consideration, but we have to realise that it is not the only consideration.

[@rodrigorosatoalves]

The new generation of aircraft to substitute the A320 will probably be a bit larger, so it closes the gap between the A321 and the A330. In addition that would reduce the overlapping with the A220.

[@davidshakespeare9767]

The end of aviation in Canada The Avro arrow now the C series... as a pilot in Canada it makes me cry every time I hear A220

[@whyno713]

you guys got screwed and I'm embarrassed to be yank over what happened.

[@philv3941]

At least we keep the factories in canada and the project is not killed like Avro. We just stole it . I find the plane really sexy.

[@osasunaitor]

The A220 lives on, no need to cry! Thanks to Airbus the whole world is learning about the wonders of this Canadian piece of engineering. I like to think that Bombardier designed a plane so good that they couldn't handle it anymore :D

[@mikemontgomery2654]

@@philv3941 not for long. Production WILL be moved to Toulouse, with the N.American production staying in Mobile. Watch it happen.

[@philv3941]

@@mikemontgomery2654 i've red absolutely nothing about this, any source ?

[@modscraft4563]

I live in Montreal and I love seeing the planes being manufactered in the bombardier factory

[@mikeoxsmal8022]

Great channel, Tom

[@redballthing]

He's Nick

[@FoundAndExplained]

Thank you kindly Tom!

[@mikeoxsmal8022]

@@FoundAndExplainedthanks for the thanks

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

A220-100/300 (110 to 130p normal config.) just add a Plug and you get A220-500 (150p) or -700 (170p) you can even stretch to -900

[@mikemontgomery2654]

Takes more than just “adding a plug”. 🤣🤣

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

@@mikemontgomery2654 Of course a lot more, I know but you have to start somewhere in the design desk.

[@daniel72_751]

Not a mistake at all..just fits in the gap between the A220 and A350, overlapping the A220 more. The A220-A350 gap is the emerging market for manufactures and the A320 is too small and too old. The A220 allows Airbus to replace the A320 with something a bit bigger that will nail the market the 757 used to dominate.

[@andrewmarwick4880]

Boeing is beginning to regret the day they killed the 757. Every time an A321XLR rolls off the production line Boeing's regret will grow and grow.

[@tima.478]

@ *2:22* Those are great wheel chocks...that bad boy looks to be spinning at about 98% N1 8-) lol

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

We had good equipment at Mirabel. During the Flight Test.

[@pg9511]

Poor Sports Airbus...!!! You screwed Bombarier!

[@markusengelhart4806]

No Boeing did. Bombardier would have filed for bankruptcy otherwise

[@marzolian]

Nice video. But the city in Alabama is pronounced "mo-BEEL", accent on the second syllable.

[@Sacto1654]

It comes down to this: the A220 replaces the A318 and A319. Anything bigger, it's the A320neo and A321neo variants.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Just to clarify the CS100 was not a shorten version of the CS300. Both aircraft were developed from blank sheet. So Yes, the future CS500, 700 and 900 were taken into consideration. And the CS50 is also possible. Now just remove the CS and add the A220.

[@FoundAndExplained]

700 and 900! what!

[@neilpickup237]

And I was about to congratulate Found and Explained for correctly, identifying the 300 as the base. Just because something is developed in tandem is in no way proof of what you say. Every aircraft series has the optimum model and the others in the range are compromises (the A318 being so much of a compromise that they had to increase the size of the tail fin because the standard one wasn't effective enough for a fuselage shortened so much - leverage etc.) I would have though that Bombardier would have had the option of at least one stretch (500) in mind when they designed the CS, but just as over-shortening has its issues, over stretching can have more - particularly with tail strikes, so it would be interesting to see just how much further it is possible to go.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

@@FoundAndExplained We reserved those CS700 and 900, branding names in Canada. Yes you can extend the fuselage for not only to 150, but to 170 and 190. Do you know how we did the CRJ-170 and CRJ-190, starting with the CRJ200?

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

@@neilpickup237 " Every aircraft series has the optimum model and the others in the range are compromises " Agree. That is what I mean between 110 and 130 passengers. I did not mean that we will not touched the LDG, the Tail or even the wing when I referred to the CRJ500, 700 and 900. I just said that the fuselage is extended with plugs. We indeed had issues with the CRJ900 derived from CRJ700. But you learn. Still you try to keep the same exterior lines.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

@@FoundAndExplained I wrote you and email.

[@holl0r]

With the A220, A321neoLR/XLR, A330neo and A350 Airbus has a great lineup. Especially the A220 and A321neoLR are great planes for the COVID and post-COVID years.

[@nickdegroot2445]

Did you say they want to introduce new engines to the Airbus A320 so like newer than the A320 Neo?

[@osasunaitor]

No, I think he was talking about the neo

[@nickdegroot2445]

@@osasunaitor well, he said: Airbus is looking for new engines on the A320🙁

[@chingweixion621]

@@nickdegroot2445 i won't be surprised if airbus re-engine the A320neo again. That airframe still have some juice left. Problem with the B737max is the execution rather than the limitations of the 50 yr old airframe

[@nickdegroot2445]

@@chingweixion621 yes indeed but I think it will take another couple of years before they will do that. The Neo is brand new

[@intuitivme]

So many flaws in this video. The A318 was never well sold. The A319neo was mainly selling as a business jet. Then there is the fact that the A320 and A220 are two very different aircraft. The A320 has much more cargo space, it's range vs capacity is also higher. At the end of the video you brought up that the backlog for the A320neo is gigantic. That's correct. It's so large that there is anyway a very high chance that the last few hundred will never be delivered as those orders may be swapped for the A320 replacement by that time. Airbus has so many order for the A320neo family that even 1.000 cancellations of the type wouldn't bother them :-)

[@intuitivme]

@@CandyMan2001 this is correct

[@Air101blog]

Oddly enough for what you call a small problem, they are selling very well, even in this difficult climate

[@cordorne]

i love watching your videos!!

[@FoundAndExplained]

Glad you like them! They take a long time to do so i hope they come together well!

[@ThePowerofJames]

Also, Bombardier is Bomb-bar-diar not Bomb-ba-dear lol

[@hodb3906]

Nope. Bombardier is canadian-french. So it would be bom-barrr-dyeeh. With the hard french ‘R’

[@mic7504]

@@hodb3906 Ur saying the same thing. The point is it's NOT Bomb-ba-dear.

[@hodb3906]

@@mic7504 not really because what the guy wrote sounds like the english pronunciation.

[@marcogentile3392]

Airbus be like: this is a bruh moment

[@cdbtheclaw]

The A220 is an amazingly comfortable passenger plane and deserves all the love it gets. If it gets picked over the A318 or A319 Airbus should see that as a hint and maybe slowly remove those planes from the market.

[@parthadey2415]

The A220 with SWISS is the most comfortable short hop flight I've taken, quiet cabin too

[@brapa1190]

Im a Airbus fan so when I saw the title I clicked so fast because what Airbus could do wrong?

[@goldviationflights]

Haha 😂

[@theman-yx7yu]

Exactly. I was like, Airbus usually doesn’t do wrong

[@flexiexpress6713]

They haven’t done anything wrong

[@flexiexpress6713]

A220 and in different categories

[@flexiexpress6713]

And the A320 family won’t be put out of production, it’s the most successful aircraft in history

[@hellascommentor]

6:50 - buy the Boeing 737 Max??? A 60s aircraft revived multiple times? No, not even if Boeing is subsidizing it! It might be a medium risk for existing users.

[@benrgrogan]

It's just part of diplomacy. Air France is trying to using it as a bargaining chip to encourage Airbus to produce the product.

[@hellascommentor]

@@benrgrogan that's very true. Like what AA did to Boeing ending to Boeing 737 Max "W. James McNerney, Jr., Boeing's CEO at the time, received a call from American Airlines' chief executive, Gerard Arpey. Arpey reportedly said that his airline was close to a deal for hundreds of Airbus narrow-body aircraft, warning that Boeing had to be more aggressive and timely to win its business."

[@blezen4727]

@@benrgrogan and a bargain price as well 😉

[@KyrilPG]

You're right I don't see the 737 returning to Air France's fleet, ever. AF already doesn't accept 787's not made in Everett so welcoming the MAX would be a 180 turn on AF' current relationship with Boeing. It's only a bargaining strategy, and a poorly credible one. Their pilot's unions would die before returning to the 737. Everything is possible but AF getting the MAX is as likely as Southwest ordering Airbus.

[@philgooddr.7850]

The de-stretched A318/9 (or B747SP, B720, etc) had one main purpose: to prevent A320/1 operators to also buy Embraer 190 or Fokker100, etc (or L1011 DC10/ MD11, Coronado’s etc) and only standardise on one single PN qualification. Short sticks never reached high volume sales but it was cheap and easy to cut an airframe shorter and far more difficult to stretch one, for instance the 707 was definitely impossible to be stretched like DC8-30 into DC8-50 and 80..

[@marc-antoinemetivier2854]

As a canadian from the home province of Bombardier I can say everyone here was devastated that Bombardier had to giveup their Cseries as aerospace technologies is a very important industry in Québec.

[@deanwood1338]

Not at all, they played this perfectly. Apart from the A318 which is fairly redundant these days… hence there not being a NEO model. Plus if you look at average fleet ages of A319 ceo, most are only 16 years old so still have plenty of life in them, which also contributes to low orders for the 19. A220-100 and 300 are great planes for airlines that don’t operate the many A320 family or have historically leaned more to Boeing products. The benefit of A320 family is the 19,20,21 are just stretches or shrinks of same the plane so pilot re training is minimal over the types and maintenance costs are lower. Plus with 21LR and soon XLR airlines can operate an entire fleet of the A320 family aircraft and cover everything from short to long(ish) haul routes. I think airbus know exactly what they’re doing. 👍

[@fandysaputra7276]

Me in airlines manager 4 also prefer A220 over A320.

[@andreaspoppe3124]

so that is may be already the reason why you are not an airline manager ;-)

[@fandysaputra7276]

@@andreaspoppe3124 In AM4, the A220-300 is faster, has more range, is more environmentally friendly and the capacity is almost the same as the A320-200 and one more thing..the price is also cheaper. So, A220 is the best choice.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

Is a lighter Aircraft and the fuselage is advanced materials not available when the B737 and A320 were developed.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

@@fandysaputra7276 Is orders of magnitude more quite.

[@Luke_Go]

It's not a mistake. The word 'mistake' means "an act or judgement that is misguided or wrong." Airbus didn't decide to develop the A319 and A220 at the same time. There are more than 20 years in between.

[@LuxPerp]

Airbus has a variety of products that customers want. What a dilemma! Seriously, this is a problem most businesses wish they had.

[@wyndbain525]

No offence its a nice and informative video but your wrong. Airbus has the A319 and the A320 acting as a higher capacity option to the A220 and with the A321 they are looking to utilise the newer extra range of the A319, A220 and the A321 to operate long range routes with lower demand like London Gatwick to Halifax or St John's. A market that only really uses Boeings 737 family. Further more the new A220-500 (if it happens) will just be like the first generation A321 (a higher capacity varient of the A220) and won't take over the market occupied by the A320 family as airbus is switching them to longer range flights.

[@iri34iri]

What mistake? Look the orders...

[@lonnievickerman1990]

My wife and I flew on the A320 and A319 from Spokane Washington to Minneapolis and onto Chicago OHare. Very impressed with the Airbus plane. I want a model of the A320 in 1/125 by Heller models. Seems like a very successful airplane to me.

[@vicv9503]

lol it is not a mistake. it is one of the greatest maneuver of a CEO ever.

[@gabrielb9010]

I think the A220 could have potential stretch

[@karlossargeant3872]

Yup The A220 Stretch Variant the A220-500 Series yes it would have.

[@gabrielb9010]

@@karlossargeant3872 Yup and Airbus is even considering the A220-800, the A220-900 and the A220-1000

[@karlossargeant3872]

@@gabrielb9010 Yes fa sure those types however Airbus needs too Focus on one New Type of Aircraft at time due too The COVID-19 Pandemic.

[@d4ss577]

Not really, because stretching they aircraft is really putting the design of its airframe to its limit. It’d be like the 737-900 or the Max -10, with it having greater capacity for people, but the range would be adversely affected. If they wanted to stretch it while keeping it competitive in the market it would likely require massive rebuilding of the airframe itself and in essence be quite different to the original.

[@label1877]

Mobile Alabama is pronounced “mo bill “. .

[@dylansheridan970]

Facts

[@ABCantonese]

The Baby Bus and even the A319 are gone, and there will always be a magnet for smaller planes even if you don't make them. So no, not an issue. So long the 220 didn't reach into 320's passenger and range, it's ok.

[@francisdexaviermaurinus4695]

-900 will

[@andresvillarreal9271]

There are many considerations here appart from the possible internal loss of market of one line by another. Every sale of a Boeing 737 max or similar plane means a committment of an airline to stay away from Airbus for a long time, while every sale of an A220 means a committment of the airline to stay with Airbus. And by being under the same roof, all the lines of Airbus can grow more similar and more synergetic. At the very least, the lessons learned will help them push towards better, more homogenized avionics, that will make it easier for pilots and maintenance crews to switch between airplane models.

[@silvestrebittencourt6445]

"a" mistake? LOL Come on, don't make me laugh! Airbus have been making mistakes all along the way ever since they started LOL Funny joke... Loved it!

[@Buranski]

Correct and that is why they are at some point selling better than Boeing LOL!

[@Bushmasterpilot]

Just look at the A380.....Lol!

[@lsq7833]

@@Buranski At some point? They still are.

[@thespian302]

Bomb-bard-ee-Aye

[@RedLP5000S]

Aye is pronounced "Eye".

[@thespian302]

@@RedLP5000S "Ay" like "hay" or "yay"

[@gregyoung6957]

Once the NEO product cycle comes to its end around 10 years from now or so, it makes sense to do a refresh on the 220 (maybe new engines) and add in the 500 option so that the 220 cover from around 100 passengers up to around the 170 mark. Then an all new generation single aisle plane, probably in three classes as well, covering from around 190 up to 280 ish. Then a reengined a350 for anything bigger

[@spongebubatz]

An A220-500 would Alonso mean reduced range and couldn’t compete with the A320 or 737 on longer routes

[@porcelainthunder2213]

If anything, this helps airbus. By eliminating the 318 and 319, they can focus on 320 and 321 production, which is way behind in capacity. The A220 is a better plane anyway. It can help them sell more 320s as both Boeing and Airbus are so backed up with orders for the small planes, Airbus can offer additional production slots, or offer the 220 in place of the 320 in some circumstances if the customer wants the plane faster.