Mesabah

Mitsubishi has the SpaceJet coming in 2023, which will be an even wider cabin than the 175/195s, and lower operating costs. Boeing struck out again with the Embraer purchase.

The CRJ900s will probably be swapped out for M100s starting in 2024. A 100 seat M200 is also in the works.

sailingfun

I would hardly call .8 of a inch a big change in cabin width.

Fredturbo

That’s what she said!

forgot to bid

It's not that its .8 inches wide, it's how you use the .8 inches that matters.

-80ktsclamp

gloopy

Are they 100% Scope compliant including weight? Cause they ain't getting an exemption.

sailingfun

It’s a rehash of the earlier aircraft the MRJ-70 which was scope compliant on weight but seats only 69. It was not very efficient. They added a plug and reduced the fuel with a few other changes to get 76 seats in it and keep it under 86,000lbs. Remains to be seen if they can actually build it to that weight and they have been wildly late on all their time estimates.

gloopy

I like the sound of that.

Not one more 0.8"

saturn

320 series has been a success, no doubt. But it's been in production for 30 years. Comparing deliveries with the 220, which just hit 3 years of production (first few years very low output) is like comparing a rookie's season stats with a Hall of Famer's career stats. When you look at the 319NEO, I see their order book as business jets, future cancels, undisclosed Chinese and 20 by Avianca for Hot/High Andes flying. I'd hardly call that a superior aircraft, at least that's what airline's checkbooks have stated. And that's inspite of commonality with dozens of current 320 family operators and larger cargo savings. The 319NEO only makes sense for niche missions.

As for the 220-300, it will only improve with future PIPs and continue to widen the economics gap. And the 220-500 is likely not an if, but when. Our very own EB has already spoken at a townhall stating "In the future Airbus is going to want to bring on the -500, and we will be very interested in that". This was after somebody asked him why we converted our 75 220-100 to a 40/50 -100/-300 ratio. He was talking about the -300 having elite CASM, and that the -500 would be even better.

Scoop

[QUOTE=forgot to bid;2874766]Both killed by their bigger sibling. The 319 is no longer needed when the 320N matches the performance gain. 738 kills 700....


Aeronautical fratricide?


Scoop

forgot to bid

I get that EB wants it but the Airbus CEO was clear they're not doing it right now. And I really think they're not doing it.

I think the response will be the same as when AirTran asked Boeing for more 717 range and Boeing said sure, here you go... it's called a 737, how many do you want?

The 225 also starts getting into some defeciencies for the class it is jumping into. It would benefit 220 operators but not 320 operators and it would benefit Bombardier but cost Airbus and Bombardier is quitting the industry so not sure the incentive for Airbus.