The Airbus A220 is a plane that’s loved by passengers, but perhaps not quite as loved by airlines, for a variety of reasons. While the plane currently comes in two variants, there have long been rumors of the European aircraft manufacturing giant considering a bigger version of the plane.
Continue reading: Airbus A220-500 “Stretch” Concept Moves Forward, With 180(ish) Seats
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Need to bring back wide body North American flights longer than 3 1/2 hours. This narrowbody stuff is a joke.
There are couple more points behind Airbus intending to produce the A220-500. They can keep the same profit margin at a lower cost to the airlines to sell an A220-500 in stead of an A320neo. Airbus will be happy to increase production of A321Neo in place of A320Neo as they have higher margin on the A321Neo/XLR and they can't seem tp produce them fast enough for airlines.
I suppose the ICAO code for this theoretical aircraft would have to continue in line with the legacy Bombardier C-Series naming scheme and be BCS5, given that "A225" is already taken by the Antonov An-225 Mriya (RIP)
I believe the A220-500 is a good move for Airbus. The A220 family is a very efficient, passenger-friendly aircraft that appears to also be a moneymaker for airlines.
If Airbus moves forward with this version, they can eliminate the A319NEO and perhaps also the A320NEO, to focus entirely on the A321NEO which is by far the best seller.
All of this, however, is dependent on solving the engine issues.
A220-300 can actually have a similar seating capacity as A320 when the seats are configured 3-3 abreast and the exits get bigger. The seat width will be 16.5 with 17" aisle, so it'll be really tight, but I'm pretty sure Southeast Asian LCCs will love it. 3-3 abreast A220 seat is still a concept but feasible in space-wise.
Airbus offers high-density options on A330(3-3-3 abreast) and A350(3-4-3 abreast), so it would make sense for them to do the same on A220. Evan narrower BAe-146 had 3-3 abreast seats.
YESSS!! This is the way. Ditch those 717s and CRJs. E2s and a220s all the way. For the future.
Wrong. Premium narrowbody is excellent. Lie-flat on a321neo/XLR is magical (see SQ, can be done on 737, too). Also, 2-3 seating in-back on a220 is ideal for couples.
Oof. No. 2-3 is the way. 3-3 on this aircraft is cruel. Cebu's a330 with that all-economy, 3-3-3 is hell.
Maybe it's time to slowly phase out the A320 family and use the A220 family as a baseline?
Yeah, I dread 3-3 on A220, too, but there is a demand for that. Cramp as many seats as possible to lower the fare and make profit - That's what LCCs want.
And imagine 3-3 on A220-500.. It'll have as many seats as A321. I can imagine Southeast Asian LCCs instantly ditching their A320 fleet and switch to A220-300/500.
One of the many reasons I love flying Breeze is the 2-3 A220 on most routes. And, the cost to upgrade in to their 2x2 “first class light” is usually pretty reasonable.
The A321NEO has sold more copies than the entire MAX lineup. That is where their bread and butter is in narrowbodies. The A319NEO is dead and Airbus is not afraid for the A320NEO to only have the advantage of almost 8 hour range.
An A220-500 hits right at the heart of the MAX family, the MAX8, and would have economics that would blow the MAX 8 out of the water.
The engine issues are because of Pratt and Whitney's bumbled rollout of the Geared Turbofan which has grounded far more A321NEOs than A220s.
Some airlines have opted to use Pratt's production capacity for the larger engines on the 321NEO because of its greater revenue generating capacity.
The A220-300 has per seat economics as good as the A321NEO so airlines most certainly do LOVE the A220.
It is very likely that AC, AF and DL will jump on the A220-500 and that will be the next phase of DL's fleet modernization.
A stretch of the A220-500 has been rumored for years - as soon as Airbus took over the C Series - which was forced into Airbus' hands because of the smoking hot deal that Bombardier gave DL for the C Series.
When UA receives its 499th MAX, DL will be receiving far more modern and economical aircraft.
The A220 has wider seats than any other narrowbody in coach and most other widebodies.
IM NOT TALKING ABOUT COACH!! I DONT FLY COACH!!! MOST PEOPLE THAT PREFER WIDEBODYS KNOW THAT FIRST AND BUSINESS CLASS IS WAY BETTER THAN ON NARROW BODYS!!!
Lucky, please report on this devaluation
https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/comments/1qqh0vt/i_did_the_math_the_new_program_is_a_massive/
IM NOT TALKING ABOUT COACH!! I DONT FLY COACH!!! MOST PEOPLE THAT PREFER WIDEBODYS KNOW THAT FIRST AND BUSINESS CLASS IS WAY BETTER THAN ON NARROW BODYS!!!
- sun tzu
It’s wild that DL and B6 are the only major (forget Breeze) a220 operators in the US; UA and AA are missing out!
Spirit had an order but it got cancelled in bankruptcy. China Southern ended up as launch customer though they only have 9
I assume that the production lines of the 220 vs 320 are totally different so it would be a way make overall more planes. Besides its always better to lose business to yourself vs a competitor
@Kraut the A319NEO only flies in China at the moment. I don't know if there are orders from non Chinese carriers at the moment
AA eventually needs to replace their aging A319’s/A320’s. Now they are getting refurbished, so it might be a while. But I could easily see AA going for the A220-300 and -500.
Anyone who thinks that Franco-Canadian Spaghetti-Os are superior to the E195-E2 is brain dead. 2-2 is always superior to 2-3. Let 2-3 remain in the grave with Douglas.
Let us know how many E2s have been sold compared to A220s, esp. in N. America.
Delta will place the biggest and best order for this and it will be the best strategy ever, correct Tim?
2026 is the 10th year of service for the A220; the -100 first flew in the summer with Swiss and the -300 in December with Baltic.
the 10th anniversary would be a great time to add yet another member of the family.
It was known when it entered service that it could be stretched beyond the -300
No chance. Southwest has 314 of them on order. I cannot fathom them bringing in a non-737.
“If there is an intelligent way to read these comments - I just don't know what it is”.
Does anyone?
Who cares about sales figures? It's a better plane. Surely you won't deny that the L-1011 was superior to the DC-10?
One more benefit is fleet commonality. If Airbus can offer both smaller and regular-sized narrow bodies within the same fleet, that will be very attractive for some airlines. LO is already going for all-220 SH fleet, and with the larger variant I can even see AF doing the same.
Stretches typically provide better economics than shrinks. The A320 NEO's orders have slowed a little in comparison with the A321 NEO. It still has a place in the medium haul world, and on routes that need containerized cargo for whatever reason, but getting the A220-500 out would allow Airbus to focus on an A321 successor with an A321 sized "base" length, hypothetical A322 sized "stretch" length, and maybe an A320 sized "shrink" length if there is a market for a high performance, VIP, or stretched range type variant
"An A220-500 hits right at the heart of the MAX family, the MAX8, and would have economics that would blow the MAX 8 out of the water."
Bingo - it could be a killer 738 replacement especially when the range isn't needed on midcon flights or NE-FL runs. While the 738 is capable of doing routes like BOS-LAX, it doesn't anymore due to more efficient aircraft coming to the market.
They could name the plane A22D (with ‚D‘ as in the Latin/ancient Roman letter for 500).
anyone who has flown both a A220 and E195 loves the 220 and hates the narrow seats of the E195 and no bin space.
actually Airbus complains that Bombardier wrote such horrible contracts with suppliers that the plane IS NOT profitable.
The problem, I would think, is that 1) the 225 can match the 320 seat numbers, but not the range or cargo, and 2) the 220 can't match the seating of the extremely popular 321. A super-stretched 220 (the 227?) would have terrible range and inferior cargo compared to the 321. It wouldn't stand a chance given the routes 321s fly.
If I'm in coach on a 220 or 195, I have an aisle seat with only one pax in my row. Don't care if it's 2-2 or 2-3 if I get the "2 side." I book early and get the seat I want. But, the 220 gets me a wider seat (if only 0.3") and much better oh bins.
I do like the Embraers (170 and above) that gets me a throne seat in F, but it is more narrow than the 220's 2-2 F seats (at least on DL). And more claustrophobic.
The A220-500 needs lots of range. A small handful of airlines will use it for short haul. But many other airlines have been asking for more range for the current A220-300, it's inevitable that they want the same thing for the A220-500. ETOPS, transatlantic capability and 4000 nautical miles will do. This is the most comfortable narrowbody for the lower end of long-haul flights (6 to 8 hours). If Airbus does not do it, then Boeing will. The A220-500 will have space for a larger center tank. It absolutely needs more powerful engines to maintain its competitive edge in shortfield takeoff and climb performance to access airports like London City. Airbus, please no simple stretch. Get it right!