Airbus A220-500 "Stretch" Concept Moves Forward, With 180(ish) Seats - Airbus General

Airbus A220-500 "Stretch" Concept Moves Forward, With 180(ish) Seats

Ben Schlappig — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 23:52:45 +0000

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.

Jack Abbott — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 02:20:14 +0000

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!

RF — Sat, 31 Jan 2026 03:11:16 +0000

Lol no.

This comes to mind — Sat, 31 Jan 2026 03:07:13 +0000

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.

This comes to mind — Sat, 31 Jan 2026 02:55:09 +0000

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.

ORD_Is_My_Second_Home — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 23:35:55 +0000

2-3. That's all that needs to be said.

NOT TIM — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:04:17 +0000

actually Airbus complains that Bombardier wrote such horrible contracts with suppliers that the plane IS NOT profitable.

NOT TIM — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:01:17 +0000

anyone who has flown both a A220 and E195 loves the 220 and hates the narrow seats of the E195 and no bin space.

Alex — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 18:04:59 +0000

They could name the plane A22D (with ‚D‘ as in the Latin/ancient Roman letter for 500).

N515CR — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 18:03:58 +0000

"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.