I hope someone asks Airbus if they're even thinking about the CS500.
I would love to see a CS500 or well now A220-500
God I hope they are thinking about the 220-500. At least in the U.S. market, there is still so much ambiguity in what is going to happen to the 150 seat category. Except for the 100 American Max 8s, none of the big 3 are buying in that category now, and none seem remotely interested in buying anything in the Max7/8 category or the 319N/320N category. My question is whether Airbus thinks the A220-300 and A321N is a good enough offering, or if they are willing to sacrifice the 320N future orders in an effort to sell what I think would be a much more competitive A220-500. I am still depressed that the duopoly got to suck up Bombi's totally innovative but hot mess program, but I hope the airplane gets a full chance to mature.
Once again, what is so fascinating with the about the CS500/A220-500?
Possibility one, the A220-500 as a simple stretch of the A220-300. Same wing, same engines same MTOW. A frame for similar passenger numbers as the A320neo, but less capable. A good short haul frame, not capable for transcontinental and even less for TATL. A choice for airlines having the A220-100 or A220-300 in the fleet and needing a frame taking more passengers on rather short trips.
Possibility two. A stretch, new wing, bigger engines more MTOW than the A220-300. Are people really sure that that will be a better frame than the A320neo?
It would only pay off if it would be possible to show a significant advantage in fuel burn compared to the A320neo.
The A220-300 is already longer than the A320. 38.7 m compared to 37.57 m. To add 7 rows of 5 across, one would need to add at least 5 m, bringing a possible A220-500 to nearly the length of a A321. Is in this area a 5 across cabin perhaps inferior to a 6 across cabin? Would the bigger wing, bigger engines and added strength needed, bring an hypothetical A220-500 to a similar empty weight as an A320neo?
I think that a A220-500 would be a better choice than a A320neo is less than obvious. Perhaps version one would make some sense.