321s and 320s are common type and pilot type rating and common pilot staffing and training.
For the a220 it doesnt have 95% commonality with 321 and it will need separate staffing, simulators and training department. You cant use the same crew at an out station if you decide to swap from 321 to 220 whereas you can use same crew swapping 321 to 320.
As mentioned elsewhere, commonality is less of an issue when you have 50+ of each type.
And more specifically as Delta and JetBlue are showing, you don’t necessarily need the 320NEO. Both of them have ordered large numbers of 220s and 321NEOs only. The 223/321N seems to work well for mainline short/medium haul with the 223 acting as the schedule builder and the 321N providing the heavy lift.
Have to say that I am surprised by the apparent overwhelming consensus here.
Is the 223 -being dribbled-out from the 2 current lines - really so absolutely superior in CASM/RASM/buy price to an A320neo being pumped-out at 50+/Month?
(This is giving the benefit-of-the doubt that transition costs to a substantially different product are negligible. Another assumption hereabouts).
Some evidence, anyone?
The A220 has incredibly low CASM:https://airinsight.com/cseries-beats-ne ... ile-costs/
You do know yield drops with passenger count? On a city pair their might be:
12 passengers in top fare bucket
20 in 2nd fare bucket
30 in 3rd bucket
50 in 4th and say 250 in last (cheapest) bucket.
In my example, there are only 62 fares worth pursuing. The rest are carried at a loss. So a smaller aircraft that carries people at the same or lower cost will make more profit.
The issue with the c-series was support and production is being fixed. At this time, there is less wait for the A220 as Pratt is finally producing engines on time. CFM still hasn't met demand.
Most of the A220 benefit is CFRP wing and electrical subsystems (saves about 3% in fuel).
The A220 engines are optimized for a 1 hour mission, the A320 NEO was mandated to optimize for 2 hours on the A321, which means about 3 hours in the A320. In other words, the A320 is carrying so much extra engine that the A220 has a definitive cost advantage in shorter missions, but the lower wing loading helps on longer missions.
The A320 needs a new wing. The current wing is out of date on multiple grounds (fuel system design, material, lack of underside laminar flow which requires a greater aspect ratio).
Technology has moved on.
For AF, the A220 is an excellent fit. They will make more profit with it.
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.