"Air Canada is considering the CSeries jet as it focuses on deciding by the end of the year which narrow-body to purchase for its fleet ", the airline's chief executive said.

"It's a big, big decision because it's more than 100 airplanes total," CEO Calin Rovinescu told reporters at the opening of a new operations centre near Toronto's Pearson Airport.


This should be big news for Bombardier !!

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1377085480.html


Rgds.
G.

this is one order I really would like to see. I think the C-Series could work extremely well for AC. They would be the perfect fit to replace the A319s, maybe even some A320s

I might be mistaken but I think they have been talking about a possible order for the C-Series for a year now...

Interesting. The CSeries should be awesome, however, would the CS-300 be similar to the A320 in terms of capacity? What about replacing the A321?

We recently had good discussion

Air Canada Narrow Body Fleet Choices (by LAXintl Jun 20 2013 in Civil Aviation)


Problem with C-series is they cannot meet full requirements for AC and would require split order with Airbus or Boeing.

CEO said decision due by years end.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3): Problem with C-series is they cannot meet full requirements for AC and would require split order with Airbus or Boeing.

Correct. Rovinescu has been quoted as saying a split order is not out of the question. Longhauler has said it will be all 738 as an interim a/c, then 737-MAX8. Argument in favor of that is cockpit commonality between 738-MAX, 77L/W, and 788/9, all symbology and architecture the same. Argument in favour of a split is that the 738-MAX is too much a/c for many routes.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 4): Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):Problem with C-series is they cannot meet full requirements for AC and would require split order with Airbus or Boeing. Correct. Rovinescu has been quoted as saying a split order is not out of the question. Longhauler has said it will be all 738 as an interim a/c, then 737-MAX8. Argument in favor of that is cockpit commonality between 738-MAX, 77L/W, and 788/9, all symbology and architecture the same. Argument in favour of a split is that the 738-MAX is too much a/c for many routes.

Why not a split order for CSeries, A320NEO and A321NEO?
I'm not sure what cockpit commonality the 737MAX has with 77L/W and 788/9.
Cockpit commonality between A319/320/321 and the NEO versions of those aicraft seem quite a bit bigger and more relevant.

C Series cannot replace A320 nor A321. It can only replace the E90 and A319 maximum in AC's fleet! But yes the C100 and C300 would be ideal replacements on a majority of current routes operated by their large fleet of E90s/A319s.

Bombardier will for sure be pulling out all the stops to bag a good chunk of this deal as it will in turn provide their program with a massive positive PR push which is required. FYI currently Air Canada has 35 A319s + 45 E90s so 80 aircraft in total.

I'd love to see this as CS100/CS300/A320NEO/A321NEO.

In my opinion it makes the most sense. Cockpit commonality is far more prominent between the existing Airbus fleet and the NEOs in comparison to the 737s and the 777s and 787s. Not to mention the only engine available on the C-Series is the PW which the NEO also offers but the MAX does not.

Personally I will be disappointed if this goes to Boeing as a passenger and plane watcher. Our airports are filled with 737s already, and if I wanted to fly the 737 I can fly WestJet.

Quoting lostsound (Reply 7): Personally I will be disappointed if this goes to Boeing as a passenger and plane watcher. Our airports are filled with 737s already, and if I wanted to fly the 737 I can fly WestJet.

I think the 737 would be a good fit for Air Canada. As a pilot (not on the 737 though) I am not a fan of the yoke. I think a side stick is the way to go in the future, but Boeing thinks otherwise.

Quoting lostsound (Reply 7): I'd love to see this as CS100/CS300/A320NEO/A321NEO.

Were it not for the strong rumors of the -8/MAX-8 order, I'd agree. It would seem a great fit, though going all "-8" versus 320/321 might simplify things for them.

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 9): Were it not for the strong rumors of the -8/MAX-8 order, I'd agree. It would seem a great fit, though going all "-8" versus 320/321 might simplify things for them. -Dave

Maybe a combination of C300 and -800 max?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 5): Why not a split order for CSeries, A320NEO and A321NEO?

Why not the Embraer E-Jet 2nd generation to replace the current E-175/190s? The 4-abreast configuration is much nicer than 5-abreast on the CSeries.

Quoting vio (Reply 10): Maybe a combination of C300 and -800 max?

Oh that might happen as well. I meant ot refer more to the A vs B option. I HOPE they do the CSeries. I'd also love it if someone would place a big launch order for the CS500.

-Dave

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 5): I'm not sure what cockpit commonality the 737MAX has with 77L/W and 788/9.

As I stated, the cockpit symbology (and displays) and information architecture, terminology, yadda yadda, are identical across 737MAX, 77L/W and 788/9. This makes pilot cross-training much easier (and therefore cheaper). Information came to me from Longhauler. As he drives 763s for AC, one can assume he knows what he's talking about.

But, also as stated, the 738MAX is too much for a lot of routes, opening a possibility for CS100/300.

Quoting vio (Reply 8): Quoting lostsound (Reply 7): Personally I will be disappointed if this goes to Boeing as a passenger and plane watcher. Our airports are filled with 737s already, and if I wanted to fly the 737 I can fly WestJet. I think the 737 would be a good fit for Air Canada.

But a step backwards for AC passengers after many years of the more spacious Airbus cabin.The approximate 7-inch wider cabin makes a noticeable difference, permitting either wider seats or a wider aisle or a combination thereof. This past weekend I flew on both one KLM 737-700 (and one Fokker 70) and two AF A318s in the other direction. The wider aisle on the A318s was very noticeable. You can actually squeeze past a meal/beverage trolley in the aisle on the Airbus which isn't possible on the 737.

The wider aisle also seems to expedite boarding. I noticed on the AF A318s passengers were often able to get by other passengers in the aisle while on the 737 you usually have to wait for passengers in front to stow their carry-on items and take their seats.

For AC to revert to a passenger cabin whose dimensions date back almost 60 years to the first 707 doesn't make sense in my opinion.

Adding the CSeries could also mean having the possibility of increasing YTZ service, now that Porter made its move...
By this fall, as far as I know, the decision on the tripartite agreement will be taken and that could be an additional reason for AC to purchase the CSeries.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):

Air Canada can be a bit scummy sometimes with customer service. I don't think the wider aisle is even on their list of priorities. Not that it often is with any airline.

Quoting Paolo92 (Reply 15): By this fall, as far as I know, the decision on the tripartite agreement will be taken and that could be an additional reason for AC to purchase the CSeries.

If the decision is made to both lengthen the runway AND lift the jet ban, expect squadrons of lawyers funded by NIMBY organizations (likely Olivia Chow leading the charge) to appeal,appeal, appeal. This could take years. At which point PD may be out of business.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14): For AC to revert to a passenger cabin whose dimensions date back almost 60 years to the first 707 doesn't make sense in my opinion.

While the A320 has a wider cabin, thousands of 737's continue to be ordered by the world's airlines, so it's hard to call out AC for doing the same.

For me, as I said earlier, I'd see CS100/CS300/A320/A321 as the best option with the most flexibility.

-Dave

Quoting Paolo92 (Reply 15): Adding the CSeries could also mean having the possibility of increasing YTZ service, now that Porter made its move... By this fall, as far as I know, the decision on the tripartite agreement will be taken and that could be an additional reason for AC to purchase the CSeries.

I personally like the thrust of your argument. However, I am concerned already about ramp space at YTZ. If the expansion is approved, I expect there will be more ramp space, but PD have ordered up to 30 CS100s, and if AC decide to add jet service to YTZ, from a practical p.o.v., managing operations there will be difficult at best.

Also there is that slot thing. But I suppose more slots can be conjured up. But this too would be fodder for the NIMBY crowd.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11): Quoting frigatebird (Reply 5): Why not a split order for CSeries, A320NEO and A321NEO? Why not the Embraer E-Jet 2nd generation to replace the current E-175/190s? The 4-abreast configuration is much nicer than 5-abreast on the CSeries.

Not to be ruled out, but the E2 can't replace the A319, while the CS300 can. And I don't think the A319NEO will be that efficient.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13): Quoting frigatebird (Reply 5):I'm not sure what cockpit commonality the 737MAX has with 77L/W and 788/9. As I stated, the cockpit symbology (and displays) and information architecture, terminology, yadda yadda, are identical across 737MAX, 77L/W and 788/9. This makes pilot cross-training much easier (and therefore cheaper). Information came to me from Longhauler. As he drives 763s for AC, one can assume he knows what he's talking about.

OK, point taken. But I still maintain cockpit commonality between A320/321 and the NEO is a bigger advantage than between 737 and 777/787. The the NEO also more in common with the A320 than just the cockpit  

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20): The the NEO also more in common with the A320 than just the cockpit

I would buy that if AC were still doing maintenance up to 'D' check in-house. But 'C' & 'D' are now contracted. So the investment in A32* methodology is less critical.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11): Why not the Embraer E-Jet 2nd generation to replace the current E-175/190s? The 4-abreast configuration is much nicer than 5-abreast on the CSeries.

The E195-E2 has a fuse stretch to take max seating to 132 I believe. But that would be all Y. Putting in a J cabin would cut seats to 115-120 or thereabouts. The existing E175s are of course now the property of Sky Regional.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20): OK, point taken. But I still maintain cockpit commonality between A320/321 and the NEO is a bigger advantage than between 737 and 777/787. The the NEO also more in common with the A320 than just the cockpit

I agree, and I remain an Airbus fan, however ... while I feel the A320NEO + CSeries is the better option, I think they have left the narrow body decision too late. With so many orders, new NEOs would take so long to arrive, that the B737-8/9/MAX now may be the better option.

This is only my gut feeling, and going by what is batted around Flight Ops these days, nothing official at all. It is sad though, I can't imagine an easier introduction than the seamless addition of the A320NEO to AC's fleet.

I won't hold my breath. AC doesn't seem to like to buy unproven airframes (anymore) and so the timing is just poor for Bombardier. I'd love this order to go through though...

Lightsaber

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22): I agree, and I remain an Airbus fan, however ... while I feel the A320NEO + CSeries is the better option, I think they have left the narrow body decision too late. With so many orders, new NEOs would take so long to arrive, that the B737-8/9/MAX now may be the better option.

Many, many times aircraft orders have been driven by availability. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I hope they go for the C-series!

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20): Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13): Quoting frigatebird (Reply 5):I'm not sure what cockpit commonality the 737MAX has with 77L/W and 788/9. As I stated, the cockpit symbology (and displays) and information architecture, terminology, yadda yadda, are identical across 737MAX, 77L/W and 788/9. This makes pilot cross-training much easier (and therefore cheaper). Information came to me from Longhauler. As he drives 763s for AC, one can assume he knows what he's talking about. OK, point taken. But I still maintain cockpit commonality between A320/321 and the NEO is a bigger advantage than between 737 and 777/787. The the NEO also more in common with the A320 than just the cockpit

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22): I agree, and I remain an Airbus fan, however ... while I feel the A320NEO + CSeries is the better option, I think they have left the narrow body decision too late. With so many orders, new NEOs would take so long to arrive, that the B737-8/9/MAX now may be the better option. This is only my gut feeling, and going by what is batted around Flight Ops these days, nothing official at all. It is sad though, I can't imagine an easier introduction than the seamless addition of the A320NEO to AC's fleet.

Uninformed gut feeling: Airbus will be out at AC in a not so distant future. Just imagine what efforts Boeing may be pulling to turn away a major North American carrier that was mostly Airbus just a decade ago, and converting them back into a mostly- if not exclusively-Boeing one… It will be something huge.

Unless John Leahy performs some kind of magic (and I really mean magic!).

The CSeries, in that? Hum… not very optimistic, to be honest. Would love to see it, though (home town players!).

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22): Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20): OK, point taken. But I still maintain cockpit commonality between A320/321 and the NEO is a bigger advantage than between 737 and 777/787. The the NEO also more in common with the A320 than just the cockpit I agree, and I remain an Airbus fan, however ... while I feel the A320NEO + CSeries is the better option, I think they have left the narrow body decision too late. With so many orders, new NEOs would take so long to arrive, that the B737-8/9/MAX now may be the better option. This is only my gut feeling, and going by what is batted around Flight Ops these days, nothing official at all. It is sad though, I can't imagine an easier introduction than the seamless addition of the A320NEO to AC's fleet.

First, never sell Airbus short if they want the order. Air Canada's order behaviour is one of the most closely watched in the industry worldwide because it is beholding to neither Airbus or Boeing, and AC has even taken a relatively untested Brazilian product over made-in-Canada CRJs. That's credibility. Airbus knows what NEO orders on the books are firm, and which are not. They are contracting for a lot of automated manufacturing tooling that can lead to further increases in production rates, and they have two engine manufacturers in the program, not one.

Second, AC can continue flying old A320s for as long as it takes to renew the fleet. You do a progressive renewal, maybe even acquiring newer used frames to replace the very oldest on an interim basis. This is cost-effective for AC, and it's something Airbus has the capacity to orchestrate.

Third, never underestimate BBD's desperation to get a piece of a complete AC narrowbody refleeting. If that means taking the Embraers and remarketing them, they have to be considering it.

[Edited 2013-08-22 08:48:40]

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24): Many, many times aircraft orders have been driven by availability. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I don't see AC being desperate to replace the current E190/A32x fleet asap, so even though they are arguably late to the neo game (if neo is what they want) they might be willing to wait till 2020 to get initial delivery, rather than order the less ideal MAX just for earlier delivery (assuming it is less than ideal for AC; it may not be).

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22): With so many orders, new NEOs would take so long to arrive, that the B737-8/9/MAX now may be the better option.

What a motley fleet that will be for AC during the transition years with the 319/320/321 along with -8/-9 and MAX, not to mention possibly C-series replacing the E-190 at the same time. Can you say Scandinavian/SAS? This alone must play strongly into Airbus hands to ensure fleet commonality and continuity. I think a Boeing order is very uphill.

There was a recent detailed article about JetBlue operations in AWST in which they stated how unhappy they were with the E190 from a maintenance cost standpoint and the CF34 efficiency, and have cancelled some orders. Presumably AC has the same issues.

Quoting sebring (Reply 27): Third, never underestimate BBD's desperation to get a piece of a complete AC narrowbody refleeting. If that means taking the Embraers and remarketing them, they have to be considering it.

In the never-ending CSeries threads, I brought up the E-jet trade-in possibility. BBD will go for it if it secures a good CSeries order.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 28): I don't see AC being desperate to replace the current E190/A32x fleet asap, so even though they are arguably late to the neo game (if neo is what they want) they might be willing to wait till 2020 to get initial delivery, rather than order the less ideal MAX just for earlier delivery (assuming it is less than ideal for AC; it may not be).

If they go neo, I am sure Airbus will bend over backwards to accomodate them. As Sebring has said, most likely not ALL neo orders are firm. AC could bump people backwards.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 28): There was a recent detailed article about JetBlue operations in AWST in which they stated how unhappy they were with the E190 from a maintenance cost standpoint and the CF34 efficiency, and have cancelled some orders. Presumably AC has the same issues.

AC doesn't do heavy mx anymore. It's all contracted. If these contracts are not fixed price, I'd be shocked. The CF34 specific fuel consumption IS AC's headache, and I am quite sure the are concerned. If you can believe the chatter on the internet the P&W GTF has beaten even its' own design goals.

Quoting lostsound (Reply 16): Air Canada can be a bit scummy sometimes with customer service. I don't think the wider aisle is even on their list of priorities. Not that it often is with any airline.

I think it is fair to say though, cf. other North American airlines, AC's customer service is mostly less scummy than their US competitors (or at least that is my opinion). Sadly, however, despite the fact that I believe the A32x cabin width is far preferable to the 737 cabin width (having flown on a LOT of both), it is unlikely to be a major purchasing decision 

One factor which may influence the decision is whether AC sees a future for growing their their narrowbody TATL flights. If they do, then this could play into the hands of the NEO as, from I read as an informed amateur/enthusiast, it seems that the A321NEO is likely to develop into the best prospective TATL performer from the new batch of Boeing/Airbus narrowbodies. The A321NEO could be attractive to AC for SNN, DUB, MAN, GLA, EDI etc.

Sadly AC seems to have a history of going all-in on one manufacturer. The introduction of the A320 (replacing 727) soon turned into the domino effect...A319 replacing the DC-9, then the A340/A330 replacing the 747s; I was afraid the A330 would take out the 763....

Thankfully AC wisely turned to the 777 and 787 for better fuel efficiency.

My    are looking strongly at the 737MAX for A320/321 replacement, hopefully I'm wrong...

But I feel strong about the C-series replacing A319/E190s.

I don't believe it would be a 737. Based on little more than a hunch, I think it will be an A320 NEO and C-Series split:

* Airbus narrowbodies would represent continuity. Rouge, for example, will still operate narrowbody Airbuses
* AC already has strongly indicated that the Embraers would leave the fleet -- the 175s to Sky Regional, with the fate of the 190s up in the air
* * There are political considerations to order from Bombardier. AC has split orders in the past, such as when it went Embraer for AC and Bombardier CRJ705s for Jazz back when Jazz still had an ownership connection to AC
* WestJet operates the 737s and while this ordinarily wouldn't mean a thing, AC has a bit of a history of fleet differentiation from its primary competitor.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 31): Sadly AC seems to have a history of going all-in on one manufacturer. The introduction of the A320 (replacing 727) soon turned into the domino effect...A319 replacing the DC-9, then the A340/A330 replacing the 747s; I was afraid the A330 would take out the 763.... Thankfully AC wisely turned to the 777 and 787 for better fuel efficiency. My    are looking strongly at the 737MAX for A320/321 replacement, hopefully I'm wrong... But I feel strong about the C-series replacing A319/E190s.

That one example is the only time AC has gone for a large number of one aircraft type/manufacturer and the people who orchestrated that are gone from AC. For the majority of it's history it has ordered from all sorts of manufacturers simultaneously. Boeing, Douglas, Locheed, and so on. Rather than all Bombardier for smaller jets they went BD and Embraer. They didn't go A318 they went Embraer. Ditched the quite young A345 and cancelled A346 and went Boeing.

I think we will again have a mixed order. Either more newer Embraer and Boeing or Airbus, or C Series and Boeing or Airbus.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22): With so many orders, new NEOs would take so long to arrive, that the B737-8/9/MAX now may be the better option.

Maybe not if they sourced some frames from a lessor? Quite a lot of the current A32S fleet is leased.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 31): I was afraid the A330 would take out the 763....

Afraid? The 333's are still there for a reson, AC could have done quite well / even better if they had switched to the 330, though of course Im sure they are enjoying some cheap leases today on the 76.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 31): Thankfully AC wisely turned to the 777 and 787 for better fuel efficiency

The 77L makes sense vs the 345 and the 77W makes a lot of sense vs the 346 (see the cargo thread for one reason why), AC were lucky they had the time to cancel but I dont think they would be any worse off going with an A330 => A350.

Quoting drgmobile (Reply 32): with the fate of the 190s up in the air

This is the interesting part of the equation. AFAIK, the 190 is a great machine for AC and they really like it for its flexibility and range. I really feel that as AC "need" the A320 & A321 (738/739) size it would be better off for them to get the 319 too if the EJets are going to stick around rather than introduce a third type in the C Series. I can see one of three things happening:

1) Maintain the status quo and replace the 190 with the E2 and 319/320/321 with the NEO (or MAX7/8/9)

2) Replace all 190's & 319's with the C Series and get the 320/321NEO (MAX8/9). But it does increase capacity a little on the lower end and will be interesting to see if more flying gets passed on to Skyregional / Jazz (E175E2 would not be a surprise for them) or frequencies are cut. The 190 allows YVR-YYC to be hourly for example, will the C Series or 738?

3) Mainline sets the smallest a/c as the A320 (or maybe 319) and lets a regional partner outside the current agreement take over the 190 fleet and said replacement.

As is often pointed out too, AC are also one of the few airlines that really use the 319 for its range and is another plus for acquiring the whole family (at the expense of the CS IMO) plus I really do feel that cargo containers is another plus for AC and therefore the A32S. As mentioned in the cargo thread, AC do big business moving belly freight - with the geography, the domestic freight market is huge and there is also a big plus being able to transfer containers from one a/c to another from a domestic spoke onto a longhaul flight. Even if they have to change from one size of LD to another, its far easier than if it was all loose and handbombed.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11): Why not the Embraer E-Jet 2nd generation to replace the current E-175/190s? The 4-abreast configuration is much nicer than 5-abreast on the CSeries.

Have you flown on those aircraft to be able to form an educated opinion. I am willing to be that you haven't. You are just assuming that it won't be that great in your mind but not in reality as it is not something that really matters. It will come down to economics and not emotion.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 34): This is the interesting part of the equation. AFAIK, the 190 is a great machine for AC and they really like it for its flexibility and range.

That may be the case, but there was a Wings Magazine article based on an interview with Calin Rovinescu (date unknown) in which the magazine asserted that "Air Canada is also re-evaluating its narrow body fleet and is expected to make some announcements next year, including phasing out the Embraer 190s, which are too large to be transferred to Air Canada Express carriers and making a decision on a new generation twinjet."

http://www.wingsmagazine.com/content/view/7623/

As for the amount of time it would take to get Airbus NEOs into the fleet, AC clearly has patience. Just look at how late it is into the 787 delivery schedule.

[Edited 2013-08-23 05:27:45]

Quoting drgmobile (Reply 36): there was a Wings Magazine article based on an interview with Calin Rovinescu (date unknown)

This interview was published in the edition for September/October 2012.

Rgds.
G.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 34): Afraid? The 333's are still there for a reson, AC could have done quite well / even better if they had switched to the 330, though of course Im sure they are enjoying some cheap leases today on the 76.

Rumor has it early in 2000 Airbus tried to get then AC CEO Lamar Durett to replace its older 767-200s with the shorter A332. Of course Robert Milton who favored Boeing aircraft like the 777 soon replaced Durett and the A332 went to Air Transat instead....

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 23): I won't hold my breath. AC doesn't seem to like to buy unproven airframes (anymore) and so the timing is just poor for Bombardier. I'd love this order to go through though...

They ordered the 787 long before it actually flew, making that a fairly recent unproven aircraft order. Or are you saying that because of the 787 delays, AC wants to avoid unproven aircraft down the road?

I personally think that a mixed 737max and cseries order is in the books. That way, AC Would almost exclusively fly Boeing and bombardier, with the sky regional e175s and Georgian/EVAS 1900s being the only aircraft not made by those two companies.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11): Why not the Embraer E-Jet 2nd generation to replace the current E-175/190s? The 4-abreast configuration is much nicer than 5-abreast on the CSeries.

I would agree, however, nobody has flown on the cseries, so nobody can make that call on comfort. Also, I recently flew on an AC E190, and found it to be somewhat cramped, even though it was only 4 abreast.

Quoting YYCSpotter (Reply 40): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11): Why not the Embraer E-Jet 2nd generation to replace the current E-175/190s? The 4-abreast configuration is much nicer than 5-abreast on the CSeries. I would agree, however, nobody has flown on the cseries, so nobody can make that call on comfort. Also, I recently flew on an AC E190, and found it to be somewhat cramped, even though it was only 4 abreast.

No middle seat is always an advantage.

AC squeezed in another row of Y class seats on their E190s a year or so ago which didn't help. It was good before they did that. Seats in front of the overwing exits are better as all except 2 rows are 33-inch pitch (2 rows 32-inch). All rows behind the exits are 31-inches which is stil pretty standard on most carriers these days.

I don't think a transition would necessarily be that messy. Could AC not lease A32S aircraft to fill in gaps and go through a phased transition?

For example, replace the E190s and the A319s first. Then the A320s and A321s. Leased A32S could fill in even if AC buys 738/739 MAX.

Definitely an interesting selection process to watch. Would AC want to stay under the 100 seat count for the E190 replacement? Is cargo handling important for the larger narrowbodies? How does savings in engine commonality (Say using GTF on CSeries and NEO) compare to savings from cockpit commonality (737Max and 787/777)? And what (if any) are AC's intention for narrowbody TATL from the East Coast? And what's the intention for Rouge? A CS300 fitting 145 seats and operating with 3 FAs would be near-ideal for Rouge.

Taking longhauler's shop talk hints into account, it seems to me that availability and cockpit commonality are winning out over things like cargo handling, engine commonality and an easier transition. Will be interesting to see how this apparent preference for the MAX plays on the lower end.

I am also wondering what the change in cargo content has been since Canada Post has been spreading the love around and not exclusively using AC. The A320 family was chosen in part due to its containerized cargo. Without needed to ship large volumes of lettertainers loaded into containers, does that account for the perceived new interest in the 737 family and perhaps larger C Series. It doesn't come into play between the Embraer and C Series as both are equal in this respect.