Sitting on my first AC A220 flight. First impression is throughly underwhelmed by the hard product.
Stranger jasdou , I can confirm my roll-aboard fit comfortably on its side above me in 2D, and the bins are the same size back in Y as they are in J (unlike the E-Jets).
Why do they keep putting these damned footrests in the planes that chew up some of the legroom? They don't seem to stay in the up position very well. Put pretty much ANYTHING in the seatback pocket, and it will push the frigging footrest down in to your legs. Very poor design.
Also, it seems the seats run very low to the floor, which impacts both legroom (at least for those of us with long legs) and space to stow items - my briefcase fits fine under the seats in front on every other type but is really jammed in here.
Screen is big and nice and everything is new and shiny, sure.
I much preferred the seats on DL's 221, which had none of the aforementioned drawbacks while still retaining the advantages.
Originally Posted by
Fiordland
Had they gone for for the A220-100 I would say it was a E190 replacement.
AC says the 223 is an E90 replacement. They've said that publicly in their financial statements.
They've also stated, at least privately, that economically, it makes sense as an E90 replacement because the trip cost is roughly the same, yet it seats ~50% more people. So they're going to try operating the 223 on a lot of routes where they used to use E90s and see if they can make some extra dough selling all those extra seats.
Replacing the E190 with A220-300 probably is an indication the E190 is a bit on the small side for what AC needs today.
It's a question of economics, not necessarily capacity. If it was just capacity, they could have bought more 319s and/or 320s. The 223 has a few more sests than a 319 but operates at a lower cost per seat. Or it can operate
way more seats at the same absolute cost as the E90. Either way, should be much more profitable.
Originally Posted by
Stranger
The 223 is not much smaller than the 320. Quite a bit more than the 319. OTOH the E90 was based upon a flawed business model and never really belonged. But they seem happy with the mix of CR9s and E75 for the regionals.
This is in response to this and the other previously quoted post, but AC has the option to convert some of the 223 orders to 221s if they want. Which they may, depending on how it works out.
Originally Posted by
pitz
What was wrong with the E90? It did AC well
Clearly not that well, given they're getting rid of them with so many years of flying left in them.
constraining capacity and helping with yield
But I think that had the E90 economics (including reliability) been better on the overall package, that it would still be a great contributor to the AC fleet.
One could say the same of the A340-500.
The E90's economics aren't good, and not just for AC.
Passengers generally loved 'em.
But rarely do passengers book based on aircraft type. FOTSGs may occasionally get lured in by "Dreamliner" or "A380" (or, in ye olden dayze, "747"), but not by E90s. And how many times would even a frequent flyer pick AC over a competitor just to have an E90 over a 737/320? Not often.