Originally Posted by
Leyland1989
The question is
How much cheaper is it to fly a fully loaded A220-100 than an A220-300 with 20 empty seats.
The opportunity cost favour the potential revenue of the 20 extra seats on the -300 over the saving you get from operating an A220-100.
They had the opportunity to order the CS100 to replace their E190 fleet but ultimately they decided to up gauge to the CS300 to replace both E190 and A319 with a single variant.
Unless they can modify the scope clause to use cheaper labour in regional carriers, -100 remains unlikely.
Or in an alternate universe, when YTZ finally get their runway extended and allow jet ops, but that's more unlikely than any of us here marrying Anna Kendrick. Also, if they get the runway certified for A220-100, they might as well make it long enough for E2-195 and A220-300.
I suspect there is a flight range where the CASM of the CS300 leapfrogs the CASM of the CS100. Same engine, same wing pushing less mass means significantly less cost to get a CS100 in the air. Once in the air, the difference is likely negligible thus every nautical mile cost is amortized over more seats, reflecting the advantage.
Thus why I think it’s a better plane for Express... if they were allowed to fly them.
Perhaps with the constant pressure for upguaging, a new agreement will bet set out and the sub brands could fly larger planes.