Originally Posted by
PLeblond
The only one that comes to my mind is CASM is perhaps lower on shorter flights.
Can't imagine any plausible route where the CASM of the -100 is lower than the -300. Trip cost yes (slightly); CASM no.
Originally Posted by
JustSomeGuy1978
That being said. I'll throw out my pipe dream again. What if AB were to shrink the 221 further. Removing 20-25 seats to a capacity of 80-100, and somehow reengineer the fuel tanks to bring range down to 1000'ish NM. Then maybe AC would be interested. Call it the 220-50 or 219. This plus a 225 stretch would make the 220 family an incredible force across multiple mission types.
A further shrink to the A220 would be even less competitive - it is over weight and over-engineered for an 80-100 seat aircraft. No way they can pull enough weight out without a full redesign. EMB has that market to itself for the foreseeable future.