Jan 16, 2020, 9:30 pm
Airbus A220 (ex CSeries) Master Thread
Jan 14, 2019, 1:42 pm
#482
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YHZ/YQM
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 1,618
I'd rather take a TATL from YHZ in an A220 than backtrack to YUL/YYZ, wait for a connection, then take a widebody. I'm hoping the ETOPS cert, range and efficiency will enable new routes from my home province.
Jan 14, 2019, 1:48 pm
#483
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: YEG
Posts: 3,925
Jan 14, 2019, 1:54 pm
#485
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: YYC, Canada
Programs: AC 35k
Posts: 1,898
IAH remains on CR9s - it's not on the diagram. I'm guessing AC prefers to have the frequency on that route. We are going to see more CR9 routes with the Jazz upgauge.
Where are the CR9s based? YVR, YYC and ???
Where are the CR9s based? YVR, YYC and ???
Jan 14, 2019, 2:37 pm
#486
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,345
It looks like YYZ-SJC is being considered. Probably not a flight I'd ever take, but I know lots of Canadians in the south bay who would love to fly out of SJC instead of SFO. Or even Canadians visiting any of the south bay companies.
Jan 14, 2019, 4:25 pm
#487
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Plat, WS Plat, BA Silver, DL GM, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,775
YYC-IAH desperately needs to get off the CR9s though, it's a joke. Not only is the plane uncomfortably cramped for a route of that length, it's right at the edge of its range. Huge number of tech stops and bags left behind last year. Took those morons 5+ days to get me back a bag that they left behind due to payload restrictions (so much for priority baggage), and even then, only after they routed it via YYZ. Many of my colleagues had similar experiences in 2018. I wrote AC a long, detailed and polite-yet-harsh note about this a while back and got a $300 eMCO out of it, but I'm not sure they got my point about the business that it's costing them, as many of us are now making efforts to avoid this route.
I think YYC-IAH would actually be a very good route for the CS1, if AC were to take some of those on. Especially if the UA TB JV gets approved, at which point they could better coordinate capacity. After all, there are times when UA is running a 739 either side of AC's CR9 flight, so it's not like there isn't traffic on the route.
Jan 14, 2019, 5:16 pm
#488
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: YYC, Canada
Programs: AC 35k
Posts: 1,898
I think YYC-IAH would actually be a very good route for the CS1, if AC were to take some of those on. Especially if the UA TB JV gets approved, at which point they could better coordinate capacity. After all, there are times when UA is running a 739 either side of AC's CR9 flight, so it's not like there isn't traffic on the route.
Jan 14, 2019, 5:16 pm
#489
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
Probably not a bad idea, since the wording "C Series" will only exist on currently built and currently in assembly aircraft and for the name of the legal entity that holds the TC for the A220.
The TCDS for the A220 is BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11, whereas the TCDS for the Q400 is DHC-8-401 and DHC-8-402. The DH4 code is derived from the model name, CS1/CS3 are derived from the marketing name, not the not the model name which is why DH4 will remain regardless of which entity hold the TC for the DH4 models.
perhaps you should read those same documents you mention. There is no mention of C Series (other than a few marketing descriptors) and the model information is printed as BD-500-1A10, BD-500-1A11 and BD-500-1A10/1A11. The TCDS for the A220 series has already been updated to reflect the new marketing designation.
It isn't a simple rename just to suit an AIB marketing designator. Every single part, manual, and regulatory document has been created using the BBD designators at the time of certification. Every single one of these documents need to then be revised to an A221/A223 designator. Given the challenges with production, costs, and delivery, I can't see this being a high priority for Airbus.
....
....
perhaps you should read those same documents you mention. There is no mention of C Series (other than a few marketing descriptors) and the model information is printed as BD-500-1A10, BD-500-1A11 and BD-500-1A10/1A11. The TCDS for the A220 series has already been updated to reflect the new marketing designation.
Jan 14, 2019, 8:43 pm
#490
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YYC
Programs: AC 50k 1MM, Marriott LT Titanium Elite
Posts: 3,402
YYC-IAD/BOS were on the diagram as potential new routes. Both would be of interest to me.
YYC-IAH desperately needs to get off the CR9s though, it's a joke. Not only is the plane uncomfortably cramped for a route of that length, it's right at the edge of its range. Huge number of tech stops and bags left behind last year. Took those morons 5+ days to get me back a bag that they left behind due to payload restrictions (so much for priority baggage), and even then, only after they routed it via YYZ. Many of my colleagues had similar experiences in 2018. I wrote AC a long, detailed and polite-yet-harsh note about this a while back and got a $300 eMCO out of it, but I'm not sure they got my point about the business that it's costing them, as many of us are now making efforts to avoid this route.
I think YYC-IAH would actually be a very good route for the CS1, if AC were to take some of those on. Especially if the UA TB JV gets approved, at which point they could better coordinate capacity. After all, there are times when UA is running a 739 either side of AC's CR9 flight, so it's not like there isn't traffic on the route.
YYC-IAH desperately needs to get off the CR9s though, it's a joke. Not only is the plane uncomfortably cramped for a route of that length, it's right at the edge of its range. Huge number of tech stops and bags left behind last year. Took those morons 5+ days to get me back a bag that they left behind due to payload restrictions (so much for priority baggage), and even then, only after they routed it via YYZ. Many of my colleagues had similar experiences in 2018. I wrote AC a long, detailed and polite-yet-harsh note about this a while back and got a $300 eMCO out of it, but I'm not sure they got my point about the business that it's costing them, as many of us are now making efforts to avoid this route.
I think YYC-IAH would actually be a very good route for the CS1, if AC were to take some of those on. Especially if the UA TB JV gets approved, at which point they could better coordinate capacity. After all, there are times when UA is running a 739 either side of AC's CR9 flight, so it's not like there isn't traffic on the route.
Jan 14, 2019, 9:35 pm
#491
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Jan 17, 2019, 8:25 am
#492
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
The CS300 is the stretched version of the baseline (probably the longest stretch possible, given the intense focus on optimization), and the trend is for significantly relaxed stability especially with full FBW. So somewhat like the A320 series, you'll probably be seeing those ailerons working overtime keeping things stable during turbulence.
Wrong. There has long been talk of a -500 version. And now even AB is mentioning that while it's not on the table right now, in the future it is a definite possibility.https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...f-a220-455067/
Jan 17, 2019, 8:47 am
#493
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: YEG
Posts: 3,925
Regarding E90, etc. I always love the discussions about "this airplane is more comfortable than that plane" or "narrow bodies can't be comfortable on long flights." IMHO it typically has very little to do with the plane (higher pressure/humidity in 787, etc. being possible exceptions) but mostly to do with how each airline chooses to configure the plane. An example of this is how the perception of the 777's changed when AC went from 3+3+3 to 3+4+3 with less pitch. If it were only about aircraft size, there wouldn't be small corporate jets flying the rich/executives around the world in relative luxury.
QUOTE=pitz;30665429]I just wonder what AC has in store for the 2-3 nature of the CS300/A220? Will the "2" seats come with an up-charge? Will the middle seats in the "3" side of the 2-3 always be basic economy passengers, families strewn about the aircraft if they're not eligible for free seat assignment? Do we have confirmation that business class will be a 2-2 configuration?[/QUOTE]
Who knows how AC will configure the plane, but IIRC when Bombardier was showing people the mock-ups of the plane, one of the selling features of the plane was that the middle seat on the "3" side was to be a few inches wider than the other aisle/window seat (IIRC there were comments at the time that the wider middle seat might actually be the most sought after). The width of the cabin doesn't allow for 3+3 and bbd wanted to show that there wasn't a "bad" seat on the plane.
QUOTE=pitz;30665429]I just wonder what AC has in store for the 2-3 nature of the CS300/A220? Will the "2" seats come with an up-charge? Will the middle seats in the "3" side of the 2-3 always be basic economy passengers, families strewn about the aircraft if they're not eligible for free seat assignment? Do we have confirmation that business class will be a 2-2 configuration?[/QUOTE]
Who knows how AC will configure the plane, but IIRC when Bombardier was showing people the mock-ups of the plane, one of the selling features of the plane was that the middle seat on the "3" side was to be a few inches wider than the other aisle/window seat (IIRC there were comments at the time that the wider middle seat might actually be the most sought after). The width of the cabin doesn't allow for 3+3 and bbd wanted to show that there wasn't a "bad" seat on the plane.
Jan 17, 2019, 2:17 pm
#494
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 3,050
Wrong. There has long been talk of a -500 version. And now even AB is mentioning that while it's not on the table right now, in the future it is a definite possibility.https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...f-a220-455067/
Last edited by pitz; Jan 17, 2019 at 2:25 pm
Jan 17, 2019, 2:50 pm
#495
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Not wrong. The commentary,of a -500 version is rooted in some sort of misguided belief that the CS300 is a non-stretched version. The CS300 is already a stretch of the baseline CS200. Stretches on other platforms, like the 737, A320, etc., were possible because the baseline airplanes were grossly overbuilt due to the lack of computer simulation capability available at the time of their design, and lack of intense optimization. When Bombardier designed the CS300, they set out to create the most stretch they possibly could out of the baseline "CS200" platform. If they could do a CS500, absent some miracles of material science or engineering occurring in the future, it would've been already done.
To start with, the baseline is the CS100. And there is always room for more stretch. Might entail more chanes. But that there was one stretch by no means implies there is no further room. Just look at the DC-9, all the way to the longest MD80, or the Challenger, all the way to the CRJ1000.