Massive Order, Airbus A220 News & CEO Leaves Airline 

They weren't planning on going that route. It was a strategy for negotiations. I bet they regret not acquiring the A220s.

It’s not minuscule. It’s longer than the a318, 319, and 320.

@@Spyke-lz2hl but the a320 holds more people but the a220 is a very nice plane

Airbus is actually selling all A220s at a loss because of the suppliers Bombardier chose. At the moment is not yet a good purchase even while selling lots of A220s

Made in Quebec ! ;)

@@KlownQC Just up the road - amazing for Airbus and the Quebec economy - finally Mirabel is coming into its own.

Airbus is the best.

Saw that coming 3 years ago. Was never going to be successful. It was a pipe dream, and that money could’ve been spent better basically anywhere.

You betcha 🇨🇦

@@stickynorth except for the fact Bombardier sold all that Canadian taxpayers money that went into development of the CS300/A220 to Airbus and pocketed the cash.

@@PaulHodgson-gm6lgBut in return Canada got job safety for A220 production workers, especially in Mirabel.

P&W

Use Pratt & Whitney engines though Airbus uses the 1500g while the E175-E2 uses the 1700G and both E190-E2 and E195-E2 use the 1900G. Both cover similar ranges but Embraer laid out their E2 jets in a 2-2 configuration (economy) while the A220 is in a 3-2 configuration (economy only, not including first class).

Highly inefficient though.

LOL Airlines like to cram more people , not reduce them

but hold more people and more range

737 max is everywhere wdym..

Get a life

What about NAC?

Who cares

@@soccerguy2433 It's important to point out corporate bullshit.

It is the same thing basically so of course they care 🙄

@@verttikoo2052 no, the subtlety is very important. They do not care about emissions, only fuel burn but will always tell us its about emissions. I don’t accept being fed bullshit. That is all.

@@WeLoveWave Thinking 25% less fuel burn means 25% less emissions. They go hand in hand. Less fuel burn less emissions. So we also profit from this. Now Airbus needs to save fuel. Thank you 🙏

Unless you can clone people to fly those low demand routes to fill up A320s you can as well buy your own A220 to fly you wherever you want to fly to.

A few videos before, they were saying the opposite. That DJ is a Boeing fan. Leave the guy alone. He is NOT making the news. He is just spreading existing news.

​@@user-yt198He does delete comments regarding negative replies derogatory towards Airbus.. That's a fact!!!

How many seats do you think they'll cram in their 321's ...

The words quality and Boeing are not words that should be used together in the same sentence.

Cheap price? Boeing is practically giving away MAXs right now, and Airbus can afford to demand a premium for all of their aircraft, including the 220.

Your knowledge on this is lacking, just a touch. Airbus are able to keep prices high due to high demand. There's something called supply and demand. The 'quality' is also higher at Airbus.

@@StopMediaFakery Yup, and actual performance / quality aside (though both are an issue for Boeing in this segment) the PR implications are a far bigger issue for most operators lately.

They were right to replace the 767 with the 787. Bean counters did not allow money to be spent by engineers innovating, to eventually replace the 717, 727, 737 and 757. The single aisle market requires a family of aircraft to cover it. Hopefully, one day Boeing will wake up and return to its engineering roots, and still make money, rather than focus of increasing profits for investors at the expense of engineering. Weird space that for an engineering company.

A US gov handout wouldn't actually solve the problems, it'd just stop the company folding totally. What's clearly needed, and being recommended by literally everybody and being asked for by the US legislators, is a complete change of senior management. The company seems unwilling to do that, so, nothing doing. A large part of Boeing's survival isn't in the hands of the company or the US gov anyway. As the issue is related to quality / safety, if overseas regulators decide they can no longer accept the FAA's word that Boeings are safe, then they can and will deny them the right to fly in their territory. No fly, no sale. As a large slice of Boeing's order book is overseas sales, overseas regulators have the power to render a large fraction of the company's orderbook irrelevant. If that actually happened, then Boeings become a US-only aircraft. The fact that it hasn't already happened is probably because it seems that - at the moment - it's the FAA that's doing Boeing's quality control. Moreover, if Embraer steps up and decides to build a 737 competitor (which it has been discussing with various airlines), they can probably bring that to market before Boeing can turn themselves around. If that happened, Embraer could pick up a lot of Boeing customer defections. Again, that would strip Boeing of a large fraction of its order book. A further novel variation on this could be that Airbus licenses Embraer to build A320neos, or simply pays them to build them (because Airbus hasn't got the capacity itself). So basically, Boeing's fate is not in the hands of the US gov. It may already be too late for the US gov to intervene and force the company to reform, as this could take too long leaving the US gov with a fixed company but with a nearly empty order book; the market could have moved into Airbus and/or Embraer's hands. If the US gov wanted to guarantee that large scale airliner manufacturing remains inside the USA, about the only guaranteed option available would be to entice Airbus to please expand its capacity at Mobile, Alabama, and help the company politically by not objecting to it becoming a global monopoly. Another way would be to encourage, say, Lockheed Martin to re-enter the commercial airliner business, but that'd amount to the US gov shooting Boeing in the head in favour of LM (or whichever US company they'd favoured).

Always has been...I've been following for several years and have hoped DJ would be successful enough to expand more...still hoping.

Isn't that normal? DJ is Australian. This is DJ's channel which gives his selection of aviation news. Not Reuters.