Airbus poised to corner Boeing with the new extended A220 variant

Santayana I think, not Churchill, But otherwise as valid a statement today as when he said it.

Spoken like some like someone who has nothing of substance to offer in rebuttal, so shooting the messenger is all you have.

Ironic, I think, that you idiots always sound exactly the same.

Lucky that Boeing effed up their relationship with Canada so badly. Here's another piece detailing how the A220 fell into Airbus' lap.

https://youtu.be/eFfxL3xJI_I

It's worse than just being an old plane, it has a fundamentally flawed configuration that can't be fixed. The short landing gear precludes putting a modern engine under the wing, which was the genesis of the whole MAX debacle.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a pan-European consortium is more nimble than Boeing. (Well, unless you are pan-European, in which case the smell of blood in the water must be exhilarating.)

Pro tip: Just stop.

Who told you they don’t fly? You are a uniformed American fox watcher obviously. I have been on 2 different A380 flying in December 2022. In the air from and to Dubai UAE.

The A380 flies OK. The 737 max nose dives

Someone has an addiction to down-votes.

It's basic stuff really. Cost is always pitted against something else; comfort, serviceability, and among other things, safety. In the case of the 737 Max, Boeing pushed the balance too far in favor of cost, past a justifiable safety compromise into unethical and immoral territory. The bigger engines created an inherent instability, which demands computer controls to overcome, which demands a highly informed computer with redundant inputs, and demands specialized pilot training. Boeing lied to regulators about the significance of the changes to avoid the specialized training to make the plane more attractive to airlines. Boeing offered the plane without redundant AOA sensor input, to save money. And Boeing succeeded in saving money by producing an unsafe plane, that they knew was unsafe. To a simple-minded bean-counter, safety costs money and Boeing can't save money by making a plane MORE safe. Tesla, for comparison, is sacrificing safety for profits by removing sensors. It's not as bad as Boeing, but mostly due to the difference in speed, size, altitude, and number of people on board.

Only slightly more "ancient" than the A320.

Boeing shot itself in the foot multiple times here. They ended the production run of the 717, which airlines vastly preferred to the 737-700. Boeing tried to partner with Embraer and even buy them, but failed at this when the MAX crashes occurred. A clean-sheet composite 717 would likely fit the bill and could not only compete against the A220, but also the lower-end A320s with a proven design (and a design where MCAS is not a consideration due to engine position). Obviously, the 717's larger siblings were the MD-80/90 series, so a stretch isn't so much of a stretch, pardon the pun. This leaves aside the catastrophic decision to end 757 production...
But... I'm not sure that Boeing is doing badly in waiting for clean-sheet designs at the moment. They have also paused the "Mid-Market" or 797 design in favor of waiting for the next technology advances, presumably in engines. On top of this, the MAX is doing far better in sales than anticipated only a year ago. The 787 sales are a pleasant surprise (United's massive order) as well. Taking a moment to consider what they want to do and how they want to do it is a good thing. After so much turbulence (much of it of their own making), really calculating the next step is profoundly important.
By contrast with Airbus, where the A220 and A320neos continue to sell quite well, the A380 is unexpectedly closing down, the A330neo has not sold well, and the only remaining bright spot is the A350, Boeing is not looking nearly as bad after years of debacles around the MAX.
This is what competition is about -- bettering your offerings to compete with your business competitors. Believe it or not, it appears to be working.

Single-aisle aircraft are claustrophobic sardine cans. For many the feeling of roominess is a huge factor. It's not a phobia. Also the long ones take forever to board and deplane, as I just experienced on an A321. I would never fly on a flight over 5 hours unless it was a wide-body. Just flew coach on a Lufthansa A340-600 and loved it.

It's hardly a "phobia". It's a matter of comfort and safety. A wide-body aircraft with a fuselage of 5-6 meters in diameter affords occupants with appreciably more headroom and elbow room than narrow-body aircraft with a 3-4 meter diameter. This makes a considerable difference to taller passengers and crew who occupy window seats, or who spend any time standing in a lavatory or galley. Long flights on narrow-body aircraft can be a miserable experience.

I flew on a Britania airways B737 in 1971 thats 50+ years ago…

The A320 design is 40 years old. Not sure when the design was locked down, but according to Wikipedia it was under development in the late 70s. The A320 program was then "launched" in 1984 with 96 orders from Air France.

First sentence, wrong (it's 55 years). Second sentence, wrong (it's a waiver to a new law that was never intended to apply to 737s). Third sentence, not sure what you're even talking about... fmc, like flight management, as in navigation? Max uses a GE system several others use. Parity? Parity what? Network? Standard ethernet. Memory? Maybe it uses ECC instead. Or not, but whatever since a flipped bit isn't exactly catastrophic. It sounds like something you just made up anyway. Fourth through last sentence are opinions the order sheets don't seem to agree with, but ok.

Rolls Royce engines problem (as distinguished from P&W). There, a bit of education for you. :-)

Read the reports, moron

;-)

…YouTube

I have changed air reservations 2x in the last 10 months to avoid flying on of those death traps.