One of the most popular short to medium-haul commercial passenger jets in the world,
the Airbus A320 has been modernized and re-engined to become an equally
popular aircraft in the form of the A320neo. Launching with Lufthansa in February 2016,
the A320neo has been in service only slightly longer than the A220-300,
which began revenue service with airBaltic in December of the same year. Oftentimes tasked to
perform similar missions, how do these two aircraft actually compare to one another?
Let’s try to find some answers in today’s video!
Of course, before jumping right into the comparison, it's good to briefly
cover why these two aircraft exist alongside each other in Airbus' portfolio of products.
The A320neo is an update to the popular A320 - a program that was launched by Airbus in
1984. The A320neo is the 'midsize' variant in the A320neo family of aircraft - longer
than the A319neo and shorter than the A321neo. Meanwhile, as a product offering,
the Airbus A220-300 was launched in 2008 as the Bombardier CSeries. The
A220-300 was first known as the CS300 and was a stretch to the CS100 (now A220-100).
Due to a prolonged legal battle with Boeing sparked by a major order from Delta Air Lines,
Bombardier essentially handed control of the program over to Airbus in 2018 for a token $1,
in order to preserve its viability. The Canadian company would eventually sell
off its remaining stake in the program to Airbus in 2020 for nearly $600 million.
While orders for the relatively new jet have been accumulating, it's well-known that the
A220 program continues to lose money due to high supply and production costs. This is something the
European planemaker is keen to fix - primarily by finding efficiencies in production ramp-up.
While the A319neo has a passenger capacity that is much closer to the A220-300, the A320neo also
has a few similarities to the type - as you can see with the technical specifications shown here.
Looking at the chart, we can see that the two aircraft have quite a few similarities:
Their overall lengths and cabin lengths are remarkably similar, while belly-hold capacity
is also fairly close. The published ranges of the two aircraft are also nearly identical.
On the other hand, we can see that the A320neo can accommodate as many as 34 more passengers
in its cabin. This is thanks to its wider cabin, which allows for a sixth seat at each
row. In other words, the A320 has a 3-3 layout, as compared to the A220's standard 2-3 configuration.
Carrying more passengers results in a heavier aircraft and thus a higher maximum take-off
weight. Being a heavier aircraft at maximum capacity, the A320neo must carry around 5,000
more liters of fuel than the A220-300 in order to achieve the same range.
There's not much that can be said in comparing the passenger experience of the two aircraft.
As we often note in these comparisons, so much of the passenger experience is determined by the
airline - namely seat spacing, seat comfort, and inflight entertainment. However, when it comes
to aspects determined by the manufacturer, there are two topics that can be considered.
The first is for those who love the window seat with a good view of the world outside: Aircraft
window size. The A320neo's windows are smaller. Although official dimensions
have proven difficult to find, an Airliners.net message thread (quoting another forum threat
that no longer exists), places the A320 window size at 272mm x 360mm (10.71 x 14.17 inches).
Known for its large windows, the dimensions of A220 windows are 11" x 16" or 280 x 406mm.
The other notable advantage of the A220 is its 2-3 seating configuration in economy class. Often
highlighted as a feature by the airlines operating the type, this layout means fewer middle seats,
resulting in a little more comfort and privacy for couples and pairs traveling together.
It's also worth noting that the 2-3 layout lets airlines install slightly wider economy
seats than can be found on the A320 - particularly with the A220's middle seat.
Airbus' most recent figures available at the time
of publication are accurate as of the end of January 2023. Going by these numbers,
the A320neo has accumulated orders for 3,980 airframes. The A220-300, on the other hand,
has accumulated orders for just 692 airframes. Thus, in terms of sheer popularity with airlines
and other customers, it would appear that the A320neo is the winner. But why is this?
Based on the popular A320 platform, the A320neo fits into existing Airbus narrowbody fleets
perfectly as the type rating is the same as the jet's predecessor, the A320-200. This
commonality greatly reduces training costs for existing A320 operators as the fleet essentially
remains as one type. That's the reason why budget airlines operating A320ceo aircraft, like easyJet
and AirAsia, have continued their relationship with Airbus through large orders of A320neos.
At the same time, major operators of the Boeing 737 will likely want to stay
with the type and modernize their fleets with the MAX generation of narrowbodies.
Indeed, the A220-300 exists in a market where competing types have the advantage
of their older-generations already being well-established in airline fleets.
This 'newcomer advantage' hasn't stopped some airlines from taking a bet on the A220,
with airBaltic being the prime example. Once operating older 737s and Dash 8 turboprops,
the Latvian, all-A220 carrier now has about 40 of the 50 -300s it ordered.
In the United States, JetBlue has committed to 100 while Breeze has ordered 80 and Delta, 74.
Significant orders have also come from Air France and Air Canada, which have each committed to 60.
While the A220 hasn't been appealing enough to sway the established low-cost airlines
to abandon their A320s and 737s (yet), Breeze's commitment to the type could indeed pave the way
for other start-ups entering the budget segment to consider the A220-300 for their operations.
The belly-hold of the A320neo and A220-300 appear to be similar in terms of volume. However,
it would appear that the A320neo has the advantage of being able to accommodate
containers - LD3-45 containers to be precise. While this may not sound like a huge difference
considering similar volumes between the jets, the ability to handle containers could be key
for some airlines and their cargo operations. As highlighted by container manufacturer VRR,
there are numerous benefits to using air freight containers.
"The single most important benefit of air freight containers is flight safety," the company notes.
That's because pallets and containers are designed to be secured by the aircraft’s Cargo Loading
System, which stops them from moving around during flight. Other key benefits of accommodating
containers, according to VRR, include: Bundling cargo into single units
Supporting the digital and manual tracking of shipments
Easy transfer of cargo between planes Generally speeding up cargo handling
As a result, the cargo advantage would appear to go to the A320neo over the A220.
The A320neo entered service with relatively few problems. The A220-300, on the other hand,
has had a handful of issues to overcome. The most common type of issue, particularly
in its first years of service, has been engine shutdowns involving the type's Pratt & Whitney
PW1000 powerplants. Operators like SWISS and airBaltic have experienced various forms of
engine failures taking place during flight. As we noted previously, engine software might have
been one of the key reasons for issues, as the FAA in 2020 required that operators of the type
remove certain full-authority digital engine control software and install new software.
More recently it was revealed that numerous incidents with the A220 have
stemmed from cockpit design. Indeed, it was discovered that, on such occasions,
flight crews accidentally engaged the autopilot when attempting to engage the
autothrottle late during takeoff. At the time of issuing the 2022 airworthiness directive,
38 occurrences, of which two were nearly fatal, were connected to the problem.
At the moment, both types appear to be affected by Pratt & Whitney's supply chain issues. These
issues have led to A320neo operators grounding jets equipped with PW1100G-JM geared turbofan,
with IndiGo and Go First being the most notable cases. The A220, exclusively powered
by Pratt & Whitney's PW1500G turbofans, has also fallen victim to supply chain constraints.
Fully dependent on the type, airBaltic has been the most notable carrier affected. Indeed,
speaking with Simple Flying earlier in 2023, CEO Martin Gauss said:
“We still have these teething issues with the engines … It is caused by supply chain
issues - it’s not only our engines, it’s over the world, and we're dealing with it.” Gauss
adds that normally, it would take an average of 90 days to take the engine from the wing,
ship it and get the engine back. That process now, he says, takes eight months.
The much-discussed but yet-to-launch "A220-500" is an interesting topic
that could have an impact on A320neo sales. This jet would be a stretch of the A220-300
and will likely be able to accommodate the same number of passengers as the A320neo.
Last Summer, Airbus' CCO Christian Scherer revealed that Airbus wouldn't
launch a stretched A220 until the existing variants reach their "cruising altitude".
More recently, Simple Flying had a chance to ask the CEO of Airbus,
Guillaume Faury about the possibility of a stretched A220, to which he responded:
"I like to hear questions on the stretch to the A220 because the -500 will be a very
good version of the A220. We are not at the 'cruising altitude'. We are gaining altitude.
We have the target to be breakeven [on the A220 program] by the middle of the decade."
Faury added to his response by saying that Airbus is still in the production-ramp-up phase of the
existing A220 program and that any discussions on an A220-500 timeline would be premature.
However, if (or when) the A220-500 is offered to customers, it will undoubtedly be a dilemma for
Airbus, considering its anticipated size will match the capacity of the A320neo.
Existing fleet commonality will be a major factor, but we’ll have to wait and see…
The fact that the A220 has the same published range as the A320neo while operating with a lower
fuel capacity tells us that the Canadian-made aircraft ultimately burns less fuel. However,
if we consider the fact that the A320neo is able to carry about 20% more passengers, then we can
see that the A220 isn't really outperforming its wider counterpart on fuel burn per passenger.
So which aircraft wins? The operational efficiency of the two jets can be comparable,
while, on the passenger experience side, the A220 appears to be the winner.
When it comes to orders, the A320neo is the clear winner, but as we already noted,
the advantage comes from the path blazed by its predecessor, the A320-200.
At the end of the day, fleet commonality could be the single largest factor for
airlines when choosing between the A320neo and the A220-300.
While this hasn't stopped Delta, Air France, JetBlue, and Air Canada from introducing the
A220 alongside their existing A320s, commonality will be key for airlines
looking for operational efficiencies and/or aiming for a single-type fleet.
If a carrier already operates other A320 family jets, then the A320neo is the clear way to go.
When route demands change, a carrier operating multiple A320 family variants
can more easily 'up-size' to the A321, or even scale down to the A319.
In the case of the A220, the -300 and its 160 passengers is the upper limit. Of course,
compatibility with the A220-100 will at least allow airlines the ability to scale
down for lower-demand routes if they so choose.
Thus, outside of commonality with existing airline fleets, the A220 appears to be
the better aircraft on routes where demand doesn't exceed the jet's capacity. However,
if airlines believe that they can fill more seats, then the A320neo would be the obvious choice.
But which aircraft do you prefer? And on which airline? Share your thoughts by leaving a comment!