| > Your characterization that the 737 is a 50-year old airframe and wouldn't compete with the CS300 is entirely inaccurate. Of course the 737 has been updated over the years but it's still fundamentally the same frame and has numerous drawbacks over newer models: - it's aluminium, not composite, so is much heavier than the C300, meaning worse fuel efficiency per pax, and will have smaller windows, less comfortable cabin air pressure, etc - it sits too low to the ground to carry the most efficent high-bypass turbofans - again less fuel efficient - again because it's so low to the ground, the MAX 10 is so tail-heavy some (most?) airlines have passed on it in fear of tailstrikes and load restrictions at the gate - still not fully fly by wire AFAIK and the list goes on. You're right that it's been refreshed over the years but even boeing wants to replace it with a clean sheet design, just as the composite 787 has replaced the 767. Advancements have been made and eventually you just need a new frame. Another factor in favour of the C300 is that it's optimised for its load capacity. The 737-7 (and a318/9 for that matter) are shrinks of their design and thus carry too much wing & superstructure for comparable loads. This again increases weight and reduces cost effectiveness. Even the mass media has been saying that if the C300 gets a foothold into the US market that Boeing may be forced to invest in a clean sheet new frame to effectively compete, and they're right. |