I flown on both the A220 (Breeze Airways) and the A320neo (Vueling). Both are fantastic planes. But if I really have to choose, I would go for the A220. I love the massive windows and how quiet it is. And the 2 - 3 seat layout gives that spacious feeling compared to the 3 - 3 layout on the A320neo.
As someone who works on the Bombardier Line… reading all the “A220” comments fill me with extra joy 🥹 glad y’all are enjoying the aircraft as much as we are making them ❤️
From one Canadian to another, I appreciate your work! I haven't flown on an A220 as they don't serve my local airport, but I really hope I get the chance eventually
That plane is a beast! Shame about P&W’s teething issues with their engines. I love how quiet it is and how massive the windows are. Seeing these parked next to anything makes the other plane look ancient in comparison to this 😂
The a220 300 is a new design with all new tech esp the flight deck just great those big screens the a320 is old design although a great plane needs to be retired the a220 wings are built in belfast n ireland my country great indeed.
I've flown on all three modern short haul single isle jets: Neo, Max, and the A220. It's hands down the best passenger experience on A220: personal space, cabin pressurization, noise level and overall interior feel very much like a baby 878/350. I'm preferring A220 on bookings, and I'm ready to take an impact on less convenient connections or a little higher price for it. One caveat though: the whale sound it makes on takeoff and landing is spooky.
I’ve worked on all 3 as ground crew and maintenance, and the A220 is kind of awful to work on. It is the epitome of unergonomic and unnecessarily complicated.
Finally had a chance to try the A223 with Breeze. Flew "Nicer" and "Nicest" seats. It was, frankly, fantastic. A perfect blend of regional jet, and main-line jet. The only "catch" is that those beefy overhead bins take up more headroom over the middle and window seats. I almost had to bend at the waist to get up from my seat. But I will SO take that in exchange for plenty of overhead storage.
Air Canada’s A220s are very comfy too. Smooth, quiet with decently sized seats that i had no problem fitting in comfortably. Didn’t try the business class on that one but i did on the MAX which has the same interior and those seats are nice and wide and comfy too however it was already falling apart and when i went to recline it would fall backwards a couple inches. I’d prefer the A220 over the max any day
I have yet to fly on either one, but I have noticed a lot of people who have flown on them are really praising the A220, and so have the airlines that fly them. The A220 also competes with the Embraer E-195 at a lower price, but so far, most carriers have gone with the A220. I'm looking forward to experiencing them all.
I prefer flying on the A320 family over the 737 any day. But after flying on the AC A220, it’s clearly superior with its bigger eye level windows and wider seats.
I think a better comparison would have been between the A319NEO and A220-300. Both can directly compete with each other as an A319CEO replacement. Air France is using their A220-300’s to replace their A318’s and 19’s, so maybe examining which is the better replacement I would like to see.
Since subscribing to the Simple Flying and Long Haul by Simple Flying channels, it's become a lot easier to recognise planes beyond livery. I flew from Kerry to Dublin and back this week and enjoyed a bit of plane spotting at Dublin Airport. Flying with Ryanair, it was always going to be a 737. It was a dash 800 that I was on but there were quite a few Max variants, judging by the newer wing tips and longer fuselage, at Dublin. The only A220 I saw was a Swiss Air one that was parked near my departure gate. I saw several A320's. Some may have been 319 and 321 variants, judging by their lengths. On taxi to the runway there was a classic green livery Aer Lingus A330. On its own a 737 looks reasonably big. But when you taxi past a wide body you realise the size difference.
@@paulinejackson5861 as shown in the video, the a220 was originally made by Bombardier and Airbus just bought the program and the biggest change they've done to the aircraft is its name. Though I can't find a track record of either company recently having any of their types mass-grounded globally due to a deliberate/fatal design flaw unlike Boeing
A220!!!!!!!! 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 In my opinion, the 2-3 configuration wins because allows any group sizes (expept a single person) without having to sit with a stranger. 2 sit on the left side, 3 sit on the right side, 4 takes up two rows on the left, 5 take up an entire row, etc. You cannot do that in a 3-3 configuration!
The very fact the proposed A220-500 could cannibalize A320neo sales explains why Airbus may not start the A220-500 program anytime soon unless it gets huge orders from multiple airlines.
Los A 220 reemplazarán a los 320 Y los 320 los alargan y se convierten en A 321 de todas sus variantes y gana más dinero Así va ser Y luego le sube el precio al A 220 Y vuelve a ganar mucho mas
I love the A220 and A320 yet haven't flew on the A220 I fly jetBlue so once they get a larger A220 fleet I will love to see it anyways both aircraft are comfortable and very spacious Edit: I can see the A318 or A319 be getting replaced by the A220 but I think the A320 and A320 more airlines will still need it so I think both aircraft are here to stay
I hope the A220 allows some ULCC to enter low-service/high-need markets currently monopolized by the big 3’s regionals. My city has about 1 flights per day depending on the season and at odd times and to 1 city only to hub connect. They’re always packed flights, which means more than 50 people probably wanted to fly but couldn’t. I’m sure people in my city’s area would like to fly affordably to other cities more often, but we just can’t.
Flying to low-service cities is only viable because of connecting passengers, ULCC's typically don't have a hub and spoke model so they don't get connecting passengers. The benefit to a ULCC is that you can convert a 737 to hub + 737 to destination trip into a single A220 nonstop trip. For example, Pittsburgh to Tucson nonstop instead of connecting in Chicago or Denver. Delta is using A220's the way you're suggesting though.
haven't yet flown on neither of them. Local carrier here (Croatia Airlines) has few A320-200s and A319--100 and I might just make a round trip to the south and back on one of them until they are replaced in 2-3 years time by A220-100s and A220-300s. And when those new planes come in I will do my best to use some of my vacation time to try flying on one as they look like brilliant planes and would love to try them on.
Is the A220 Caterogy B or C? There are certain airports where it is limited Cat A & B only, and those routes are served by E-Jets by Embraer. My company is flying a few of them, but they are also exploring alternatives that are in Cat B.
Both are great planes. I think the real factor would be how many passengers can you fill on any particular route at any given time. If you can consistently fill high capacity - then it is the A320. Otherwise it'll be the A220. I have flown on both planes and both are great.
Hmmm I don't get it. Both aircraft have about the same performance (range, fuel efficiency, etc.), however, the seating capacity is different. In single-class config, the a320neo can accomodate 195pax, while the a220-300 (or cs300) only 160. So the real comparison here should be between the A220-300 and the A319neo as both are 160 pax. A321neo: €130M, 244 passengers, ~6600km, 1.8l/100PK A320neo: €110M, 195 passengers, ~6500km, 2l/100PK A319neo: €100M, 160 passengers, ~7500km, 2.6l/100PK A220-300: €90M, 160 passengers, ~6100km, 2.3l/100PK So for a bit less range, the A220-300 has is quite cheaper and has better fuel efficiency than the A319neo. The A320neo is the most efficient of these (excluding A321neo, on that in a bit), but it is closer to the 200 pax planes like the 737 MAX. And in reality, the A321neo is the A320neo killer as it is more efficient in litres per passenger kilometre (l/PK or l/pax/km) and is actually also cheaper at capital cost per seat. And I think we see that a lot, with airlines going for either the A220-300 or the A321neo when there is more demand. And on paper the 737-MAX (8, 8-200 and 9) are better than the A320neo. So I think this is the main reason not many airlines are ordering the A320neo. I personally prefer the A220-300, A321neo and the new Embraer E-jet E2.
For the passenger, the A220 is better. Wider seats and the luggage bins will be less full because its only a 2+3 row configuration as opposed to a 3+3. But I don't really care because the A220 and A320 are both better then the shitty B737.
I only flew on a A220 twice, but it seemed to me that overhead luggage bins were smaller than my usual A320, even taking into account the reduced number of passengers. At least passengers had a harder time fitting all their luggage on both occasions.
Two most simplest differences promoting A320 cause: 1)Type Rating and ground training for pilots wiz would be not shared 2)A320 family covers A321 as well wiz the longer ultimate brother given LR and XLR yet to come by next year as well having range around 8700nm
Yep. Despite having roughly similar range and Pax capacity, the A319 and the A220 do NOT cannibalise each other's sales, because the A319 has close commonality with larger A320 series (including pilot training). So the A319 is ought by bigger airlines while regional airlines are the A220's bread and butter.
the A220-300 is a direct threat to the A320-200 Neo . . . if AIRBUS launches the A220-500 which is a stretched variant of the A220-300 it'll cannibalize A320-200 Neo sales over night . . . from a sales & revenue perspective it'd be wise for AIRBUS to retire the A320-200 Neo . . . suspend A320-200 Neo production indefinitely, after fulfilling all pending orders of the A320-200 Neo . . . the A320-200 has served the world's air travel industry for 36 years straight, undeterred which is truly commendable . . . but AIRBUS will continue making the stretched A321-200 Neo LR variant though . . . by the way, pending orders of all three variants of the A321-200 Neo stands at 382+ which should have been 683 - 740 at the very least . . .
boeing definitely screwed up regarding the C-series. fortunately American protectionism had next to no foresight regarding foreign capability within the aviation manufacturing sector. boeing had the ability to kill this design in the crib...they failed miserably. as more A220's are being used commonality will increase orders. it is now up to airbus to decide how to mature their future offerings with a better rounded set of options. America first can pound salt...their exceptionallism failed them.
Yes and no. Delta really wanted an MD-80 family replacement. They flew them until they couldn't any longer, so I wouldn't be surprised if they had been pestering Boeing for a replacement for years. And remember, Boeing was interested in having the same partnership with the C-series that Airbus snagged. Boeing had a temper tantrum after Delta placed that order with Bombardier, and it cost them a deal with the C-series, and a whole lot more.
I know this is probably not fault from Airbus, but if I see that I will fly any NEO, I just want to runaway from the airport as fast as I can.... it is the most painfull seat in 40 years of flying experience.
Seats are specified by the airline, not the manufacturer. n airline's NEOS are likely to have exactly the same seats as its 7373s. For more comfortable seats change your airline not the plane.
Airbus is investing in research on using hydrogen as a path to decarbonizing aviation. While they have emphasized completely new aircraft, I wonder if there is some room for hydrogen in upgrading existing aircraft types. Perhaps fuel cells can be deployed for internal electrical systems, or as a boost to existing engines. More radically, they could try hydrogen fuel cells on a complete reengining design, perhaps sacrificing range to achieve decarbonisation. It might make sense to start with a replacement for the A320neo, since it has the momentum of a large existing fleet and could have a rapid big impact on reducing carbon emissions. They could eventually go for a new fuel cell engine for the A220 family, potentially making it the greenest plane in the sky, even if restricted to short and medium haul.
WTF are you on about? Turbulence is a factor caused by weather. It is nothing to do with the aircraft type. The A220 or C series is a clean sheet design that first flew in 2013. The A320 first flew in 1987. The B737 first flew in 1967. All are safe and relevant today. The B737 is on its last 4th and last generation with the Max, whereas the A320 is in its second generation with the Neo and could likely take one more. The A220 is in its first generation. The B737 aside from the spoilers has controls that are direct controls from the yoke and rudder pedals to the hydraulics on the flight control surfaces. This reflects the 1960s technology. The A320 and A220 are digital fly-by-wire which is a far more modern.
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w7Wf0h1Q8a4/mqdefault.jpg)
I flown on both the A220 (Breeze Airways) and the A320neo (Vueling). Both are fantastic planes. But if I really have to choose, I would go for the A220. I love the massive windows and how quiet it is. And the 2 - 3 seat layout gives that spacious feeling compared to the 3 - 3 layout on the A320neo.
As someone who works on the Bombardier Line… reading all the “A220” comments fill me with extra joy 🥹 glad y’all are enjoying the aircraft as much as we are making them ❤️
From one Canadian to another, I appreciate your work! I haven't flown on an A220 as they don't serve my local airport, but I really hope I get the chance eventually
That plane is a beast! Shame about P&W’s teething issues with their engines. I love how quiet it is and how massive the windows are. Seeing these parked next to anything makes the other plane look ancient in comparison to this 😂
The a220 300 is a new design with all new tech esp the flight deck just great those big screens the a320 is old design although a great plane needs to be retired the a220 wings are built in belfast n ireland my country great indeed.
I've flown on all three modern short haul single isle jets: Neo, Max, and the A220. It's hands down the best passenger experience on A220: personal space, cabin pressurization, noise level and overall interior feel very much like a baby 878/350. I'm preferring A220 on bookings, and I'm ready to take an impact on less convenient connections or a little higher price for it. One caveat though: the whale sound it makes on takeoff and landing is spooky.
@@zacherius137 he meant 787
When the greatest downside is the sound being creepy you know the aircraft is good.
I’ve worked on all 3 as ground crew and maintenance, and the A220 is kind of awful to work on. It is the epitome of unergonomic and unnecessarily complicated.
aisle
Have you flown on the new E2s?
Finally had a chance to try the A223 with Breeze. Flew "Nicer" and "Nicest" seats. It was, frankly, fantastic. A perfect blend of regional jet, and main-line jet.
The only "catch" is that those beefy overhead bins take up more headroom over the middle and window seats. I almost had to bend at the waist to get up from my seat. But I will SO take that in exchange for plenty of overhead storage.
I'll fly the A220 over the A320 anytime for up to 3h or even 4h flights. Recently travelled on a Swiss A220 and it was quite comfy
Air Canada’s A220s are very comfy too. Smooth, quiet with decently sized seats that i had no problem fitting in comfortably. Didn’t try the business class on that one but i did on the MAX which has the same interior and those seats are nice and wide and comfy too however it was already falling apart and when i went to recline it would fall backwards a couple inches. I’d prefer the A220 over the max any day
Would be cool if you could do an E195-E2 vs A220 comparison.
Those are easy to find on RUclips
I just flew on an A-220 and from a passenger experience, it is hands down better than the A-320
That person that said first got deleted, lol. Anyways, Nice comparison!
Lol, its myself deleted the first comment
@@wiwikkadriati5583😂6th😂is 6😂 y
I have yet to fly on either one, but I have noticed a lot of people who have flown on them are really praising the A220, and so have the airlines that fly them. The A220 also competes with the Embraer E-195 at a lower price, but so far, most carriers have gone with the A220. I'm looking forward to experiencing them all.
I prefer flying on the A320 family over the 737 any day. But after flying on the AC A220, it’s clearly superior with its bigger eye level windows and wider seats.
I prefer the A220, it’s a much better aircraft to operate on and a very sleek aircraft. :)
I think a better comparison would have been between the A319NEO and A220-300. Both can directly compete with each other as an A319CEO replacement. Air France is using their A220-300’s to replace their A318’s and 19’s, so maybe examining which is the better replacement I would like to see.
Since subscribing to the Simple Flying and Long Haul by Simple Flying channels, it's become a lot easier to recognise planes beyond livery. I flew from Kerry to Dublin and back this week and enjoyed a bit of plane spotting at Dublin Airport. Flying with Ryanair, it was always going to be a 737. It was a dash 800 that I was on but there were quite a few Max variants, judging by the newer wing tips and longer fuselage, at Dublin. The only A220 I saw was a Swiss Air one that was parked near my departure gate. I saw several A320's. Some may have been 319 and 321 variants, judging by their lengths. On taxi to the runway there was a classic green livery Aer Lingus A330. On its own a 737 looks reasonably big. But when you taxi past a wide body you realise the size difference.
A220-300 👍
Both great aircrafts
both made by airbus - cannot be good aircraft. boeing is the way forward
@@paulinejackson5861 as shown in the video, the a220 was originally made by Bombardier and Airbus just bought the program and the biggest change they've done to the aircraft is its name.
Though I can't find a track record of either company recently having any of their types mass-grounded globally due to a deliberate/fatal design flaw unlike Boeing
Go and clean your room little girl
@@serkandevel7828 To my knowledge in the early days of airbus there was some flaws
@@frozenuruguayball6436all aircrafts have flaws, not only Airbus
A220 by a good margin! Rode one with Delta and had a great time on the plane
A220!!!!!!!! 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 In my opinion, the 2-3 configuration wins because allows any group sizes (expept a single person) without having to sit with a stranger. 2 sit on the left side, 3 sit on the right side, 4 takes up two rows on the left, 5 take up an entire row, etc. You cannot do that in a 3-3 configuration!
The very fact the proposed A220-500 could cannibalize A320neo sales explains why Airbus may not start the A220-500 program anytime soon unless it gets huge orders from multiple airlines.
and it'd probably look weird
Delta would be a good candidate as they have decided to phase out the A319/320 all together and move forward with the A220, A321neo and the 737 MAX.
Los A 220 reemplazarán a los 320
Y los 320 los alargan y se convierten en A 321 de todas sus variantes y gana más dinero
Así va ser
Y luego le sube el precio al A 220
Y vuelve a ganar mucho mas
I don’t think it would affect the a320 that much
I love the A220 and A320 yet haven't flew on the A220 I fly jetBlue so once they get a larger A220 fleet I will love to see it anyways both aircraft are comfortable and very spacious Edit: I can see the A318 or A319 be getting replaced by the A220 but I think the A320 and A320 more airlines will still need it so I think both aircraft are here to stay
I hope the A220 allows some ULCC to enter low-service/high-need markets currently monopolized by the big 3’s regionals. My city has about 1 flights per day depending on the season and at odd times and to 1 city only to hub connect. They’re always packed flights, which means more than 50 people probably wanted to fly but couldn’t. I’m sure people in my city’s area would like to fly affordably to other cities more often, but we just can’t.
Flying to low-service cities is only viable because of connecting passengers, ULCC's typically don't have a hub and spoke model so they don't get connecting passengers. The benefit to a ULCC is that you can convert a 737 to hub + 737 to destination trip into a single A220 nonstop trip. For example, Pittsburgh to Tucson nonstop instead of connecting in Chicago or Denver. Delta is using A220's the way you're suggesting though.
haven't yet flown on neither of them. Local carrier here (Croatia Airlines) has few A320-200s and A319--100 and I might just make a round trip to the south and back on one of them until they are replaced in 2-3 years time by A220-100s and A220-300s. And when those new planes come in I will do my best to use some of my vacation time to try flying on one as they look like brilliant planes and would love to try them on.
Is the A220 Caterogy B or C? There are certain airports where it is limited Cat A & B only, and those routes are served by E-Jets by Embraer. My company is flying a few of them, but they are also exploring alternatives that are in Cat B.
a220s has taken a lot of share of a319s
There really isn't a comparison. The A220 is a new design with the latest materials. It's like comparing the 727 to the A320.
I'm more into the JetBlue A320s & A321s.
What is the name of the Song used in 5:53
The A320 is old news. Gotta go with the newer Canadian teconolgy.
Thanks
A320neo is better ❤
Much more pretty ❤
Airbus a220
Both are great planes. I think the real factor would be how many passengers can you fill on any particular route at any given time. If you can consistently fill high capacity - then it is the A320. Otherwise it'll be the A220. I have flown on both planes and both are great.
A220
What is available seat/km cost?
I’m so early I could pre- order the Bible also 10th
Hmmm I don't get it. Both aircraft have about the same performance (range, fuel efficiency, etc.), however, the seating capacity is different. In single-class config, the a320neo can accomodate 195pax, while the a220-300 (or cs300) only 160. So the real comparison here should be between the A220-300 and the A319neo as both are 160 pax.
A321neo: €130M, 244 passengers, ~6600km, 1.8l/100PK
A320neo: €110M, 195 passengers, ~6500km, 2l/100PK
A319neo: €100M, 160 passengers, ~7500km, 2.6l/100PK
A220-300: €90M, 160 passengers, ~6100km, 2.3l/100PK
So for a bit less range, the A220-300 has is quite cheaper and has better fuel efficiency than the A319neo.
The A320neo is the most efficient of these (excluding A321neo, on that in a bit), but it is closer to the 200 pax planes like the 737 MAX.
And in reality, the A321neo is the A320neo killer as it is more efficient in litres per passenger kilometre (l/PK or l/pax/km) and is actually also cheaper at capital cost per seat. And I think we see that a lot, with airlines going for either the A220-300 or the A321neo when there is more demand. And on paper the 737-MAX (8, 8-200 and 9) are better than the A320neo. So I think this is the main reason not many airlines are ordering the A320neo.
I personally prefer the A220-300, A321neo and the new Embraer E-jet E2.
interesting.
Orders: A320 family is "old". It's normal the high request of aircrafts. The A220 is a really new aircraft and in a little time it's popular
A220-300 AirBaltic
For the passenger, the A220 is better. Wider seats and the luggage bins will be less full because its only a 2+3 row configuration as opposed to a 3+3. But I don't really care because the A220 and A320 are both better then the shitty B737.
I only flew on a A220 twice, but it seemed to me that overhead luggage bins were smaller than my usual A320, even taking into account the reduced number of passengers. At least passengers had a harder time fitting all their luggage on both occasions.
The a220-300 feels like a a310
I was thinking the same!
A220 Is Better It Can Take -Off 🛫✈️ And Land 🛬In Longer And Shorter RunWay / AirCraft Air Canada
I prefer the A320neo as 5 abreast seating is asymetrical for the A220.
I did not know that A220 was not profitable. Aim to break even in the end of the decade? Really??
Two most simplest differences promoting A320 cause:
1)Type Rating and ground training for pilots wiz would be not shared
2)A320 family covers A321 as well wiz the longer ultimate brother given LR and XLR yet to come by next year as well having range around 8700nm
Yep. Despite having roughly similar range and Pax capacity, the A319 and the A220 do NOT cannibalise each other's sales, because the A319 has close commonality with larger A320 series (including pilot training). So the A319 is ought by bigger airlines while regional airlines are the A220's bread and butter.
Im in lac simon area. Love a factor tour!! Erhumm... subliminal hint.
my place macau😊😊😊
the A220-300 is a direct threat to the A320-200 Neo . . . if AIRBUS launches the A220-500 which is a stretched variant of the A220-300 it'll cannibalize A320-200 Neo sales over night . . . from a sales & revenue perspective it'd be wise for AIRBUS to retire the A320-200 Neo . . . suspend A320-200 Neo production indefinitely, after fulfilling all pending orders of the A320-200 Neo . . . the A320-200 has served the world's air travel industry for 36 years straight, undeterred which is truly commendable . . . but AIRBUS will continue making the stretched A321-200 Neo LR variant though . . . by the way, pending orders of all three variants of the A321-200 Neo stands at 382+ which should have been 683 - 740 at the very least . . .
Why does the A220-300 exist?
American protectionism.
boeing definitely screwed up regarding the C-series.
fortunately American protectionism had next to no foresight regarding foreign capability within the aviation manufacturing sector. boeing had the ability to kill this design in the crib...they failed miserably.
as more A220's are being used commonality will increase orders. it is now up to airbus to decide how to mature their future offerings with a better rounded set of options.
America first can pound salt...their exceptionallism failed them.
Ironically the CSeries/a220 is made up of more American-made parts than a 787 for example
@@serkandevel7828
that's not "ironic"
it's poor decision making at the top.
Yes and no. Delta really wanted an MD-80 family replacement. They flew them until they couldn't any longer, so I wouldn't be surprised if they had been pestering Boeing for a replacement for years. And remember, Boeing was interested in having the same partnership with the C-series that Airbus snagged. Boeing had a temper tantrum after Delta placed that order with Bombardier, and it cost them a deal with the C-series, and a whole lot more.
@@jerseypupI believe Boeing wanted to make a deal with Embraer instead of Bombardier, but I could be wrong
I know this is probably not fault from Airbus, but if I see that I will fly any NEO, I just want to runaway from the airport as fast as I can.... it is the most painfull seat in 40 years of flying experience.
Seats are specified by the airline, not the manufacturer. n airline's NEOS are likely to have exactly the same seats as its 7373s. For more comfortable seats change your airline not the plane.
Airbus is investing in research on using hydrogen as a path to decarbonizing aviation. While they have emphasized completely new aircraft, I wonder if there is some room for hydrogen in upgrading existing aircraft types. Perhaps fuel cells can be deployed for internal electrical systems, or as a boost to existing engines. More radically, they could try hydrogen fuel cells on a complete reengining design, perhaps sacrificing range to achieve decarbonisation. It might make sense to start with a replacement for the A320neo, since it has the momentum of a large existing fleet and could have a rapid big impact on reducing carbon emissions. They could eventually go for a new fuel cell engine for the A220 family, potentially making it the greenest plane in the sky, even if restricted to short and medium haul.
The A220 none job looks better.
The Boeing 737 Max 8 and the Embraer E 190 e2 are the winners at the end of the day 👍
The A220 is way more comfortable the A320 needs to be retired
Ridiculous to compare old design to a brand new one. Clearly A220 is more advanced and much better aircraft
MY EMPLOYER HAS PROHIBIED STAFF FROM FLYING ANYTHING LATER THAN 777. AiRBUS IS THE COMPANIES PREFERRED CHOICE.
Tye a320 and a220 are outdated and dangerous and prone to serfre turbulence
WTF are you on about? Turbulence is a factor caused by weather. It is nothing to do with the aircraft type.
The A220 or C series is a clean sheet design that first flew in 2013. The A320 first flew in 1987. The B737 first flew in 1967. All are safe and relevant today.
The B737 is on its last 4th and last generation with the Max, whereas the A320 is in its second generation with the Neo and could likely take one more. The A220 is in its first generation.
The B737 aside from the spoilers has controls that are direct controls from the yoke and rudder pedals to the hydraulics on the flight control surfaces. This reflects the 1960s technology.
The A320 and A220 are digital fly-by-wire which is a far more modern.
WHAT ABOUT SWISS????? THEY ALSO HAVE A320s