Should Airbus have renamed the C-Series(A220) or not

Editing this: Airbus bought the C-series program a while ago, and I’m too lazy to go figure it out. Should Airbus have renamed the aircraft or not.

4 Likes

Lol

1 Like

I don’t care that Airbus bought the program, I don’t think it’s their right to change the branding of an already fully developed plane that they bought.

If Apple bought a phone from Samsung would Apple still call it a Samsung even though they’re the one’s selling it?

What I’m saying is it should be the Airbus C-Series, not the bombardier c-series by Airbus(which I also wouldn’t have a complaint about)

So let’s say Apple bought the design of the S20, I’m saying that Apple shouldn’t make it the iPhone 14(or whatever they are up to) but it be the Apple S20 or something.

3 Likes

Fair enough, but Airbus wanted it to match with their other names.

2 Likes

So, they didn’t design the airplane, and the IATA code for it is still BCS1(or BCS3, depends on varient) and almost all airplanes have their IATA code similar to their name. (Concorde is CONC, a Boeing 737-800 is a B738) they don’t match and it doesn’t make sense.

1 Like

Then they should get the IATA code changed.

1 Like

Good luck with that, codes typically don’t change. Besides, I stay the naming still doesn’t match, every other plane has been A3##, so why A2##.

1 Like

Well they all start in A, three letters long, end in 0

Still doesn’t match, they still have 360, 370, 390 all available, so there is no excuse to use a different first number

But it is weird to have their smallest plane be a higher number.

So, the 757 and 767 are both smaller than the 747, which is also bigger than the 777 and 787.

1 Like

Lol Boeing is all out of whack, but Airbus has kept things relatively in order.

1 Like

Boring is all outta whack you say? Who’s been around longer and has a consistent set of numbers with no gaps in it. (I’m looking at the missing A360 and A370 that dont exists yet) besides I’m pretty sure the A350 is smaller than the A340

Talking about as far as numbers are concerned.

You yourself said so:

Also they skipped 360 and 370 bc they wanted to attract the chinese market, and 8 is a lucky number in China. Also why Boeing skipped straight to 8 in the 748.

No I don’t think the numbers have to correlate to size at all(unless it comes to variants, for example a -100 should be smaller than a -200) so just because the 747 is bigger than the 757 doesn’t mean that the 747 should be renamed to the 777, which it would have because the 757/767 came out at basically the same time, therefore Boeing’s numbers are not all outta whack

1 Like

It all depends on the variant.

Key (for the A340 variants):
**= smaller than both the A350-900 and A350-1000
*= smaller than the A350-1000 but larger than the A350-900

A350-900: 66.80m
A350-1000: 73.79m

A340-200: 59.39m
A340-300: 63.66m
A340-500: 67.33m
A340-600: 74.77m

As you can see, the A350-900 is larger than two of the four A340 variants. The A350-1000 is larger than three of the four variants of the A340.


I think they should. I mean they have obviously. All other Airbus aircraft models are A xyz so it was only normal if you get my gist.

2 Likes

That would be A3#0(exceptions in the A320 family, but they are all based off of the one design), the 2 shouldn’t be the first number in an Airbus aircraft type until after they exhaust all the other potential types. Besides how would you feel if you designed something, got it certified, then sold the design only to have it renamed.