Notes from the A220 studies we are making. This dated snapshot is not a flight plan or a live feed.
a0a2d7b81222afc975b8cc9d86317ddf…18 / 265
Muscat is on hold for airspace and security assessment. Its roughly 2,940 NM direct geography does not establish a safe, legal or available route. Illustrative detours have not been cleared. Both A220 variants remain conditional research candidates, subject to a workable corridor, aircraft-specific mission fuel, diversion requirements and hot-day runway performance.
Accra is a routing question as much as an aircraft question. The study includes an illustrative corridor via Dakar with an intermediate-stop plan. Neither aircraft is proven nonstop on that longer assumed routing; airspace choices, diversion fuel and aircraft performance still require validation.
Sal is a conditional A220-family research candidate, approximately 2,993 NM from Oslo by direct geography. The cited official airport chapter is dated 18 April 2024 and requires a current replacement. Dust, crosswinds, airport and aircraft-specific performance, seasonal winds, actual fuel and alternate suitability remain unresolved; a long runway alone does not prove nonstop capability.
Banjul is a conditional A220-family research candidate. The roughly 3,064 NM direct geography does not establish nonstop performance. Current Gambia AIS and NOTAM, wet-runway and obstacle performance, actual mission fuel, seasonal winds and suitable alternates still require verification. The airport coordinate used is a geospatial reference, not a certified airport reference point.
Dakar shifts the study toward West Africa. Both variants remain candidates, with the larger cabin dependent on sufficient demand. The work considers heat, dust, wet-season runway conditions, diversion coverage and ground support alongside distance; a brochure range does not settle the route.
Ponta Delgada offers a shorter Atlantic mission for both aircraft. Its island airport makes runway, weather and engine-out obstacle work particularly important. Departure loading should match the actual mission; carrying full tanks is not an automatic requirement or a measure of route readiness.
Buffalo is studied with both A220 variants and an explicit focus on seasonal resilience. Actual engine performance, winter winds, contaminated-runway limits and diversion fuel must support the operating plan. A Keflavik fuel stop remains a planning option, not a promised itinerary.
Detroit remains a long North Atlantic planning candidate for both aircraft. The study treats winter fuel requirements and a disclosed fuel-stop option as design questions. It does not turn structural weight calculations or airport size into a guarantee of nonstop service.
Cleveland pairs a long westbound crossing with a capacity decision. The smaller A220 leads the thin-market study, and the larger remains an alternative. Winter winds, aircraft-specific fuel performance and a suitable Keflavik stop option require further validation.
Pittsburgh is a demanding Atlantic planning case. Both A220 variants remain under assessment, with winter headwinds, suitable diversion airports and a workable fuel-stop option central to the study. The available evidence does not establish full-load winter nonstop performance.
Baltimore brings another North Atlantic gateway into the study. The smaller variant leads the thin-market planning case, while the larger remains a capacity alternative. Winter winds, suitable diversion airports and a practical technical-stop option require further aircraft-specific validation.
Washington Dulles is a wind-sensitive extended-range planning subject. Both variants remain under assessment. The work considers a Keflavik fuel-stop option alongside the direct crossing, because small geographic detours can still carry significant time, handling and recovery implications.
Philadelphia links a major cultural destination with a demanding Atlantic mission. The study retains both variants and examines direction-specific runway limits, winter winds and diversion-airport suitability. Published runway length alone cannot establish what a particular aircraft can carry.
Newark is studied as its own airport and city, with access, runway availability and recovery alongside range. Both A220 variants remain candidates. The smaller cabin is the planning lead for a thinner market; the larger remains an option where demand supports it.
New York calls for airport access and a resilient crossing plan to be studied together. The smaller A220 leads the range-focused planning work, with the larger variant retained as a capacity option. Aircraft-specific fuel performance and seasonal weather remain essential evidence.
Toronto asks a longer westbound question. Both aircraft remain in the technical study, with seasonal headwinds, fuel protection and diversion-airport availability considered together. Public evidence does not establish their actual trip-burn difference or year-round nonstop reliability.
Montréal combines a substantial Atlantic crossing with winter airport operations. Both variants remain credible candidates. The study examines loading, fuel protection, diversion geography and usable runways; actual aircraft performance and route-specific weather evidence are still required.
Boston brings the North Atlantic crossing into focus. Both A220 variants remain technical candidates. Winter westbound winds, suitable diversion airports and a flight-specific fuel plan are central questions; year-round nonstop reliability is not established.