Your characterization that the 737 is a 50-year old airframe and wouldn't compete with the CS300 is entirely inaccurate.
Boeing just keeps the same model numbers for a series of aircraft, but through gradual evolution of sub-models the newest 737 MAX that exists today is an entirely different plane from the original 737-100 released in 1966.
Pretty much the only thing that's the same is that the fuselage is the same diameter. Everything else from length, height, wing span, passenger count & even how fast it cruises has changed over the years. It now has over twice the range that it did in 1966.
Secondly just because two aircraft aren't exactly the same size doesn't mean they aren't competing for the same market. As an example no airline sits down and decides they need a plane that carries exactly 150 passengers, and 180 would be out of the question.
Instead they look at the overall price, efficiency etc. Maybe they'll buy a smaller plane and run more flights per day, rather than a bigger plane with fewer flights.
You can trivially see this by looking at the multitude of airframes you can choose to fly with between pretty much any two major international airports.
> 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.
Boeing just keeps the same model numbers for a series of aircraft, but through gradual evolution of sub-models the newest 737 MAX that exists today is an entirely different plane from the original 737-100 released in 1966.
Just look at this specification table for the different models on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Specifications
Pretty much the only thing that's the same is that the fuselage is the same diameter. Everything else from length, height, wing span, passenger count & even how fast it cruises has changed over the years. It now has over twice the range that it did in 1966.
Secondly just because two aircraft aren't exactly the same size doesn't mean they aren't competing for the same market. As an example no airline sits down and decides they need a plane that carries exactly 150 passengers, and 180 would be out of the question.
Instead they look at the overall price, efficiency etc. Maybe they'll buy a smaller plane and run more flights per day, rather than a bigger plane with fewer flights.
You can trivially see this by looking at the multitude of airframes you can choose to fly with between pretty much any two major international airports.