Norm, sorry for the tardy response, but as you may be aware I haven't been as active posting here as I used to be. Probably read this at the end of my alotted time slot and then got caught up with other things.

I've described in earlier posts what I meant by "a stretch too far". Yes, I realize what stretches involve and that Bombardier isn't the only manufacturer that sees this as a viable approach to addressing market demand for larger aircraft.

Yes, stretches are a cheap and fast way to beat a competitor to market, but I was hoping Bombardier had learned something from its experince extending to the CRJ700 and 900. These aircraft beat Embraer to market, but as it turned out Embraer's clean sheet designs were much preferred over Bombardier's stretches, because they had wider cabin dimensions allowing for less restricted seating for already cramped RJ travellers.

Bombardier still sold a few RJs but it lost market dominance to Embraer's clean sheet designs. This isn't just my opinion, it the concensus of opinion from a wide range of articles I've read. But if you can point me in the direction of any sources that appear to contradict this view I'd appreciate it and be eager to weigh that new info in the light of what I already believe.

Stretching probably seemed like the best option at the time. But even when it involves more than simply adding a "plug" to the fuselage section (sometimes they increase wingspan and increase engine size), it usually does little to increase cabin size (and thus comfort).

Of course, there are always trade-offs involved and guessing which features might be optimal for the most customers has to be a difficult game with all the other issues that need to be considered. But if we're giving credits to which manufacturer made the best call, the cudos have to go to Embraer's new designs. Bombardier's stretch approach muffed it.

Now we appear to be approaching a similar situation with Boeing stretching the 787 and Bombardier suggesting it will stretch CSeries.