Of all the modern narrowbody airliners, the Airbus A320neo series stands out as the only family with multiple engine options, as the Airbus A220 (formerly the Bombardier CSeries), the COMAC C919, and the Embraer E-Jet E2 all have single-engine options. Most notably, Boeing’s 737 MAX series is also exclusively powered and is the best direct comparison with the Airbus A320neo.
There are several reasons why Airbus chose to go with a dual engine option with the A320neo (like Boeing did with the 787 Dreamliner), but chose exclusive options for its A330neo and A350 widebody aircraft. Much of this comes down to market size, risk acceptance, and the willingness of OEMs to invest in an aircraft. The underlying design of the aircraft, most relevant to the 737, was also a factor.
The Benefits Of Being Big & Standing Tall
What the A320 family lacks in size, it makes up for in big sales. In 2025, the A320 family overtook the Boeing 737 in cumulative deliveries, and it is now the most-produced commercial passenger jet in history. Adding to its advantage is the size and reputation of Airbus. The company is able to sustain high development costs and absorb shocks (something smaller Bombardier was unable to), and Airbus benefits from the confidence of OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) that comes with that.
This meant OEMs were willing to put the enormous capital needed and accept the risk associated with developing engine options for Airbus’ updated jet, even without the added security of being the exclusive engine manufacturer. While much is discussed about the planemaker’s decisions, less is said about the OEMs simply declining to bid or develop a solution when asked.
Put another way, smaller aircraft makers typically do not have the option of designing an aircraft with two engine options. As a result, there is often only one option available. But the size of the A320neo program provided Airbus the luxury of choice. Another benefit is that the A320 is a much newer aircraft design than the 737, with higher landing gear designed for larger engines. This gave Airbus a benefit Boeing lacked, as we shall discuss later.
Airbus’ Engine Choices
There were only three OEMs that could realistically offer engines for the A320neo: Pratt & Whitney, CFM International (a joint GE Aerospace and Safran venture), and Rolls-Royce. Rolls-Royce explored options while bidding for the A320neo, but it did not end up fielding a competing, full-scale engine option.
While Rolls-Royce discussed ventures in the 2010s, it eventually pulled back and pulled out of the narrowbody engine market. Today, it focuses on business jet engines and widebody engines. This left Pratt & Whitney with its new Geared Turbofan GTF family (PW1100G) and CFM International with its LEAP-1A.
|
Regional/Narrowbody Airliners |
Engine Option |
Total Orders |
|---|---|---|
|
Airbus A220 |
PW1500G |
940 (per Airbus) |
|
Airbus A320neo |
PW1000G or CFM International LEAP-1A |
11,366 (per Airbus) |
|
Boeing 737 MAX |
CFM International LEAP-1B |
6,814 (per Boeing) |
|
COMAC C919 |
CFM International LEAP-1C |
700-1,000 |
|
Embraer E2 |
PW1900G |
490 (per Embraer) |
|
Yakovlev MC-21 |
PW1000G (replaced by Aviadvigatel PD-14) |
Hundreds |
Pratt & Whitney ended up taking the opposite path from Rolls-Royce. Having won contracts for the Embraer E2, the CSeries (A220), and the A320neo, but losing the A330neo, 787 Dreamliner, and A350, Pratt & Whitney was pushed out of the widebody engine market. It now concentrates on regional and narrowbody engines.
Boeing 737 MAX Vs. Airbus A320neo: Which Aircraft Gets More Miles Per Gallon?
The A320neo and the CFM International LEAP-1A have a slight advantage, although both aircraft types and all three engines are comparable.
The Benefits Of Having Two Engine Choices
One of the largest expenses for any airline is maintenance. To minimize maintenance expenses, airlines love commonality. Having two engine options allows airlines to select the engine that is best for them, and the best engine is often the engine family that they already operate. The two engine types also put Airbus in a fundamentally stronger negotiating position, and it benefits from the two OEMs competing for market share on its aircraft.
Two engines also offer the aircraft an insurance policy in case one proves defective. If an aircraft type only has one engine option, and that engine option turns out to have big problems, then the whole airliner program is in serious trouble. But having two options allows the program to pivot to the better engine.
This has happened with the A320neo, as the P&W GTF has issues, forcing many airliners to be grounded and billions of dollars being lost. While these issues should be remedied with the GTF Advantage, the CFM LEAP provided airlines with an alternative. The same thing played out on the Boeing 787 when the Trent 1000 engine proved defective, allowing the GEnx to more or less swallow up its market share.
Why The Boeing 737 MAX Is Exclusively Powered
Perhaps one of the best ways to understand why the Airbus A320neo has two engine options is to understand why other aircraft don’t have two options. The Boeing 737 MAX is exclusively powered by the CFM International LEAP 1B turbofan, even though Boeing had the capital and massive market share to ensure strong sales and to ensure it was worth multiple OEMs developing engines for the aircraft. As Airbus developed the A320neo, Boeing needed a counter and fast.
However, as upgraded as it is, the Boeing 737’s airframe is fundamentally a 1960s design. Its short landing gear was designed for more rugged runways and for airports with limited infrastructure. It was built at a time when engines were much smaller, which created engineering challenges in fitting much larger modern engines onto the aircraft.
This led to the installation of the now-infamous MCAS software that caused the MAX crashes of 2018 and 2019. CFM engineered the LEAP-1B with a “flat-bottom” to allow for enough ground clearance. Boeing opted for a simplified integration and program risk.
The tight geometry has shaped every reengineering choice Boeing made. It needs a smaller fan (69 inches) than the counterpart on the A320neo (78 inches). The P&W GTF’s engine architecture would have required different pylons, aero shapes, and ground-clearance compliance analyses. Attaching the GTF would have pushed the 737 close to a clean-sheet redesign. Additionally, Boeing already had a close relationship with CFM and with the 737 Classic and NG using CFM56 engines.
How Do Boeing 737 MAX And Airbus A320neo Engines Impact Airline Fuel Efficiency?
Depending on the requirements of airlines and the routes they serve, all have different operational costs.
Why Other Narrowbody Airliners Are Exclusively Powered
It is fundamentally more expensive and complicated to produce an aircraft certified for two engines. Developing new airliners is incredibly expensive. Developing the Bombardier CSeries with even one engine was too much strain for Bombardier, and while it completed it, it was forced to sell it to Airbus as the A220. Another factor is that regional aircraft were never going to attract the same vast sales as the narrowbody A320neo or 737 MAX.
This meant OEMs demanded exclusivity to ensure they gained all of the limited sales to cover the massive costs and risks associated with developing an engine. A similar story was true for the Russian Yakovlev MC-21, the Brazilian Embraer E2, and even the COMAC C919. Developing these clean-sheet aircraft already stretched resources, especially for Russia.
Other OEMs were not interested in being a second choice for these risky aircraft. After all, P&W is now forbidden from selling its GTF to Russia due to sanctions, and the US is flirting with cutting China from the CFM LEAP-1C. Geopolitics is another significant risk dimension for OEMs.
Another factor for China’s COMAC C919 is that it is a national project with state backing. The C919 does not need to operate in the same competitive environment as other aircraft. Its initial customers are Chinese airlines, Chinese leasing companies, and state-backed operations that do not require multiple engine options to negotiate price competition. At any rate, it’s an interim solution as China develops its own CJ-1000A turbofan.
The Airbus A320neo More Popular Than Its Boeing Rival
Airbus set out to have two engine options for its A320neo from the get-go in order to maximize customer appeal and competitiveness, and the two options created intense competition between Pratt & Whitney and CFM. This all helped Airbus fend off competition and move more of the pricing and volume pressure onto the OEMs. The immense sales of the A320neo make the program central to both P&W and CFM, as it is a program neither is willing to lose.
The Boeing 737 MAX woes are not comparable to the GTF and Trent 1000 problems, but they underscore how a lack of diversity in an aircraft’s design creates more single points of failure. If Boeing had moved earlier and developed a clean-sheet replacement for the Boeing 737, then it would have likely had more flexibility in what engines it could incorporate. With that being said, it wouldn’t have needed the MCAS software in the first place, but that is the benefit of hindsight.
The Airbus A320neo has proven immensely successful and has accumulated a total of 11,366 orders, of which 4,211 have been delivered, and 7,145 remain on order. For comparison, the Boeing 737 MAX has attracted 6,814 orders (2,014 delivered), the E2 Jet has 490 orders, the A220 has 940 orders, the MC-21 has hundreds of orders, and the C919 could have around 1,000 orders. In other words, the A320neo has outsold all other narrowbody and larger-regional airliners on the market combined.
