I would have to agree with Shawn. It's about passengers not weight.
I'll concede that Bell screwed up the 429 with respect to weight and certification. Agreed!
This argument shouldn't be about whether this exemption is better for one manufacturer or the other but what is good for the RW community as a whole. As it stands now Part 27 is 7,000 lbs or less and 9 passengers or less. [14CFR 27.1(a)]. As far as I know not one of the newer part 27 machines can carry 9 passengers. EC135=7, A119 =7, A109 & Grand New=7, 429=7. Did I miss any? All those numbers came from each OEMs propaganda. Does this not imply that we are short changing our capabilities (by 2 passengers) based on an arbitrary weight limitation? Would the RW community as a whole not be better served if Part 27 Normal category reflected Part 23 Normal category of 12,500 lbs or less, 9 passengers or less?
It appears what Bell has done, albeit accidentally, is to open the discussion into changing 27/29 requirements. The FAA is now asking for comments and is willing to rewrite 27/29 as they recently have done with 23 if the community thinks it's necessary.
Again, instead of looking at this as a 'my favorite manufacturer vs. your favorite manufacturer' lets consider what the RW community needs in the future and whether you really think that can be accomplished with a 7000 lb Part 27 limit and the extra certification cost to meet Part 29 requirements for everything above that?