Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

Air Canada Selects Boeing 737 MAX to Renew Mainline Narrowbody Fleet

Air Canada Selects Boeing 737 MAX to Renew Mainline Narrowbody Fleet

    Hide Wikipost
Old Mar 13, 19, 1:57 pm   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: cooleddie
Wiki Link
Cabin photos

Post 976 https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29534462-post976.html
Post 1300 https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29780203-post1300.html

Cabin Layout

Interior Specs can be found here https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/...ard/fleet.html







- Window seats may feel narrower to come as the armrests are placed "into" the "curvature" of the cabin.
- Seats with no windows feel even more narrower as there is no space created by the curvature of window.
- All bulkhead seats have very limited legroom.
- Seats 15A, 16A, 16F, 17A and 17F have limited windows.
- Exit rows 19 and 20 have more legroom than regular preferred seats.

Routes

The 737 MAX is designated to replace the A320-series. Based on announcements and schedule updates, the following specific routes will be operated by the 737 MAX in future:

YYZ-LAX (periodic flights)
YYZ-SNN (new route)
YUL-DUB (new route)
YYZ/YUL-KEF (replacing Rouge A319)
YYT-LHR (replacing Mainline A319)
YHZ-LHR (replacing Mainline B767)
Hawaii Routes YVR/YYC (replacing Rouge B767)
Many domestic trunk routes (YYZ, YVR, YUL, YYC) now operated by 7M8, replacing A320 family
Print Wikipost

Reply

Old Mar 13, 19, 3:41 am
  #1921  
Formerly known as jsfrSuperElite
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong, Montreal
Programs: AirCanada SE1MM, Cathay Pacific MPC Diamond, Hilton Honors Diamond
Posts: 531
Hong Kong has now grounded the 737 Max:

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...pace-following
jsfrSE is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 4:22 am
  #1922  
lallied is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 5:11 am
  #1923  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC Tangerine FTTC
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post
But eh, you buy cheap, you get cheap. If if the s* hits the fan, whose fault?
Ironically, due to the GTF snafu the MAX looked like the better choice until Sunday.

Originally Posted by Stranger View Post
Superb airplanes they may have been, but the thing pretty much killed them commercially. The number of airframes built ended up a small fraction of the 707 and DC-8. Even short range planes such as the Caravelle did better. (Fond memories...)
Actually, what killed the Comet was its size. The first 3 iterations seated under 50 pax, the largest Comet 4 seated about 80 in typical configuration and 122 in charter config (I guess Rouge isn't a new idea). For comparison, the smaller 707 could take 137 in two classes or 174Y with 34" seat pitch
WildcatYXU is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 5:34 am
  #1924  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 136
Have WestJet and Air Canada quietly grounded the Max ? Flight Aware shows no Canadian based Max 8 flights. Or, just too early in the morning....


Edit - early. Just found a YUL to SFO flight

Last edited by annehamnitz; Mar 13, 19 at 5:35 am Reason: update
annehamnitz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 5:37 am
  #1925  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Programs: AC SE
Posts: 2,329
capedreamer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 6:05 am
  #1926  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: I dunno
Programs: Too Many
Posts: 1,724
Originally Posted by capedreamer View Post
take-away = Lion Air pilot error for departure with sensors indicate negative angle of attack while on the ground. MCAS fault only appeared because failure to abort flight. Ultimately, system failure that aircraft design flaw only one aspect.

when I teach SMS, share this article, as damage from hitting iceberg was just part of the system failure.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timei...eberg-theories

MAX concerns are just symbol of complex world that requires as simple explanation as possible for mass public.
skybluesea is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 8:21 am
  #1927  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE MM, SD Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 12,670
Originally Posted by Jagboi View Post
Should sensors that are only 4 or 5 months old need repairs? Seems like quite a short lifespan if true.
Clearly not - having said that, A pitot is basically a fancy straw with ~1 cm internal diameter. It isn't hard to imagine how it could get plugged up with debris, insects, etc.

Originally Posted by YXEGeordie View Post
Then why don't they collude and agree to announce at the same time?
Easiest way to do that would be to all meet with the transport minister and make a joint declaration of a voluntary decision to ground.

Originally Posted by skybluesea View Post
take-away = Lion Air pilot error for departure with sensors indicate negative angle of attack while on the ground. MCAS fault only appeared because failure to abort flight. Ultimately, system failure that aircraft design flaw only one aspect.

when I teach SMS, share this article, as damage from hitting iceberg was just part of the system failure.
Interestingly, Boeing makes it an extra cost option to have a warning indicator when the sensors don't agree with each other. Lion air did not purchase that option, so it wasn't obvious to the pilots that there was an issue. Boeing is likely now asking themselves why this would have been an optional extra. Not sure whether AC got the warning light or not.

You are absolutely right in terms of system failures. Aircraft accidents these days (including Lion Air) are usually a combination of multiple things going wrong - if any of those things had not happened all together, there would not have been an accident. Sometimes referred to as aligning Swiss cheese - usually you can't see through several slices of Swiss cheese but every once in a while the holes all align and that's when the accident happens.
skybluesea and Mauricio23 like this.
The Lev is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 8:23 am
  #1928  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K, 1MM, NH, DL, AA, GE/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 15,281
Originally Posted by skybluesea View Post
....MAX concerns are just symbol of complex world that requires as simple explanation as possible for mass public.

I am only using the quote above to lead in to the following:

The public is too freaked out to listen to reason. Even looking at FF sites like FT airline forums (particularly AA and even UA which doesn't even have this particular model), posters are too freaked out. Some people are prone to fear when they don't understand things. It is what it is.

I say this because:

Originally Posted by 24left View Post
Air Canada flight attendants’ union says crew don’t want to be forced to fly on Boeing 737 MAX 8

March 12, 2019 6:05 pm

https://globalnews.ca/news/5049502/a...ing-737-max-8/

I posted this upthread yesterday as it has implications. Two days ago, the AA FA union issue a memo that became public and I suspect that led to the AC FA's thinking about the same thing.

Now, how does it look to the average flyer, that FAs may be allowed to not fly the MAX? It certainly does not reinforce confidence.


And on Reuters this morning, a headline that along with the one above, will only reinforce fear in some:

Travel firms modify search options, bookings after Boeing groundings

MARCH 13, 2019 / 6:36 AM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1QU1AW

QUOTE:
"Travel agents and websites have begun to respond to consumer concern and the grounding of Boeing’s 737 MAX planes, by changing policies and introducing options to allow customers to choose the type of aircraft they wish to fly on."

(photo in article includes an AC fin)

*****

I don't have a personal comment on whether I would fly the MAX or change my flight plans if I'm scheduled to be on it. I am simply pointing out what we all know, the vast majority of people who fly do not understand how to airport, let alone how to determine aircraft safety. It isn't about knowledge, since even the experts don't have all the answers. It's about predictable human emotions and behaviour.
.
24left is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 8:32 am
  #1929  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: Aeroplan AA
Posts: 174
Garneau newser now put off until 1130EDT. Last minute lobbying?
J. Leslie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 8:41 am
  #1930  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: DL Gold, Marriott
Posts: 2,129

Clearly this is not enough to determine a cause yet. Nevertheless, there is a pretty clear parallel between the two take-offs.

Source:
Badenoch likes this.
kjnangre is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 8:42 am
  #1931  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 4,530
Originally Posted by J. Leslie View Post
Garneau newser now put off until 1130EDT. Last minute lobbying?
Perhaps the Honourable Payload Specialist is waiting for his software upgrade.
J. Leslie likes this.
Badenoch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 8:42 am
  #1932  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by skybluesea View Post

take-away = Lion Air pilot error for departure with sensors indicate negative angle of attack while on the ground. MCAS fault only appeared because failure to abort flight.


Is this true? I didn't get that sense just from this particular article. It just stated that the two AOA sensors disagreed by 20 degrees, and that a warning light wasn't part of the delivered package. Should the pilots have known about this disagreement? Do the AC 7M8 planes have that warning light? Anybody know?
shinbob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 9:10 am
  #1933  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: I dunno
Programs: Too Many
Posts: 1,724
Originally Posted by shinbob View Post

Is this true? I didn't get that sense just from this particular article. It just stated that the two AOA sensors disagreed by 20 degrees, and that a warning light wasn't part of the delivered package. Should the pilots have known about this disagreement? Do the AC 7M8 planes have that warning light? Anybody know?
see post#1927 with excellent explanation
skybluesea is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 9:14 am
  #1934  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: YYZ; AC SE * DL PM * BA Gold * AA Plat * HH Diamond * SPG Platinum * Queen's 92
Posts: 5,923
Originally Posted by 24left View Post
"Travel agents and websites have begun to respond to consumer concern and the grounding of Boeing’s 737 MAX planes, by changing policies and introducing options to allow customers to choose the type of aircraft they wish to fly on."
I have to say, this particular issue aside, I would love to have this flexibility generally.

YYZ-YVR searches, but only on widebodies (aircanada.com makes it a pain to look at the equipment now as you have to open the flight.)
Searches generally on matrix etc., where I can exclude Embraer garbage, 7M8s, etc.
Simon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 19, 9:39 am
  #1935  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 20,967
Originally Posted by skybluesea View Post


take-away = Lion Air pilot error for departure with sensors indicate negative angle of attack while on the ground. MCAS fault only appeared because failure to abort flight. Ultimately, system failure that aircraft design flaw only one aspect.
But so what? Boeing had not told anyone about the MCAS at that point, so they had no reason to be concerned with whatever the AOA sensors might do to the MCAS. I stick to my point:
  • 1. There should not have been an MCAS in the first place, but a tail that was able to do its job properly.
  • 2. To make things worse the MCAS was so poorly designed that it was an accidewnt waiting to happen. It almost loos like engineers at Boeing being pissed off by having been overruled by management, consciously or unconsciously, did their best to make the MCAS into a disaster. Having the thing depend upon one and only one notoriously unreliable primary sensor (these, including pitot, are invariably the weakest link in computer-based controls) was borderline criminal, the remedy (or more accurately the symptom relief stuff) being worse than the disease.
  • 3. So fixing the MCAS as it stands may lower risks of accident by a factor ten or so, from the current rate of one every three months (admittedly a conservative estimate). But even then, the Max is still going to be less safe than for instance first generation 320s. Way worse than the public, and the aviation world, his expecting today. I sure home there will be some certification authority with the cloud and the guts to force Boeing to redesign the tails, and retrofit, even if that places them on the verge of bankruptcy. But no, I don't hold my breath. Then maybe a continued sequence of crash will end up with the same result, unfortunately?
Simon likes this.
Stranger is online now  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread