Sep 19, 2017, 10:25 am
Last edit by: 24left
Jan 18 2021 TC issues Airworthiness Directive for the 737 MAX
Link to post https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/32976892-post4096.html
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/home/fly/onboard/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
Link to post https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/32976892-post4096.html
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/home/fly/onboard/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
Air Canada Selects Boeing 737 MAX to Renew Mainline Narrowbody Fleet
Apr 25, 2019, 2:43 pm
#2671
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
We are each ultimately accountable only to ourselves whether, where, when or with whom we travel. Those who claim a lack of options are expending more energy into bemoaning problems rather than exploring solutions.
Apr 25, 2019, 3:25 pm
#2673
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YYC
Programs: AC 50k 1MM, Marriott LT Titanium Elite
Posts: 3,402
Can we really say that to the families of the 359 lives lost - they paid the price for the failures by aircraft sellers and buyers 😫
Thanks though, reminds me we should add a 4th party that needs to pay - and that is the regulators who permitted the transaction and did not themselves undertake sufficient due diligence too.
Will heads roll at FAA, TC, EASA, etc. - bureaucrats will blame politicians for listening to industry to allow self- certification or at least weak oversight.
Unfortunately, lot of blood spilled, hopefully not in vein.
Apr 25, 2019, 5:22 pm
#2675
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
You make this statement as if you know it's possible and it's "relatively easy". Do explain the basis for your claim. I'm sure Boeing will be all ears. Maybe you can give their designers a hand.
Apr 25, 2019, 5:58 pm
#2676
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Straight issue of aerodynamics. Flow on top vs. bottom surfaces, with the lift being due to resulting pressure differences. OK, to be more precise, the integrals of the vertical component of the normal stress over the respective areas. Obviously Boeing must know, and have known for a while. But equally surely they did not and would rather not go that route...
Apr 25, 2019, 6:23 pm
#2677
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,167
Straight issue of aerodynamics. Flow on top vs. bottom surfaces, with the lift being due to resulting pressure differences. OK, to be more precise, the integrals of the vertical component of the normal stress over the respective areas. Obviously Boeing must know, and have known for a while. But equally surely they did not and would rather not go that route...
Apr 25, 2019, 6:41 pm
#2678
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
I'm not an aerodynamics engineer, nor am I an expert in CFD -- so I'm willing to be wrong about this, but I presume that any aerodynamic changes you make to reduce lift at a high AoA, would have side side effect of increasing drag at normal AoA. Increased drag == increased fuel burn == bad for the airlines == bad for Boeing sales ... and my bet is that's why Boeing went with an alternative approach (MCAS).
Some ways would clearly do that, such as forcing the upper boundary layer to detach. But that sounds like a pretty extreme approach (although possibly very easy and quick to implement). On the other hand, for instance increasing the angle of attack would typically increase both lift and drag, although much more lift. Lowering the flow speed on the upper surface might actually lower drag. Anyway, surely the lift due to the engine shape is pretty small, only an issue because of its location so even if the drag would increase somewhat it would likely not be very significant.
Apr 25, 2019, 7:28 pm
#2679
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
Straight issue of aerodynamics. Flow on top vs. bottom surfaces, with the lift being due to resulting pressure differences. OK, to be more precise, the integrals of the vertical component of the normal stress over the respective areas. Obviously Boeing must know, and have known for a while. But equally surely they did not and would rather not go that route...
Ignoring that they failed to create a new/not-new 737 that works, a not 737 wasn't their goal. They cancelled their not 737 project to get something out the door to compete with the 320 NEO.
Apr 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
#2680
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Boeing could well have made an aircraft almost like a 737 that has different flight characteristics (that doesn't require a computer to augment).
Ignoring that they failed to create a new/not-new 737 that works, a not 737 wasn't their goal. They cancelled their not 737 project to get something out the door to compete with the 320 NEO.
Ignoring that they failed to create a new/not-new 737 that works, a not 737 wasn't their goal. They cancelled their not 737 project to get something out the door to compete with the 320 NEO.
It's more like, Boeing wanted yet an updated 737. When flight testing it, they discovered a minor issue associated with the newer engines with bigger fans and placed further ahead (because they could not place them lower otherwise it would no longer be yet another 737), and since being in a rush to meet promised deadlines, and to keep costs according to plans, they implemented a quick software fix. I.e. the "augmentation" thing. They did not expect engines would develop lift, which turned out to be a problem. But at the end of the day all of this fits within the context of yet making another updated version of good old 737. First ones I flew on, 1972-73, I remember of 97 passengers single class... Even then, I liked the (older) 727 better...
Apr 26, 2019, 12:17 am
#2681
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 3,050
@canadiancow brings up a fair observation that pilots are trained how to deal with planes in non compliant and non normal states (engine out being a great example) ... but that leads to two questions: (1) will the MAX pilots be explicitly trained with how to deal with an MCAS out situation - and (2) will pilots even be notified when they are in that situation?
This is pretty much why I believe that even if MCAS is judged to be aerodynamically an acceptable solution (ie: the 2.5 degrees of MCAS authority which was deemed necessary in the flight testing, is reasonable with respect to the overall control authority of the horizontal stabilizer), the instrumentation must be made fault tolerant and triple redundancy is a necessity.
Apr 26, 2019, 3:00 am
#2683
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 3,050
About due diligence, it is hard to see how far airlines can go beyond effectively trusting Boeing or Airbus. I don't believe AC has/had the technical capability of assessing in detail the design of these airplanes. It's like the old say, no one was ever fired for buying IBM.
Lord knows, Canada doesn't exactly lack highly trained engineers. In fact, 2 out of 3 can't find employment in their chosen field (per StatsCan and the OSPE). The big problem at Boeing was that they didn't want to spend money on properly engineering a new aircraft (or even building a proper MCAS). The problem in a significant number of large Canadian businesses is that they've cut their R&D and "strategic" engineering functions to the bone. What we're seeing is a manifestation of such.
A lot of what is now described as excessive executive compensation, was actually compensation that previously went to staffing a proper engineering function. The shareholders and BoD of Air Canada decided that its CEO is 'worth' more than having a comprehensive engineering function that had the capability of evaluating products in an in-depth manner. Same deal over at Boeing, which, for what they've blown on exec compensation over the past few decades of known B737 obsolescence, would have gone a long ways towards a proper new 737 replacement. Eroding public confidence in Boeing is a symptom of a problem that's been brewing for decades and has been punctuated by many debacles in various facets of their business.
Last edited by pitz; Apr 26, 2019 at 5:09 am
Apr 26, 2019, 8:30 am
#2684
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
@Stranger
Respectfully, no.
if AC really believes the mantra “safety first”, then absolutely not an acceptable approach that you don’t do your due diligence to know what you’re buying, And you definitely challenge the supplier when putting lipstick on an old pig (pardon anyone offended by analogy) Aside from the issue of lives, serious enough as that is, don’t AC shareholders want to know that management has put their mind in a serious way to assessing a multi billion dollar investment, and if necessary higher specialists who know what they’re talking about. Plenty of smart answers on this thread, especially from you, so how is AC less technically knowledgeable than what gets posted here ?
I work in another part of aviation, and in my semi retirement all I do pretty much are peer reviews of the work of others after career as hands-on practitioner, And these projects run investments 2-10x what AC will eventually spend on MAX fleet. And clients value that I started my career as a commercial pilot, so I can think as an operator, not just a strategist, when giving advice that turns into +50 years of concrete, steel & glass that must be just as safe as the aircraft.
so I understand firsthand what “safety first” means at least in aircraft operations, especially when we lost a Selkirk College classmate and his father in a floatplane up north shortly after we graduated (82) plus one of our favorite instructors in the mid-air crash over Trail.
cutting AC slack for not doing their due diligence ? sorry, your posts are generally really well thought out, but please think again.
Oh, I agree that it's not a good situation that airlines no longer really have the technical capability. Merely stating what I think is the current reality, so far. When I said no one ever got fired for buying IBM, I don't think the implication was that it was a good thing, rather the opposite. Alas, we know about IBM and the AC web site... I think I am on record here as lamenting that their Safety VP has a background in... biochemistry.
Apr 26, 2019, 8:35 am
#2685
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
Why would they? AC isn't in the business of designing airplanes, they simply operate them. If they buy a product that is sold as certified and fit for flight, there should be no reason to redo the certification. You buy electrical consumer products that are CSA certified, do you take each one apart and run the certification tests to determine if the product actually meets CSA standards, or do you trust that if it bears a certification label it really is certified?