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
May 2, 2019, 2:43 pm
#2746
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 53
And the airlines have no culpability in their aircraft acquisition, especially with +5,000 MAX orders?
If airlines were willing to pay for a clean-sheet design, then Boeing would have built the aircraft to suit.
And the story is still to be written on the cause...let both investigations finish so we can understand how various parts of the safety system - certification, operation, training, etc. were defective and where best to make improvements.
The tragedy will be compounded if story is poorly constructed by only blaming Boeing as certainly other lessons are to be learned here.
If airlines were willing to pay for a clean-sheet design, then Boeing would have built the aircraft to suit.
And the story is still to be written on the cause...let both investigations finish so we can understand how various parts of the safety system - certification, operation, training, etc. were defective and where best to make improvements.
The tragedy will be compounded if story is poorly constructed by only blaming Boeing as certainly other lessons are to be learned here.
May 2, 2019, 2:51 pm
#2747
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,805
Closest clean sheet would have been the CSeries. Still, between the Noe and the max, there remains a differnce of one generation. This said, price difference might not have been the only factor, as already discussed above.
May 3, 2019, 6:12 am
#2749
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 970
@Resurrection
Sorry, can't follow your logic?
Either airlines were too cheap to buy from Boeing a cleansheet design or NOT. Which is it?
And this Thread is about AC buying MAX, so how are A350 or C-Series relevant, with the AC decision to buy a derivative aircraft?
Thanks for your clarification.
Sorry, can't follow your logic?
Either airlines were too cheap to buy from Boeing a cleansheet design or NOT. Which is it?
And this Thread is about AC buying MAX, so how are A350 or C-Series relevant, with the AC decision to buy a derivative aircraft?
Thanks for your clarification.
May 3, 2019, 7:45 am
#2750
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,570
Firstly, it was Boeing that was too cheap to start offering a clean sheet product. Secondly, it was said several times in this very topic that AC purchased the 737 purely on price. So it may seem that AC was not only too cheap to buy a clean sheet design, but it was too cheap to purchase the derivative aircraft better suited for current engines.
May 3, 2019, 7:54 am
#2751
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,167
Firstly, it was Boeing that was too cheap to start offering a clean sheet product. Secondly, it was said several times in this very topic that AC purchased the 737 purely on price. So it may seem that AC was not only too cheap to buy a clean sheet design, but it was too cheap to purchase the derivative aircraft better suited for current engines.
Say Chevy announced a new version of the Malibu, and said it was cheaper than some of their other new models because the new Malibu was built as a minor evolution of an existing car -- and a year later, it emerged that there was a potentially fatal design flaw because Chevy had taken shortcuts. Are you really going to blame the purchasers, just because they were attracted by Chevy's promise of a cheap new car?
No. Chevy sold the car as new, safe, and certified -- just as Boeing sold the MAX as new, safe, and certified. The fault lies with the manufacturer, and the regulators who did not catch the problem.
May 3, 2019, 8:56 am
#2753
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,167
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings-own-test-pilots-lacked-key-details-of-737-max-flight-control-system-11556877600
Boeing Co. limited the role of its own pilots in the final stages of developing the 737 MAX flight-control system implicated in two fatal crashes, departing from a longstanding practice of seeking their detailed input, people familiar with the matter said.
As a result, Boeing test pilots and senior pilots involved in the MAX’s development didn’t receive detailed briefings about how fast or steeply the automated system known as MCAS could push down a plane’s nose, these people said. Nor were they informed that the system relied on a single sensor—rather than two—to verify the accuracy of incoming data about the angle of a plane’s nose, they added.
As a result, Boeing test pilots and senior pilots involved in the MAX’s development didn’t receive detailed briefings about how fast or steeply the automated system known as MCAS could push down a plane’s nose, these people said. Nor were they informed that the system relied on a single sensor—rather than two—to verify the accuracy of incoming data about the angle of a plane’s nose, they added.
May 3, 2019, 9:18 am
#2754
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 970
Somehow I suspect the fact that the aircraft included design flaws, was not mentioned by Boeing during the purchasing process - so I still think it's a huge leap to try and blame AC (or any purchasing airline) for this problem.
No. Chevy sold the car as new, safe, and certified -- just as Boeing sold the MAX as new, safe, and certified. The fault lies with the manufacturer, and the regulators who did not catch the problem.
No. Chevy sold the car as new, safe, and certified -- just as Boeing sold the MAX as new, safe, and certified. The fault lies with the manufacturer, and the regulators who did not catch the problem.
does anybody recall AC saying to shareholders we have NO choice but to buy a derivative 37.
AC made a choice, and if the airline failed to future proof its fleet through a longer term acquisition program, that too was an AC shareholder choice.
And so nobody at AC chose NOT to ask the question “you get what you pay for”
In the end, AC chose to buy MAX and blaming Boeing for selling the product, latent defect and all, does not make AC have clean hands here.
May 3, 2019, 9:53 am
#2755
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 669
Wasn't it more like AA made a major purchase on the 320 NEO, which would have cut Boeing out of AA. Boeing fought back by updating the 737, therefor cutting AA Airbus order in half and keeping AA as a customer.
May 3, 2019, 10:39 am
#2756
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
May 3, 2019, 1:21 pm
#2757
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
@Resurrection
Sorry, can't follow your logic?
Either airlines were too cheap to buy from Boeing a cleansheet design or NOT. Which is it?
And this Thread is about AC buying MAX, so how are A350 or C-Series relevant, with the AC decision to buy a derivative aircraft?
Thanks for your clarification.
Sorry, can't follow your logic?
Either airlines were too cheap to buy from Boeing a cleansheet design or NOT. Which is it?
And this Thread is about AC buying MAX, so how are A350 or C-Series relevant, with the AC decision to buy a derivative aircraft?
Thanks for your clarification.
May 3, 2019, 4:31 pm
#2758
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 151
The idea that Boeing is "too cheap" do do a clean-sheet design is another one of the many zingers posted in this thread. Aircraft design, like life, involves a series of trade-offs. There are arguments for and against both developing a clean-sheet design and developing a derivative. If someone can't figure this out, well....
You are correct in general (see: the 787's issues with new systems and components) but the fundamental point here is that these planes flew themselves into the ground while the pilots desperately tried to work out how to stop the plane from killing them - all because someone added a badly designed (and non-safeguarded) system entirely to avoid having to admit they should retrain pilots to an altered flight envelope. That isn't an upgraded aircraft - it's rolling the dice on passengers' lives to get something out the door before the competition.
Sorry if this is a little ranty, but the more information that comes out on this, the worse Boeing look.
May 3, 2019, 4:38 pm
#2759
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE100K, Bonvoy Platinum Elite, IHG Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 2,132
Can we take a deep breath and consider for a moment that the likelihood anyone at Boeing or FAA thought there was any danger at all, or that they were “rolling the dice” with lives is slim to absolutely effing zero?
They screwed up. Huge. It has to be fixed and I hope the FAA learns from this. That said, we have to stop throwing these terms around like Boeing and their people don’t care. It’s just plain wrong.
They screwed up. Huge. It has to be fixed and I hope the FAA learns from this. That said, we have to stop throwing these terms around like Boeing and their people don’t care. It’s just plain wrong.
May 3, 2019, 5:23 pm
#2760
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,805
Indeed I would imagine that the people who made the decision indulged in that sort of wishful thinking. However I sure hope there are people at Boeing who would have thought the thing was borderline criminal. But we ar now hearing about some people at Boeing having been kept in the dark about the MCAS. My guess is, the first group convinced themselves the engineers would have objected "just to make themselves more important than they are..." As they say, safety is expensive. But accidents are more expensive. And it appears the culture is now rotten at Boeing. Alas, recent developments don't show that the lesson has been learned. Muilenburg is still around apparently; not sure how much longer though...