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
Aug 15, 2019, 1:53 am
#3091
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YEG
Posts: 269
"A few airlines are now pushing Bombardier to stretch the C Series and make it a viable alternative to the MAX"
My understanding is that Bombardier has completely left the commercial aviation sector. Please see the quote below
"Bombardier Inc. (BBD.TO) will sell its regional jet division to Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. for US$550 million, marking the company’s exit from the commercial airline space.
The Quebec-based plane and train maker announced Tuesday that it has entered a definitive agreement with Mitsubishi to sell its CRJ aircraft program for US$550 million, as well as an assumption of US$200 million in liabilities.
Bombardier’s chief executive Alain Bellemare said in a statement that the sale represents the completion of the company’s aerospace transformation – one that has seen the company ditch its costly efforts to compete in the commercial aviation space against giants such as Boeing Co. and Airbus SE.
“With our aerospace transformation now behind us, we have a clear path forward and a powerful vision for the future,” Bellemare said.
“Our focus is on two strong growth pillars: Bombardier Transportation, our global rail business, and Bombardier Aviation, a world-class business jet franchise with market-defining products and an unmatched customer experience.” (Source Yahoo Finance Canada June 26, 2019)
Bombardier retains a minority interest in the C Series program but Airbus SE is calling the shots now.
My understanding is that Bombardier has completely left the commercial aviation sector. Please see the quote below
"Bombardier Inc. (BBD.TO) will sell its regional jet division to Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. for US$550 million, marking the company’s exit from the commercial airline space.
The Quebec-based plane and train maker announced Tuesday that it has entered a definitive agreement with Mitsubishi to sell its CRJ aircraft program for US$550 million, as well as an assumption of US$200 million in liabilities.
Bombardier’s chief executive Alain Bellemare said in a statement that the sale represents the completion of the company’s aerospace transformation – one that has seen the company ditch its costly efforts to compete in the commercial aviation space against giants such as Boeing Co. and Airbus SE.
“With our aerospace transformation now behind us, we have a clear path forward and a powerful vision for the future,” Bellemare said.
“Our focus is on two strong growth pillars: Bombardier Transportation, our global rail business, and Bombardier Aviation, a world-class business jet franchise with market-defining products and an unmatched customer experience.” (Source Yahoo Finance Canada June 26, 2019)
Bombardier retains a minority interest in the C Series program but Airbus SE is calling the shots now.
Last edited by AltaBound; Aug 15, 2019 at 1:54 am Reason: Delete first sentence as the original author not identified
Aug 15, 2019, 6:45 am
#3092
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE MM; SPG Plat
Posts: 424
The public's memory and behaviour will drive much of this - and I will respectfully disagree with you. I am reminded of the George Carlin quote: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." Of course it's not stupidity involved, but, perhaps, blissful ignorance, and/or the fact that memories are short.
Aug 15, 2019, 6:54 am
#3093
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 970
There is more to a business decision than fuel economy. Purchase price, customization, delivery options, and many other factors also contributed. Again, it's not like AC has no experience with Airbus. As the incumbent, the business should have been a slam-dunk for Airbus. Instead, they lost to Boeing. That says as much about Airbus as it does about Boeing. Also, please explain how the 737 MAX situation will lead to "another bad decision some 10 years down the road".
And how may this current mess have a negative impact on future aircraft orders? Well, there will be compensation. Boeing already publicly announced the form of compensation - services, spare parts, new aircraft discounts. It will take years. So it is entirely possible that when time of the 77W replacement comes, AC will be not fully compensated. And the management team will have to decide between the Ultrafan equipped A350-1000 (or perhaps the rumoured A350-1100) and applying compensation discounts to the 777-9. With GE9x engines that will be yesterday's news 10 years from now and with a fuselage designed in early 90's.
Aug 15, 2019, 7:01 am
#3094
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: YYC, Canada
Programs: AC 35k
Posts: 1,898
You might think my post is nonsense, but I am pretty confident that if and when the MAX returns to service, the flying public will soundly reject it and the this rejection will be a significant issue in getting these airplanes operating in any significant numbers. Maybe Canadian folks are different, but in the USA this will be an issue.
As for Canada vs. US - the biggest difference here is both of our major domestic airlines are heavily invested in the MAX, and it would be impossible to fly domestically without flying one.
Aug 15, 2019, 9:45 am
#3095
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K; Marriott Platinum; Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,355
The vast majority of the flying public has no idea what plane they are flying and don't care. A simple rebrand of the aircraft (737-8 and dropping the MAX moniker - wow brand new plane) and no one is the wiser.
As for Canada vs. US - the biggest difference here is both of our major domestic airlines are heavily invested in the MAX, and it would be impossible to fly domestically without flying one.
As for Canada vs. US - the biggest difference here is both of our major domestic airlines are heavily invested in the MAX, and it would be impossible to fly domestically without flying one.
Aug 15, 2019, 10:04 am
#3096
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Quite wrong actually. The A223 seats more than an A319, and is actually close to an A320, just look at the "fleet" page at aircanada.com. So an A225 would be quite close to the Max. A somewhat longer 5 abreast plane will always be somewhat more aerodynamically more efficient than a wider one. My take is, if the delay extends into a potential recession, it may end up having a very negative impact on the max future. Especially if Airbus goes ahead with the A225. Which it may not if trying to preserve a market for the A320 (which I would argue would be foolish). In the meantime, it's starting to look like the A321XLR, now the soft spot in the 320 line, may take enough of a bite into the potential MMA niche that development of an entirely new model might no longer be financially viable given the small market left. This might end up repeating the history whereby when Boeing was looking for a replacement for the 727, they came up with the larger, heavier 757, but ultimately the 727 was largely replaced by the smaller A320.
Aug 15, 2019, 10:13 am
#3097
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Mississauga Ontario
Posts: 4,105
Aug 15, 2019, 10:23 am
#3098
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
I would take the position at this point that the MAX is dead. With every passing day, the public is losing more confidence, and when the airplane is determined to be "safe", hardly anyone will fly it and the bookings will prove that out. It might fly in other countries where people are more ignorant, or their trust in government is higher than in North America, but I just don't see Southwest, United, Air Canada, or AA bringing back this plane unless they try and force it down everyone's throat by refusing to identify the aircraft version at booking and then refuse waivers when people don't want to fly.
Aug 15, 2019, 10:29 am
#3099
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Mississauga Ontario
Posts: 4,105
Also, keep in mind social media didn't exist back in the day of the DC-10 incident(s). People consume information in different ways. We are in unchartered territory in terms of how the public will assess the story *and* in terms of how conspiracy and other theories might come to influence behaviour/decisions.
Aug 15, 2019, 10:33 am
#3100
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AC SE100K 1MM, FB Platinum, Bonvoy Platinum Elite, IHG Gold Elite, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,604
Unfortunately, I can't find now the articles about this purchase. After all, it was 6 years ago. Nonetheless, I seem to recall that the 2 most important factors in the decision were availability and price. While the availability is (almost) a clear cut problem, the price is not. I recall 787 delay compensations being a factor in the pricing (this is the moment where the articles from the time would be useful). Otherwise there was no reason to go for the 737. Especially when one accounts for other factors, such as development potential. After all, it is an asset purchased to be used for next 30 years and the 320 was not the only NB aircraft in AC's fleet that will have to be replaced. The 737 in it's current form looks more and more as a "one size wonder". I realize the 737-10 is under development, but how capable it will be remains to be seen. Now let's look at the other side. While some expectations haven't been fulfilled yet (PW1100 PIP, we all know why it didn't happen), Airbus is developing the A321 further. I dare to predict that the new center tank they are working on for the A321XLR will eventually become standard on the A321 (just as the ACF door configuration) and may eventually back-project to the A320, eliminating one of the 7M8's advantages over the A320N. Admitting the 737's financial advantages and the earlier availability, I still believe the 737 purchase was a bad decision. In 2013, not expecting this crazy snafu. Of course, this is my opinion only and I'm not preaching it as an universal truth.
And how may this current mess have a negative impact on future aircraft orders? Well, there will be compensation. Boeing already publicly announced the form of compensation - services, spare parts, new aircraft discounts. It will take years. So it is entirely possible that when time of the 77W replacement comes, AC will be not fully compensated. And the management team will have to decide between the Ultrafan equipped A350-1000 (or perhaps the rumoured A350-1100) and applying compensation discounts to the 777-9. With GE9x engines that will be yesterday's news 10 years from now and with a fuselage designed in early 90's.
And how may this current mess have a negative impact on future aircraft orders? Well, there will be compensation. Boeing already publicly announced the form of compensation - services, spare parts, new aircraft discounts. It will take years. So it is entirely possible that when time of the 77W replacement comes, AC will be not fully compensated. And the management team will have to decide between the Ultrafan equipped A350-1000 (or perhaps the rumoured A350-1100) and applying compensation discounts to the 777-9. With GE9x engines that will be yesterday's news 10 years from now and with a fuselage designed in early 90's.
It will very interesting to see how the A220 does - many think it will do for North American routes what the 787 did for Transcon. The A220 can be deployed Transatlantic, much like the Max, and it could takeover some of the Transatlantic Max flying. If the A220-500 is ever built, it seems likely AC would acquire some.
Although the Max grounding has definitely been a challenge, the second quarter financials suggest AC will manage it in reasonable shape, and will have a very nice cap ex bump over the next 10 years.
Aug 15, 2019, 10:46 am
#3101
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Yes and no. 787 has been good for longer routes, but we hear AC likes the 330 better for shorter transatlantic routes, which should not be overly surprising given gross weight differences needed for the extra fuel load on the 787.
The Max is already a bit short-legged for transatlantic routes and the A220 even more so. In addition to being a bit smaller. To me this sounds like where the Max wins over the A220. Especially over AC's current A223. A hypothetical A225 would go head on agaisnt the Max however. At least across the board, but maybe not quite transat.
It will very interesting to see how the A220 does - many think it will do for North American routes what the 787 did for Transcon. The A220 can be deployed Transatlantic, much like the Max, and it could takeover some of the Transatlantic Max flying. If the A220-500 is ever built, it seems likely AC would acquire some.
Although the Max grounding has definitely been a challenge, the second quarter financials suggest AC will manage it in reasonable shape, and will have a very nice cap ex bump over the next 10 years.
Actually, the thing may well have been a blessing in disguise for many airlines. Which by and large managed to adapt in an ad-hoc manner, less than optimal mainly for passengers, but who had to have some comprehension/understanding. While lowering somewhat availability hence increased fares, and to some extent lowering costs by using larger planes but lower frequencies. Quite possibly leading to increased profit.
Aug 15, 2019, 11:55 am
#3102
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
Also, keep in mind social media didn't exist back in the day of the DC-10 incident(s). People consume information in different ways. We are in unchartered territory in terms of how the public will assess the story *and* in terms of how conspiracy and other theories might come to influence behaviour/decisions.
That could obviously cut the other way if airlines offered really cheap fares upong eventual return to service. As we have seen, and occasionally lament in this forum, some people will always go for the lowest cost option.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Aug 15, 2019, 12:28 pm
#3103
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Although it is entirely possible that the DC-10 would have done much better had there not been these early crashes. Which may well have improved the demand for the 747. I do remember that at the time given a choice between an itinerary on a DC-10 and a 747 I would do what I could to fly the latter. OTOH the better plane, and more adapted to most markets, the L1011, ended up more or less as a footnote. I was not in Canada at the time and I never had a chance to fly on one.
Aug 16, 2019, 12:53 pm
#3104
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
https://globalnews.ca/news/5775561/b...anada-storage/
A look at what Canadian airlines are doing with their Boeing 737 MAX 8s fleets
A look at what Canadian airlines are doing with their Boeing 737 MAX 8s fleets
Aug 16, 2019, 1:12 pm
#3105
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,762
I doubt 2-3 years from now anyone will be worried about the MAX. Boeing will keep selling them and keep building them. Just like almost nobody today thinks about the 787 battery fires.
Boeing foolishly implemented a cut-rate strategy to extend the life of a substandard product, they bet that they could do the modification on the cheap and it wouldn't cause problems. It did and now they have to correct it, with a lot more eyes on them (eyes that should've been on them all along but they weren't because we're cheap). Perhaps the most concerning thing is that they didn't pull the certification as soon as there were issues. The military grounds aircraft a hell of a lot faster than this, and they don't have to answer to the flying general public.
Having said all that , if I were AC I'd cancel the order, sell off the remaining 737s and acquire the 320neos but that's because they're better aircraft..
Boeing foolishly implemented a cut-rate strategy to extend the life of a substandard product, they bet that they could do the modification on the cheap and it wouldn't cause problems. It did and now they have to correct it, with a lot more eyes on them (eyes that should've been on them all along but they weren't because we're cheap). Perhaps the most concerning thing is that they didn't pull the certification as soon as there were issues. The military grounds aircraft a hell of a lot faster than this, and they don't have to answer to the flying general public.
Having said all that , if I were AC I'd cancel the order, sell off the remaining 737s and acquire the 320neos but that's because they're better aircraft..