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
Sep 24, 2019, 8:14 pm
#3256
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,353
Lets approach this in the spirit of a Fermi Problem and see if we can prove or disprove this hypothesis, at least within say a factor of 3X.
Data:
From reported data, road traffic deaths in Canada are 5.1 per billion vehicle km. 346 people have died in the 737 MAX crashes. 380 737MAX have been delivered.
Assumptions:
The delivered 737 MAX's have collectively performed approximately 400,000 flights, and lets assume an average stage length of 1500km. Obviously some, like YVR-HNL are much longer, and YYC-YEG much shorter. I have to pick a number representative of all operators so I chose 1500 km.
I have also adjusted for occupancy, as the road data is simply per vehicle, but obviously a car carries fewer passengers than a 737, so I wanted to make an adjustment to reflect exposure per person. I have chosen 169 as the number of seats in the 737 (AC's configuration) and average number of passengers in a road vehicle to be 2. Again, things like buses have higher occupancy, balanced out by a larger number of single occupant cars. Some operators operate denser versions of the 737, but not all seats will be occupied on all flights. I have "grossed up" the vehicle death rate by a correction factor of 169/2 =84.5.
As in Fermi's process, some numbers will be higher than actual and some lower, but errors should mostly cancel each other out to make a overall reasonable estimate.
346 deaths x 1,E9
400,000 flightsx1500 km/380 planes)
=219,133 as a flight fatality rate per billion plane km
The one billion factor in the top line of the equation is to normalize that data per billion km travelled.
In contrast, the vehicle rates is 5.1 x 84.5 (occupancy factor) = 431
Thus driving is approximately 500 times safer than flying in a 737 MAX.
Edit: Please check my math, but since the units work out correctly, I think I have done it right!
Data:
From reported data, road traffic deaths in Canada are 5.1 per billion vehicle km. 346 people have died in the 737 MAX crashes. 380 737MAX have been delivered.
Assumptions:
The delivered 737 MAX's have collectively performed approximately 400,000 flights, and lets assume an average stage length of 1500km. Obviously some, like YVR-HNL are much longer, and YYC-YEG much shorter. I have to pick a number representative of all operators so I chose 1500 km.
I have also adjusted for occupancy, as the road data is simply per vehicle, but obviously a car carries fewer passengers than a 737, so I wanted to make an adjustment to reflect exposure per person. I have chosen 169 as the number of seats in the 737 (AC's configuration) and average number of passengers in a road vehicle to be 2. Again, things like buses have higher occupancy, balanced out by a larger number of single occupant cars. Some operators operate denser versions of the 737, but not all seats will be occupied on all flights. I have "grossed up" the vehicle death rate by a correction factor of 169/2 =84.5.
As in Fermi's process, some numbers will be higher than actual and some lower, but errors should mostly cancel each other out to make a overall reasonable estimate.
346 deaths x 1,E9
400,000 flightsx1500 km/380 planes)
=219,133 as a flight fatality rate per billion plane km
The one billion factor in the top line of the equation is to normalize that data per billion km travelled.
In contrast, the vehicle rates is 5.1 x 84.5 (occupancy factor) = 431
Thus driving is approximately 500 times safer than flying in a 737 MAX.
Edit: Please check my math, but since the units work out correctly, I think I have done it right!
I said per trip, and you showed per km.
I think @RangerNS sums it up well, but I'll add my second thought here:
You're using road deaths in Canada, but MAX deaths globally. My hunch is that global road deaths would be higher than Canada, but still much lower than global MAX deaths. But if we were to look at just deaths in Canada, you end up with X vs 0.
That's a really good point too, but going down that path is going to be impossible to get anyone to agree.
Sep 24, 2019, 8:20 pm
#3257
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
OK, you win. Substantively your analysis is just way better than mine.
Having said that, a couple observations: fatalities per 100m mi are about double in USA what you show for Canada. Just interesting, no other comment. Second, because the stat is fatalities per x km (or mi) I don't think you have to adjust for number of occupants in the car (that is already implied in the data -- it is fatalities not collisions or fatal collisions). Final observation: as I noted in my post, sample matters. A lot. When was the last time a US airline had a fatality on a scheduled flight? If you look at it that way, the MAX is still good. Just saying. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Nevertheless I yield to your superior analysis..
Having said that, a couple observations: fatalities per 100m mi are about double in USA what you show for Canada. Just interesting, no other comment. Second, because the stat is fatalities per x km (or mi) I don't think you have to adjust for number of occupants in the car (that is already implied in the data -- it is fatalities not collisions or fatal collisions). Final observation: as I noted in my post, sample matters. A lot. When was the last time a US airline had a fatality on a scheduled flight? If you look at it that way, the MAX is still good. Just saying. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Nevertheless I yield to your superior analysis..
I adjusted for occupants because the road traffic data was "per vehicle", and I figured I should adjust for the lower capacity of a car. Even if I didn't need to, it makes a stronger case for driving being safer than a 737. I hadn't considered your point about it already being accounted for.
Last fatal flight on US soil was Colgan Air 3407 where 49 died, plus one on the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407
Sep 24, 2019, 8:29 pm
#3258
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
While I find your math interesting, it's technically not the metric I gave
I said per trip, and you showed per km.
I think @RangerNS sums it up well, but I'll add my second thought here:
You're using road deaths in Canada, but MAX deaths globally. My hunch is that global road deaths would be higher than Canada, but still much lower than global MAX deaths. But if we were to look at just deaths in Canada, you end up with X vs 0..
I said per trip, and you showed per km.
I think @RangerNS sums it up well, but I'll add my second thought here:
You're using road deaths in Canada, but MAX deaths globally. My hunch is that global road deaths would be higher than Canada, but still much lower than global MAX deaths. But if we were to look at just deaths in Canada, you end up with X vs 0..
If we use the road death rate in Africa, which is the worst in the world, that changes it from 500 times to 100 times safer to drive. Obviously not all cars are driven in Africa, so the true answer will lie somewhere in between. I'm in Canada and you are frequently in Canada, so it didn't seem unreasonable to base our risk exposure of driving on Canadian traffic conditions.
Obviously, this isn't a precise calculation, it's a rough and ready estimate. It's intended to be a fun exercise to see if I could answer your thought ( paraphrased) of "Am I safer to drive or fly in a 737 MAX?" I had to work with something!
Sep 25, 2019, 4:04 pm
#3259
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,450
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic..._3r75t4R6FigUE
Boeing 737 Max Unlikely to Fly Early Next Quarter, SunTrust Says
Boeing 737 Max Unlikely to Fly Early Next Quarter, SunTrust Says
Sep 25, 2019, 6:37 pm
#3260
Join Date: Aug 2006
Programs: ex AC SE100K now 75k :-( / Bonvoy Titanium / All Accor Gold/ Avis Presidents Club / National EE
Posts: 164
Just out of curiosity, I’m assuming the westjet max 8 that I have been seeing Taxiing at YVR (big #100 737 Max 8 decal down the side) and sitting at a gate at YYC that these are moving to be repaired or tested?
was just surprised to see them out there and not just sitting at hangers.
was just surprised to see them out there and not just sitting at hangers.
Sep 25, 2019, 6:52 pm
#3261
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Just out of curiosity, I’m assuming the westjet max 8 that I have been seeing Taxiing at YVR (big #100 737 Max 8 decal down the side) and sitting at a gate at YYC that these are moving to be repaired or tested?
was just surprised to see them out there and not just sitting at hangers.
was just surprised to see them out there and not just sitting at hangers.
Sep 26, 2019, 2:55 pm
#3262
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Sep 26, 2019, 5:03 pm
#3263
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
I was thinking that was a major point relating to the return to service, the Max is too different from the previous 737's and needs to be treated as a new type with appropriate pilot training. I suspect that is what the EASA will require.
Sep 26, 2019, 6:09 pm
#3264
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Mississauga Ontario
Posts: 4,105
Sep 26, 2019, 6:24 pm
#3265
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,570
Any human pilot needing more than 4 seconds to notice, process, and correctly respond to a situation they were never taught about; indeed could not possible reason as possible in credible production aircraft.
Last edited by tcook052; Sep 26, 2019 at 10:37 pm Reason: fix quote
Sep 26, 2019, 7:25 pm
#3266
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,918
Chances of dying = 1/x
Chances of dying in an airplane crash = 1/(x^y)
Chances of dying in a 737M crash = 1/(x^z) where z>>y
You choose what you think x should be. But whatever it is, since 1/x is a small number, 1/(x^y) is REALLY small, and 1/(x^z) is infinitesimal. I'm more worried about being shot by a jealous lover.
Edit: the gremlins have replaced the exponent symbol with the thumbs up icon.
Last edited by Sopwith; Sep 26, 2019 at 7:28 pm Reason: Gremlins.
Sep 27, 2019, 1:21 am
#3267
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
Just out of curiosity, I’m assuming the westjet max 8 that I have been seeing Taxiing at YVR (big #100 737 Max 8 decal down the side) and sitting at a gate at YYC that these are moving to be repaired or tested?
was just surprised to see them out there and not just sitting at hangers.
was just surprised to see them out there and not just sitting at hangers.
Sep 27, 2019, 8:15 am
#3268
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
Boeing's test simulations prior to entry in service were done based on a single fault - malfunctioning MCAS. In that situation, it was relatively clear to the pilot that the symptom was runaway trim and they reacted accordingly. In both these accidents, MCAS worked exactly as intended but there was another problem - faulty AOA sensors. this meant that the pilots were getting multiple warnings at the same time not the single issue in boeing testing.
I'm not a pilot, but i can certainly see how it would take more than a couple of seconds to diagnose the root cause when my stick is shaking, horns are blaring and my screens suddenly light up like a Christmas tree.
Sep 27, 2019, 9:19 am
#3269
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
If I recall from some of the reports they were getting contradicting warnings too. I can't remember the specifics, but for example the solution to one warning might be to put the nose down, to the other warning to pull the nose up. It took a while to figure out what was really going on.
Sep 27, 2019, 10:26 am
#3270
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
If I recall from some of the reports they were getting contradicting warnings too. I can't remember the specifics, but for example the solution to one warning might be to put the nose down, to the other warning to pull the nose up. It took a while to figure out what was really going on.