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
Oct 19, 2019, 12:15 pm
#3316
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: YYZ most of the time
Programs: AC SE100K MM, Princess Elite
Posts: 3,921
Granted I'm no engineer (I just play one on TV), I would think that changing the nose gear back to a 737NG style should be possible perhaps easy, and changing the pylon/engine mount to accept a CFM56 vs the current LEAP1 should also be easy. Then you'd essentially have a NGd MAX and the aircraft that have already been produced and are collecting cobwebs should behave like the NG did.
Oct 19, 2019, 12:52 pm
#3317
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,570
If they are forced to change to the NG engines that is significant rework. There is a lot of aerodynamic optimization that goes into airflow around the wing and the engine. Who knows if such a configuration is sufficiently fuel efficient to make it economically viable.
But sure. They could do the aerodynamic work.
Oct 19, 2019, 2:58 pm
#3318
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K; Marriott Platinum; Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,355
The 2 major physical changes were longer nose gear, and the engines. The nose gear change also necessitated a minor change inside the nose gear well to accomodate the longer nose gear. The engines came with larger cowl but needed a pylon change to accomodate.
Granted I'm no engineer (I just play one on TV), I would think that changing the nose gear back to a 737NG style should be possible perhaps easy, and changing the pylon/engine mount to accept a CFM56 vs the current LEAP1 should also be easy. Then you'd essentially have a NGd MAX and the aircraft that have already been produced and are collecting cobwebs should behave like the NG did.
Granted I'm no engineer (I just play one on TV), I would think that changing the nose gear back to a 737NG style should be possible perhaps easy, and changing the pylon/engine mount to accept a CFM56 vs the current LEAP1 should also be easy. Then you'd essentially have a NGd MAX and the aircraft that have already been produced and are collecting cobwebs should behave like the NG did.
But picking up where that discussion abruptly left off in the summer, I was told that the tailcone for the MAX is also different from the NG.
Oct 19, 2019, 3:17 pm
#3320
Join Date: Sep 2005
Programs: AC MM E50 , Former SPG, now Marriott LT Plat
Posts: 6,266
I was going to post this and take a shot at the folks here who said that the plane itself was fine, and that it was third world pilots who were the problems, and those of us who said we would not fly the bird were shrill idiots.
But then, I thought, I would not say that. That would be rude
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...732_story.html
In the messages, Mark A. Forkner, then chief technical pilot for Boeing’s 737, wrote to technical pilot Patrik Gustavsson that the MCAS was engaging “itself like craxy, ” calling the problem “egregious.”
Forkner, who had a major role in the Max, also indicated that the Boeing employees misled the Federal Aviation Administration. “So I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly),” he wrote.
----
But I will say, I'm not getting on the plane.
And in fact, I'm still prepared to stake out my position that I will probably never have to make that decision, because, simply, it won't be back in the air.
But then, I thought, I would not say that. That would be rude
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...732_story.html
In the messages, Mark A. Forkner, then chief technical pilot for Boeing’s 737, wrote to technical pilot Patrik Gustavsson that the MCAS was engaging “itself like craxy, ” calling the problem “egregious.”
Forkner, who had a major role in the Max, also indicated that the Boeing employees misled the Federal Aviation Administration. “So I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly),” he wrote.
----
But I will say, I'm not getting on the plane.
And in fact, I'm still prepared to stake out my position that I will probably never have to make that decision, because, simply, it won't be back in the air.
my mother and kids off MAX flights.
I also stated upthread that I would not fly this bird for several years even if allowed back into service.
Like you, I was mocked for these views.
Better to keep blaming 3rd world pilots
Oct 19, 2019, 5:13 pm
#3321
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: YYZ most of the time
Programs: AC SE100K MM, Princess Elite
Posts: 3,921
Back on July 30, I posted the question of what it would take to retrofit the MAX into a NG in this very thread! That sounded to many like crazy talk at the time.
But picking up where that discussion abruptly left off in the summer, I was told that the tailcone for the MAX is also different from the NG.
But picking up where that discussion abruptly left off in the summer, I was told that the tailcone for the MAX is also different from the NG.
Oct 19, 2019, 5:21 pm
#3322
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: TK *G
Posts: 3,099
Oct 19, 2019, 7:59 pm
#3323
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 3,050
The 2 major physical changes were longer nose gear, and the engines. The nose gear change also necessitated a minor change inside the nose gear well to accomodate the longer nose gear. The engines came with larger cowl but needed a pylon change to accomodate.
Granted I'm no engineer (I just play one on TV), I would think that changing the nose gear back to a 737NG style should be possible perhaps easy, and changing the pylon/engine mount to accept a CFM56 vs the current LEAP1 should also be easy. Then you'd essentially have a NGd MAX and the aircraft that have already been produced and are collecting cobwebs should behave like the NG did.
Granted I'm no engineer (I just play one on TV), I would think that changing the nose gear back to a 737NG style should be possible perhaps easy, and changing the pylon/engine mount to accept a CFM56 vs the current LEAP1 should also be easy. Then you'd essentially have a NGd MAX and the aircraft that have already been produced and are collecting cobwebs should behave like the NG did.
There's apparently a whole pile of 737NG's grounded right now (with likely more to come) with so-called "pickle fork" issues (its not clear whether such issues will ultimately affect the airworthiness of the 737Max, or if the 737Max's structural design was sufficiently altered to avoid the cracks). But if 737NG's have to be prematurely grounded, there could be quite a stock of moderately used CFM56's and associated hardware that could go onto the MAX's.
The problem is, who would be interested? They'd have to probably be peddled to cargo operators. And doubt there's really demand for 700 of such planes.
Oct 20, 2019, 4:35 am
#3324
Join Date: Jan 2012
Programs: AC E50K, MM, BA, Delta, PriorityClub Platinum, Marriott Gold.
Posts: 468
I think after exposure of those text messages from 2016, 737 Max is DEAD! Muilenburg will be fired, massive layoffs and a COMPLETE redesign is needed to bring trust back. It’s ALL their own fault! Idiots relied on sales ppl to make a decision of building 737 Max as response to Airbus not thinking the larger engines essentially don’t fit this old airframe.
More importantly Boeing culture MUST CHANGE. This insanity of race to the bottom, only caring for quarterly results after another, building planes with unskilled labor outside of Washington, building uncomfortable cramped planes as selling point, without concern for safety or comfort, and NOT putting safety above all else, will END Boeing if it doesn’t stop and change its ways. They’re also behind Lockheed in all military contracts and their only hope is commercial. They probably need a 5yr rebuild, with lower profit just to get out of this mess for a much greater and improved future. At least that’s what I hope, for the sake of Boeing.
More importantly Boeing culture MUST CHANGE. This insanity of race to the bottom, only caring for quarterly results after another, building planes with unskilled labor outside of Washington, building uncomfortable cramped planes as selling point, without concern for safety or comfort, and NOT putting safety above all else, will END Boeing if it doesn’t stop and change its ways. They’re also behind Lockheed in all military contracts and their only hope is commercial. They probably need a 5yr rebuild, with lower profit just to get out of this mess for a much greater and improved future. At least that’s what I hope, for the sake of Boeing.
Oct 20, 2019, 10:46 am
#3325
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 970
More importantly Boeing culture MUST CHANGE. This insanity of race to the bottom, only caring for quarterly results after another, building planes with unskilled labor outside of Washington, building uncomfortable cramped planes as selling point, without concern for safety or comfort, and NOT putting safety above all else,
Boeing is not going anywhere and the 737MAX will fly again. It remains to be seen when. But it will fly. There is no replacement for it.
Oct 20, 2019, 1:47 pm
#3326
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
That there is no current replacement for the Max [several eyebrows raise in Toulouse] is a moot point if the thing isn't certified or if airlines & passengers fail to place the required levels of trust into it.
Oct 20, 2019, 2:25 pm
#3328
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 970
Riiiight. Lehman Brothers isn't going anywhere either. Nor Sears, K-Mart, Enron or Blockbuster. I'm not saying Boeing will fail. But they most certainly could.
That there is no current replacement for the Max [several eyebrows raise in Toulouse] is a moot point if the thing isn't certified or if airlines & passengers fail to place the required levels of trust into it.
That there is no current replacement for the Max [several eyebrows raise in Toulouse] is a moot point if the thing isn't certified or if airlines & passengers fail to place the required levels of trust into it.
The MAX will get certified and flying again. Won't happen tomorrow but it will. I'll only believe its gone when news about massive order cancellations will show up. That's not happening. Heck, even JT can't wait to get more of them.
Last edited by tcook052; Oct 20, 2019 at 6:33 pm Reason: off topic
Oct 20, 2019, 2:38 pm
#3329
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: YVR TLS
Programs: Air France Flying Blue, Altitude SE-100k, AAdvantage, United Mileage Plus, WS rewards, BonVoy Titan
Posts: 913
Getting the FAA approval is one thing, getting International regulators on board is next, then and most importantly will be the flying public....
I've flown the Max before all this, I liked it...but now even after the FAA's blessing I'm not so enthusiastic and probably book around the Max
I've flown the Max before all this, I liked it...but now even after the FAA's blessing I'm not so enthusiastic and probably book around the Max
Oct 20, 2019, 3:50 pm
#3330
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
There are no raised eyebrows in Toulouse at all. They would have literally double their NB aircraft production to cover the market. That wouldn't be cheap, nor fast. Just look how time consuming are their production rate increase projects. And it's not just Airbus itself. The suppliers would have to follow suit too. All that for a temporary jump in production until a new narrowbody would show up. Nobody would do it..