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 26, 2019, 7:56 am
#3376
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 94
Odd.. I included the Youtube video in the post link, unfortunately looks like a mod removed it (i guess due to some kind of rules?). Cheers for the reply w the details.
It is indeed, but OP did not include the source of the photo, Sam Chui's video flying YHM-MZJ
********
In another update photo to "Where in the World are AC's MAX birds"............
In today's episode, we have a flock of many colors at MWH
One is on the far right and clearly visible. Another AC MAX is toward the upper left of the photo, top of inside row, next to 2 WN birds.
********
In another update photo to "Where in the World are AC's MAX birds"............
In today's episode, we have a flock of many colors at MWH
One is on the far right and clearly visible. Another AC MAX is toward the upper left of the photo, top of inside row, next to 2 WN birds.
Oct 26, 2019, 8:01 am
#3377
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
^
Perhaps because the link was to the video itself which may not have been relevant to AC FT?
Still, cute little AC birds all together in their little nest, in the sun.
Oct 26, 2019, 9:34 am
#3378
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
True but Boeing is NOT in the business of making money, it's in the business of FLYING people around safely! Selling an app and screwing a customer may just take your cash away, but designing an unsafe plane JUST to make more money KILLS your family, wife, daughter! That's NOT acceptable, AND will end-up costing the organization BILLIONS MORE if not bankruptcy, costing shareholders even more pain! So, it's a loss-loss-loss proposition!
737 Max should NOT FLY AGAIN, PERIOD! Not because we don't need them, or that there's backlog in A320, or industry needs it, etc... because it is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, aerodynamically unstable, and unsafe!
The easiest way to explain it, is to say you put massive monster truck tires on your car, and your steering if turned all the way would cause tires to rub against your suspension, causing a crash! So then the "clever" engineers (sales reps demand) would design your steering wheel software to COUNTER when you go beyond the steer point that hits the suspension... it would STEER BACK to the other direction not to hit the suspension, this should work fine if you're driving in your shopping mall... BUT what happens when someone cuts you off at 100Mph in the middle of a highway and you have to steer quickly to avoid an accident, MASSIVE CRASH!
The low HEIGHT of the 737 and 1950s aerodynamics were NOT suitable for such a large engine, PERIOD! It needed a RE-DESIGN, and STILL DOES need a re-design, this freaking BS bandaid software solution could never ever fix the aerodynamic inefficiency and flawed design of placement of the engine. Boeing must start a new re-design of the 737 frame, YESTERDAY! Yeah, it will cause delays, may have to make 737 NG for a bit longer, industry won't be happy, may lose Southwest, etc... BUT that's the only long-term solution. ALL you guys think is bottom line, convenience, airline plans, available options, etc... as a newly dad, I would NEVER EVER risk my newborn life in a plane that has fundamental design flaws, nor should you, FAA, the public or any airline!
Exactly! A lot of folks here care about AC capacity, their bottom line, the industry worries, or whatever! I DO NOT CARE... let em build 737 NG that consumes a bit more fuel BUT SAFE! I would pay $10 more in fuel cost flying it rather than putting my baby's life at risk!
Agreed! We all pretend it's the end of the world if Boeing can't produce unsafe 737 Max, with cramped seating for AC! Nope! Life would go on, maybe their bottom line suffers but I don't give a damn!
Lipstick on a pig! IF you imbeciles took a year, RE-DESIGNED the 737 frame to FIT the new engines, without aerodynamic instabilities caused by engine move, NONE of these Software compromises were necessary! This is pathetic, I won't ever fly 737 again, AND if AC doesn't pick a whole bunch of A320/A220 as alternative, have to completely switch away from AC at least for any US/International flights!
737 Max should NOT FLY AGAIN, PERIOD! Not because we don't need them, or that there's backlog in A320, or industry needs it, etc... because it is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, aerodynamically unstable, and unsafe!
The easiest way to explain it, is to say you put massive monster truck tires on your car, and your steering if turned all the way would cause tires to rub against your suspension, causing a crash! So then the "clever" engineers (sales reps demand) would design your steering wheel software to COUNTER when you go beyond the steer point that hits the suspension... it would STEER BACK to the other direction not to hit the suspension, this should work fine if you're driving in your shopping mall... BUT what happens when someone cuts you off at 100Mph in the middle of a highway and you have to steer quickly to avoid an accident, MASSIVE CRASH!
The low HEIGHT of the 737 and 1950s aerodynamics were NOT suitable for such a large engine, PERIOD! It needed a RE-DESIGN, and STILL DOES need a re-design, this freaking BS bandaid software solution could never ever fix the aerodynamic inefficiency and flawed design of placement of the engine. Boeing must start a new re-design of the 737 frame, YESTERDAY! Yeah, it will cause delays, may have to make 737 NG for a bit longer, industry won't be happy, may lose Southwest, etc... BUT that's the only long-term solution. ALL you guys think is bottom line, convenience, airline plans, available options, etc... as a newly dad, I would NEVER EVER risk my newborn life in a plane that has fundamental design flaws, nor should you, FAA, the public or any airline!
Exactly! A lot of folks here care about AC capacity, their bottom line, the industry worries, or whatever! I DO NOT CARE... let em build 737 NG that consumes a bit more fuel BUT SAFE! I would pay $10 more in fuel cost flying it rather than putting my baby's life at risk!
Agreed! We all pretend it's the end of the world if Boeing can't produce unsafe 737 Max, with cramped seating for AC! Nope! Life would go on, maybe their bottom line suffers but I don't give a damn!
Lipstick on a pig! IF you imbeciles took a year, RE-DESIGNED the 737 frame to FIT the new engines, without aerodynamic instabilities caused by engine move, NONE of these Software compromises were necessary! This is pathetic, I won't ever fly 737 again, AND if AC doesn't pick a whole bunch of A320/A220 as alternative, have to completely switch away from AC at least for any US/International flights!
Oct 26, 2019, 8:19 pm
#3379
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1X41Y5
QUOTE:
"Boeing had assumed pilots would recognize the plane’s uncommanded nose-down movement within the three seconds required by regulators, making it relatively simple to restore the aircraft to a normal position, according to the final report.
The manufacturer did not consider what would happen if a pilot reacted more slowly, leaving MCAS able to move the nose down by the system’s maximum allowable amount."
.
QUOTE:
"Boeing had assumed pilots would recognize the plane’s uncommanded nose-down movement within the three seconds required by regulators, making it relatively simple to restore the aircraft to a normal position, according to the final report.
The manufacturer did not consider what would happen if a pilot reacted more slowly, leaving MCAS able to move the nose down by the system’s maximum allowable amount."
.
Oct 27, 2019, 8:48 am
#3380
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
The designed and approved maximum allowable amount or the implemented and murderous maximum allowable amount?
Oct 27, 2019, 11:05 am
#3381
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
I did read it. Boeing isn't in the business of transporting people, airlines are. Boeing's goal is to make money, and while the MAX was obviously a bad miscalculation on their part that will affect their profitability, some altruistic sense of responsibility for your family isn't their primary concern. Whether this is good or bad is a different discussion, the reality is they are profit driven first and foremost.
Oct 27, 2019, 11:22 am
#3382
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,359
Equally important will be what AC does once the MAX returns to service. Will the rename the bird to the 8200 as Ryanair has been speculated to be doing? Will they allow weary passengers ticketed on a MAD Max to book away from it as some US airlines like WN are? Will Calin be flying the MAX when it returns to I still confidence in passengers and crew? Will there be limitations on when the Max returns to service in terms of passengers, cargo, etc? I think many are assuming that when the bird earns its wings back and can go back to its migratory phase it’ll be Business as usual. For some reason I doubt it given the unprecedented grounding!
I would argue that Boeing’s first priority above all else is safety. Can you name a single airframe company that put safety on the backburners and succeeded? McDonald’s Douglas with the DC-10 tried that in the name of pumping out as many airframes as possible and we saw the consequences of that!
-James
I would argue that Boeing’s first priority above all else is safety. Can you name a single airframe company that put safety on the backburners and succeeded? McDonald’s Douglas with the DC-10 tried that in the name of pumping out as many airframes as possible and we saw the consequences of that!
-James
Last edited by tcook052; Oct 27, 2019 at 11:39 am Reason: Off topic
Oct 27, 2019, 1:44 pm
#3383
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
I would argue that Boeing’s first priority above all else is safety. Can you name a single airframe company that put safety on the backburners and succeeded? McDonald’s Douglas with the DC-10 tried that in the name of pumping out as many airframes as possible and we saw the consequences of that!
Oct 27, 2019, 1:58 pm
#3384
Join Date: May 2013
Location: YYT/YYC/TPE
Programs: AC SE, UA, National Exec Elite, Nexus, GE
Posts: 1,810
I would argue that Boeing’s first priority above all else is safety. Can you name a single airframe company that put safety on the backburners and succeeded? McDonald’s Douglas with the DC-10 tried that in the name of pumping out as many airframes as possible and we saw the consequences of that!
-James
-James
Oct 27, 2019, 2:34 pm
#3385
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K; Marriott Platinum; Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,355
Oct 27, 2019, 3:05 pm
#3386
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Equally important will be what AC does once the MAX returns to service. Will the rename the bird to the 8200 as Ryanair has been speculated to be doing? Will they allow weary passengers ticketed on a MAD Max to book away from it as some US airlines like WN are? Will Calin be flying the MAX when it returns to I still confidence in passengers and crew? Will there be limitations on when the Max returns to service in terms of passengers, cargo, etc? I think many are assuming that when the bird earns its wings back and can go back to its migratory phase it’ll be Business as usual. For some reason I doubt it given the unprecedented grounding!
I would argue that Boeing’s first priority above all else is safety. Can you name a single airframe company that put safety on the backburners and succeeded? McDonald’s Douglas with the DC-10 tried that in the name of pumping out as many airframes as possible and we saw the consequences of that!
-James
I would argue that Boeing’s first priority above all else is safety. Can you name a single airframe company that put safety on the backburners and succeeded? McDonald’s Douglas with the DC-10 tried that in the name of pumping out as many airframes as possible and we saw the consequences of that!
-James
Oct 27, 2019, 3:49 pm
#3387
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
If passengers don't want to avoid the aircraft, why rename it?
Oct 27, 2019, 8:30 pm
#3388
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
In the case of Ryanair, I think the idea was that a number of passengers will want to avoid the MAX in the future if it flies again. Thus they renamed the airplane so isn't a MAX, it's an 8200. If you don't know about this then you might think you are not flying on a MAX, but you really are.
If passengers don't want to avoid the aircraft, why rename it?
If passengers don't want to avoid the aircraft, why rename it?
Last edited by tcook052; Oct 27, 2019 at 11:16 pm
Oct 27, 2019, 8:37 pm
#3389
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: *G^2, Bonvoyed, NEXUS
Posts: 3,516
In the case of Ryanair, I think the idea was that a number of passengers will want to avoid the MAX in the future if it flies again. Thus they renamed the airplane so isn't a MAX, it's an 8200. If you don't know about this then you might think you are not flying on a MAX, but you really are.
If passengers don't want to avoid the aircraft, why rename it?
If passengers don't want to avoid the aircraft, why rename it?
Oct 27, 2019, 8:49 pm
#3390
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,359
Not sure why you think the designation of the aircraft has even the slightest bearing on passengers. After the aircraft has been recertified (and I think this is a matter of "when", not "if"), the only thing that matters is that the recertification process has been conducted in a thorough and objective manner - that it truly reflects on the safety of the aircraft. Everything else you mention may be a consideration for the airlines that operate the MAX, but it's irrelevant for passengers. As a passenger, if you don't wish to fly the MAX, you can and should take your money elsewhere.
Going back to the problem I posed earlier, the question will be how AC handles the resumption of operations for the MAX. They could, take a hardline approach and say you're travelling on whatever flight you were scheduled to be on, regardless of whether it's operated by the 737 MAX. Perhaps, as you pointed out Canadians could care less so long as they're getting from point A to point B. On the other hand, such a response could be seen as being flat footed. I would be curious what Transport Canada has to say about passengers who feel uncomfortable flying the MAX initially. Will they require all Canadian operators to allow passengers to rebook away from the bird free of charge? Renaming the bird solves these problems, since most kettles only look as far as the bird type when reviewing their itinerary (if at all). I doubt few kettles would go so far as to record the tail number and look it up whilst travelling.
It should also be pointed out that many travellers at the time of booking may have been told that they would be on another aircraft other than the MAX (presumably because the MAX was out of service). When the MAX re-earns its wings presumably it will re-enter the fleet of AC birds and assume some of those routes originally scheduled on other aircraft. What would happen to such passengers who thought they would be flying on a Airbus A320 only to be told they got MAX'd at the last minute?
Safe Travels,
James
Last edited by tcook052; Oct 27, 2019 at 11:19 pm Reason: off topic