ridefar

Not to mention that fleet rebalancing to accommodate MAX issues does not in any way equal a betrayal. Did AC public commit to maintaining those routes for so many years irrespective of any circumstances? No. They had/have a business problem. They solved it. If they made more money flying lobsters from YHZ than people from some other location then I am sure those lobsters would be airborne on AC. It may be unfortunate and have had a significant negative impact but that doesn’t make it any more than negative and unfortunate.

FlyerTalker70

But that's the whole point of the 737 MAX - to service long haul routes that cannot be serviced by larger aircraft. I doubt there would be sufficient demand to fill a plane load of passengers on a 767 never mind a 777 or 787 on said route. However, the 737 MAX makes such routes a profitable transaction. Here's to hoping AC increases their order of Bombardier C Series and uses those on routes between Atlantic Canada and Europe.

Safe Travels,

James

WildcatYXU

I'm pretty certain that the 737 was meant as a North-American workhorse. The TATL capability is just a bonus.

Jagboi

If cargo and service was so important, an A320 can do YHZ-LHR, but AC can clearly maintain the service level they deem profitable buy funnelling the Europe traffic through YUl/YYZ.

StuMcIlwain

There was for years, and probably still is.
This is the issue. With the 767s being retired, the 788 is the next largest plane. It has significantly more seats and is a much more valuable aircraft. Clearly AC thinks that YHZ-LHR is not the best use for it. The 737MAX allows them to continue flying the route. With the grounding of the MAX, AC decided that the few 767s that they have left would generate more profit covering fleet shortages elsewhere in the network. They no longer have the ETOPS A319s, so they are not an option.
That would be pushing the range of the aircraft and cutting capacity significantly, not to mention using a small aircraft for a very valuable LHR slot that perhaps could generate more revenue from other routes or with one of the transAtlantic JV partners.

FlyerTalker70

The 737 MAX and Airbus New Engine Options are designed to target a specific niche, the long thin routes like YYT > LHR. Yes they can and will work perfectly well for domestic services but the long, thin routes are where they shine. They have the range, fuel efficiency and passenger space for the economics to work out. There's a reason why Norwegian was flying 737 MAXs over the Atlantic river before the grounding! In fact, yours truly flew SWF > EDI back in January on a 737 MAX with Norwegian.

You are absolutely correct. Heck even the A318 services JFK to LuCY non-stop on a good day (i.e. no strong headwinds) with a range of up to 4,000 statute miles. However, a limitation of the A320 generally and the A318 specifically are the passenger and cargo numbers. The A318 in particular can only handle 107-132 passengers with the A320 boasting just 150 passengers over a 3000 statue mile mission. This is to say nothing of the fuel efficiency of the MAX over the Airbus A320 CEOs.

In any event, my argument is that the replacement aircraft AC has are limited and it has been an operational challenge for them to recover service on all impacted routes, never mind the long haul routes. From the original AC suspension of the MAX they suspended service to the following over-ocean long haul routes:

• YHZ > LHR
• YYT > LHR
• YVR > KOA
• YVR > LIH

I would also like to draw readers to today's announcement by AC regarding the grounding of the 737 MAX:

and from the FAQ from today's announcement:


Safe Travels,

James

WildcatYXU

Firstly, I was writing about the purpose of the 737 at AC. This is a tread talking about AC's 737 purchase after all. And for AC the 737 is an universal workhorse. Capable of flying YHZ-YYZ very economically, as well as flying TATL or west coast - Hawaii with reasonable economics.
Secondly, calling an aircraft that sold several thousands of copies (both the NEO and MAX) is a bit, well, strange. Regardless of what some carriers do with them. I'd call the 77L a niche aircraft. A345? Yes sir! A359ULR? Absolutely. But the 737-8? Or the A320N? Absolutely not.

FlyerTalker70

Just to clarify, I wasn't calling the 737 MAX or Airbus NEOs niche aircraft. Instead, I was arguing that due to the efficiency improvements in both airliners, they are able to serve a niche which otherwise would be difficult to fill : the thin (demand) long haul routes. As others have pointed out, given the absence of the 757 and the coming retirement of the 767 on AC, it would be difficult for AC to justify stuffing a 787 or 777 with self-loading and other cargo on such routes as YYT > LHR. Perhaps the A320s could fill that role, but again the economics may not be there to fill said routes whereas with the MAX is able to.

This I think poses a broader question which I suspect is at the heart of what this thread is all about. It's clear that AC operates a wide variety of birds to service the various destinations (and load factors) they have. For high demand long-haul routes it's a no brainer to put a 777 or 787 on assignment for them. On the other hand, AC has decided that they want to be the one Canadian airline that serves the smaller communities in Canada (i.e. Maritimes), and have a fleet of aircraft designed to serve that purpose from Bombardier Dash 8s to 737 MAXs depending on assignment. The grounding of any type of bird has an impact on the communities they serve, as we could clearly see with the grounding of the MAX. There are places AC simply can no longer serve because there is no economically suitable aircraft in their fleet to operate that route. In recent times, we have seen engine issues with the 787 which have also impacted airlines globally. Given this new reality of airliners getting grounded due to manufacturing issues I would be curious to learn what steps (if any) AC will take moving forward to mitigate the impact such groundings have on operations. In the past, AC had the luxury of assuming that an entire fleet of aircraft would not be grounded. This luxury simply no longer exists anymore. Will AC sign wet leasing agreements on contingency in the event of a future grounding of their birds?

I know I bring up the maritimes a lot in my comments but I think it's a story that hasn't really been covered with respect to the MAX. Folks in Ontario and out West don't quite understand the struggle of those in the maritimes when it comes to finding flights and having back ups in the event of IRROPs. Sure WS and the skunk sometimes have flights to the maritimes, but by and large AC is the only airline that is providing consistent service and a route network to boot to support these communities. AC having to scramble aircraft around to replace the lost seats from the 737 MAX groundings means adjustments to schedules in the martimes as they move hardware from there over to other more profitable routes.

Safe Travels,

James

RangerNS

Well, maybe, but not in any configuration that exists in reality.

I'd rather fly Beech, without a lav, YHZ-YYZ than a MAX YHZ-YYZ.

Across an ocean? I'll put up with Newark.

Even begging the desire of MAX's to turn me into lobster food.

JustSomeGuy1978

Bolding mine

FlyerTalker70

Interesting opinions. Will they change once the 737 MAX gets re-certified or is the 737 MAX forever on your no go list? The latter is precisely what I fear will happen to a great number of passengers with AC and is why I cynically suggested they might as well rename the bird to something else.

Safe Travels,

James

Symmetre

Having attempted to use the miniaturized phone booth they try to pass off as a lav in the MAX, I couldn't agree more! I can't even imagine the discomfort of flying TATL on it.

canadiancow

LHR-YHZ is barely longer than YUL-SFO. YHZ-LHR and the YYT routes are both shorter.

So I wouldn't focus too much on the TATL aspect. I've done 6+ hour block times on the 7M8, and there are probably several long routes within NA. It was tolerable in J, but I'd prefer to connect in YYZ

RangerNS

I don't think there is any situation where the MAX' will be 6" wider, with useful LAVs, and comfortable seats. It wasn't a nice aircraft before it started killing people.

FlyerTalker70

In fairness, it is not Boeing’s fault that this is the experience flying the MAX with AC. AC chose to have cramped seating and lavs in favour of cramming more self loading cargo in. This raises an important question: at what point will passengers have enough of such optimizations? People were not upset when AC removed catering and checked bags from Domestic Y, nor when they introduced Economy Basic and started nickel and dining for everything. Perhaps the MAX will be that breaking point: an airframe with a checkered safety record and a passenger experience amongst the worst of the AC fleet.

-James