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
Mar 12, 2019, 11:54 am
#1861
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
Folks, there has been another thread started today on the affects on AC of other countries banning 737 MAX from their airspace so let's please continue that discussion in that new thread which is here. All new posts wondering aloud about what if anything Canada can or should do regarding allowing the aircraft to operate will be moved to that thread so let's please separate the discussion between these two threads otherwise they may be merged together.
Regards,
tcook052
AC forum moderator
Regards,
tcook052
AC forum moderator
Mar 12, 2019, 11:57 am
#1862
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
I think many people are wondering whether the FAA should be trusted or whether it has been "captured" by the companies it is meant to regulate. A couple of data points for your consideration:
- The FAA was aware of the MCAS but in order to help Boeing maintain its same type rating for the MAX the FAA did not require Boeing to disclose the MCAS, the reason for it or provide additional training or documentation to pilots. In contrast, Brazil did require it in order to get certified in that country.
- The FAA is mandating changes to the MAX but those required changes don't come into force until April. In effect the FAA has already decided that there is a significant safety issue with the aircraft but thinks it's OK for them to keep flying until the manufacturer is ready with their "fix" in April. I will leave it to you to consider whether this delayed implementation of a mandatory change is being done in the interest of passenger safety or to maximize convenience for the manufacturer and operators of the aircraft.
Mar 12, 2019, 12:42 pm
#1864
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Mar 12, 2019, 12:48 pm
#1865
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: 44,331
Sorry, next time I'll make sure to butt my nose in their conversation so I can post it all on FT.
I posted everything I know. The conversation was ended pretty much immediately when I showed up, and it looked like it was starting back up once I left. But they were definitely being told things about the 737.
I can make assumptions about why, but this thread has enough assumptions already, so I'm just sticking to facts.
I posted everything I know. The conversation was ended pretty much immediately when I showed up, and it looked like it was starting back up once I left. But they were definitely being told things about the 737.
I can make assumptions about why, but this thread has enough assumptions already, so I'm just sticking to facts.
Mar 12, 2019, 1:33 pm
#1866
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: 44,331
And from what's now been posted in the other thread (though it really belongs here, or at least not there), it seems AC is now waiving all change fees and fare differences if passengers want to get off the 7M8. I highly suspect that's what the little briefing was about.
Mar 12, 2019, 3:38 pm
#1872
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K MM * DL MM * HH Diamond * Marriott Lifetime Titanium * Queen's '92
Posts: 5,950
Yes, happily fire burst out while on the ground.
There are many of us who have argued it should have been grounded after LionAir. "Don't worry, when the plane suddenly starts to direct itself towards the ground, our pilots have been trained on how to deal with that!" is hardly comforting.
Either before, or after, another one goes into the ground.
The unremedied MCAS design issues, which have had fixes in the works for months, may not have anything to do with the ET crash. Acting in advance of any information is completely unprecedented here, but an easy decision to make for the EU.
The FAA / TC flip side? The planes stay up and if it is an MCAS issue then they get grounded.
Mar 12, 2019, 4:04 pm
#1873
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ideally YOW, but probably not
Programs: AC SE*MM
Posts: 1,826
So yes, a known issue. What we are talking about with the ET crash is a grounding for a completely unknown issue. The comparison to 787 batteries and the subsequent grounding is completely irrelevant.
Lion Air is not that simple. You have a plane dispatched with faulty equipment that never should have been in the air in the first place. And then a crew that didn't know how to override runaway trim issues, which have been an issue on 737s well before the MAX, and that the previous Lion Air crew to fly that plane were able to handle. And then you have the realization that runaway trim is different on the 737 MAX (i.e. MCAS) and the understanding that system was not as fault tolerant as it needs to be and fixes that need to be in place. I will bet you any amount of money you would like that the final report on Lion Air will list these 3 factors at a minimum as causes. Lion Air isn't as simple as MCAS = 737 MAX = bad, which is why there was no grounding after the flight.
Lion Air is not that simple. You have a plane dispatched with faulty equipment that never should have been in the air in the first place. And then a crew that didn't know how to override runaway trim issues, which have been an issue on 737s well before the MAX, and that the previous Lion Air crew to fly that plane were able to handle. And then you have the realization that runaway trim is different on the 737 MAX (i.e. MCAS) and the understanding that system was not as fault tolerant as it needs to be and fixes that need to be in place. I will bet you any amount of money you would like that the final report on Lion Air will list these 3 factors at a minimum as causes. Lion Air isn't as simple as MCAS = 737 MAX = bad, which is why there was no grounding after the flight.
Mar 12, 2019, 4:12 pm
#1874
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K MM * DL MM * HH Diamond * Marriott Lifetime Titanium * Queen's '92
Posts: 5,950
I do enjoy the dismissiveness of others' posts as "irrelevant." Nice netiquette.
The 787 had electrical issues shortly after launch. We knew they were fires because they were on the ground. There is no way to know this yet about the MAX as the planes are now in the ground instead.
You say: then let 'em rip. It's worth the risk.
Others say: why risk it when you can wait a few days.
And Boeing has a history of "nothing to see here"... To whit: "In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney told media outlets that the problems were no greater than those experienced by the company with the introduction of other new models, such as the Boeing 777."
The faulty equipment is the aircraft body with too-big/badly placed engines and stabilizer issues that points itself at the ground (repeatedly) in certain situations. No thank you.
The 787 had electrical issues shortly after launch. We knew they were fires because they were on the ground. There is no way to know this yet about the MAX as the planes are now in the ground instead.
You say: then let 'em rip. It's worth the risk.
Others say: why risk it when you can wait a few days.
And Boeing has a history of "nothing to see here"... To whit: "In December 2012, Boeing CEO James McNerney told media outlets that the problems were no greater than those experienced by the company with the introduction of other new models, such as the Boeing 777."
The faulty equipment is the aircraft body with too-big/badly placed engines and stabilizer issues that points itself at the ground (repeatedly) in certain situations. No thank you.
Mar 12, 2019, 4:13 pm
#1875
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K MM * DL MM * HH Diamond * Marriott Lifetime Titanium * Queen's '92
Posts: 5,950
And for good measure, here's the guy who grounded the Dreamliner:
"It’s also the opinion of Ray LaHood, the former U.S. Secretary of Transportation who grounded the 787 Dreamliner following fires in its lithium-ion battery packs in 2013.
“The flying public has to be assured that these planes are safe, and they don’t feel that way now,” he said by phone Tuesday. “The Secretary of Transportation should announce today that these planes will be grounded until there is 100 percent assurance from Boeing that these planes are safe to fly, because unless they can give that assurance they’re not holding up their promise to be the top safety agency in the U.S.”"
"It’s also the opinion of Ray LaHood, the former U.S. Secretary of Transportation who grounded the 787 Dreamliner following fires in its lithium-ion battery packs in 2013.
“The flying public has to be assured that these planes are safe, and they don’t feel that way now,” he said by phone Tuesday. “The Secretary of Transportation should announce today that these planes will be grounded until there is 100 percent assurance from Boeing that these planes are safe to fly, because unless they can give that assurance they’re not holding up their promise to be the top safety agency in the U.S.”"