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
Apr 16, 2019, 7:00 am
#2536
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 967
That's fine, but in some sense it is an even worse look for Boeing. If MCAS was a marginal system, needed only in very specific situations to slightly enhance the stability of the plane, there is no excuse for implementing it in such a way that it could drive the aircraft into the ground after a single point of failure.
Apr 16, 2019, 8:32 am
#2537
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,803
Pilots Say MAX MCAS Software Updates Prove Effective In Simulator Demo
For people saying the MAX is flawed because it "needs" MCAS,
Before anyone lights their hair on fire, I did not post the above to absolve Boeing of the flaws in the initial MCAS implementation, but rather to correct the hyperbole posted in this thread that claims the MAX is a flawed aircraft and should not be recertified.
For people saying the MAX is flawed because it "needs" MCAS,
Before anyone lights their hair on fire, I did not post the above to absolve Boeing of the flaws in the initial MCAS implementation, but rather to correct the hyperbole posted in this thread that claims the MAX is a flawed aircraft and should not be recertified.
More spin from Boeing...
Apr 16, 2019, 3:53 pm
#2540
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
For you guys who continue to be in denial about the shared role of the airlines / pilots in both crashes, read this article (https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/15/tr...n-max-crashes/), then register on AW&ST and read the articles (and comments) there.
The pilots of LT610 did not follow basic procedures. The aircraft should not even have been in service.
The pilots of ET310 did not follow basic procedures.
The pilots of LT610 did not follow basic procedures. The aircraft should not even have been in service.
The pilots of ET310 did not follow basic procedures.
But okay, let's take his word for it. Let's assume that experienced American and Canadian pilots who have never faced this situation would have landed safely. So what? Should the aircraft be deemed airworthy again? Is the grounding a big mistake?
I mean, these "third world" pilots are out there flying NGs, 320s, 330s, 787s etc every day. (Believe it or not, most of them even survive long enough to retire). They're just not good enough for the MAXs. I'm alright with that. Redefine them as "average" pilots, and restrict MAX sales to the exceptional "first world" pilots. That should take care of the problem for everyone. Except Boeing's first world customers, who'll lose the savings of economies of scale.
Personally, I'd stay away from pilots who think they would have handled this better without having ever put their theories in practice. "First world" sky gods scare me more than "average third world" pilots.
Apr 16, 2019, 3:59 pm
#2541
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: 44,324
Is it possible they reacted early enough and in such a way so as to continue the flight safely, and just log it for maintenance to look at later?
Apr 16, 2019, 4:02 pm
#2542
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,568
The NASA "no-attribution" database has a few complaints from USian pilots about the problem.
Apr 16, 2019, 4:06 pm
#2543
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Does beg the question: if this is as easily resolvable as Boeing and some pilots claims, why ground the aircraft at all? My guess is that somewhere in there, the theory isn't translating cleanly into practice.
Apr 16, 2019, 4:08 pm
#2544
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
One incident (two reports - co-pilot and pilot) had a nose dip, but I do t recall then attributing it to MCAS or AoA. It happened once shortly after take off and never happened again. I don't think they performed the checklist or even diagnosed the problem.
Apr 16, 2019, 4:14 pm
#2545
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,161
https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html
I can't get any 737 MAX 8 or 9 hits in there, wondering if I'm looking at the wrong database.
Apr 16, 2019, 7:10 pm
#2547
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Right, and if you think that just because someone who doesn't hold your view that the MAX is fundamentally flawed and should be "redesigned" they must be a Boeing shill, then you are so blinded by your preconception (and ignorance) that you aren't thinking.
Apr 16, 2019, 7:12 pm
#2548
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
AFAIK, the previous Lion Air flight in the aircraft that crashed experienced an AoA problem and they disabled MCAS and completed the flight.
Apr 16, 2019, 7:42 pm
#2549
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,803
Once more, my comment referred to the material you quoted. Which clearly belongs to or is an outcome of the Boeing spin game, including a variety of rumors, talks with pilots and the like.
Apr 16, 2019, 9:47 pm
#2550
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645