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
May 1, 2019, 11:35 am
#2731
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 3,050
would you rip apart your new home (probably a much closer analogy) after the builder deemed it passed inspections just to ensure that everything was indeed built to code and standard. If you would might i suggeat that you are a bit more thorough/ocd than most people.
For example, lots of brand new buildings where I live are bought as kits of major structural components from a prominent US manufacturer of such achieving significant cost savings over having such components individually and specifically custom engineered. The designs nonetheless, including the efficacy and safety of the kits, still have to be reviewed and stamped by a local Professional Engineer. In the case of the 737Max, basically airlines took Boeing's "word" for it that the design was good despite obvious flaws that are glaringly obvious, at least in hindsight. And evidence is significant that the regulatory process was subverted (ie: documentation claimed 0.6 degrees of MCAS acutation authority, but implementation in practice was 2.5 degrees) although it is still open to question whether such was deliberate or inadvertent.
As for Wal-Mart, I expect them to have high-level supervision of their suppliers, random audits, etc., of the suppliers of goods for which they take legal responsibility. Its well accepted in Canadian law, at least, that Wal-Mart (for example) would have liability if they were found to be the seller of a counterfeit good that caused property damage or bodily harm. A mere CSA sticker doesn't absolve them from that, just like a mere fact of FAA/TC certification may not be a full defense for an airline that puts a defectively-designed aircraft into service.
May 1, 2019, 12:27 pm
#2733
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,166
Then why will Boeing now offer this going forward for "free" if NOT necessary for safe flight operations?
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/report...-offered-free/
Plenty more to come into public light should lawsuits NOT get settled before they get to court.
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/report...-offered-free/
Plenty more to come into public light should lawsuits NOT get settled before they get to court.
May 1, 2019, 1:04 pm
#2734
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
One additional comment:
Even if my interpretation is correct, and the MCAS is required in order to provide compliance with the regulations -- there is still plenty of opportunity for you to feel nauseous about the implementation.
The satcom link that I provided, starts with a discussion of a Seattle Times article - which, in turn, claims that the reason the MCAS was implemented using only a single sensor, was because the alternative (using multiple sensors) would have led to a chain of events which in turn would have resulted in pilots needing simulator training - and that's something Boeing wanted to avoid.
Yes, there's speculation and extrapolation in the article .... but even so, it's getting harder to imagine a scenario that doesn't make you nauseous about short cuts and compromises that Boeing took.
You know, this Boeing: Boeing CEO says 737 Max was designed properly and pilots did not 'completely' follow procedure
Even if my interpretation is correct, and the MCAS is required in order to provide compliance with the regulations -- there is still plenty of opportunity for you to feel nauseous about the implementation.
The satcom link that I provided, starts with a discussion of a Seattle Times article - which, in turn, claims that the reason the MCAS was implemented using only a single sensor, was because the alternative (using multiple sensors) would have led to a chain of events which in turn would have resulted in pilots needing simulator training - and that's something Boeing wanted to avoid.
Yes, there's speculation and extrapolation in the article .... but even so, it's getting harder to imagine a scenario that doesn't make you nauseous about short cuts and compromises that Boeing took.
You know, this Boeing: Boeing CEO says 737 Max was designed properly and pilots did not 'completely' follow procedure
However, unlike many here, I also see why Boeing not accepting all of the blame for the crashes. Refer to Pontifications: “We own it, but…”. The comment above that the aircraft takes superhuman skills to fly is ignoring the fact that there is a procedure to follow when there is a trim problem and the pilots did not follow it. SOPs are written to keep the aircraft out of a regime where they require "superhuman" skills to keep them in the air. The Lion Air airplane shouldn't have been in the air in the first place. So while I agree that the original MCAS implementation was a major CF, it's not the only problem.
Read this article, which is referenced in the first link: The Boeing 737 MAX 8 Crashes: The Case for Pilot Error
Last edited by bimmerdriver; May 1, 2019 at 1:14 pm
May 1, 2019, 1:09 pm
#2735
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
We agree.
Of course, it is possible to build a plane that is fully compliant with all FAR regulations, but doesn't fly like a 737. We also know that the MCAS was a late add to the MAX, designed to solve a problem. Thus, there are two options about what that late problem was:
Juan Brown, in his latest clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB4lCbT5oX8&t=620, states
There are two flaws here. First, it's ambiguous when he uses the term "an inherently unstable aircraft". That term is not formally defined, and so I'm choosing to use a more precise term, "not compliant with the FAR regulations". Secondly, his argument is that because the MAX passed certification, therefore it's stable (compliant), and therefore MCAS was not required to provide that stability (compliance). The problem is that his argument does not prove the pre-MCAS aircraft was also stable (compliant). Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't ... but you can't use the fact that the post-MCAS aircraft passed certification, to prove that the pre-MCAS aircraft was inherently stable (compliant).
My reading of his words, makes it clear to me that he believes the MCAS system is not related to the 737 stability, and (by implication) the MCAS system is not related to compliance with the FARs. In other words, he's asserting that the first of my above options is the one that's true.
OK, but based on my understanding of the facts, I disagree; I think it's the second of my two options.
Of course, it is possible to build a plane that is fully compliant with all FAR regulations, but doesn't fly like a 737. We also know that the MCAS was a late add to the MAX, designed to solve a problem. Thus, there are two options about what that late problem was:
- The pre-MCAS MAX was fully compliant with all regulations, but did not fly like other 737's. The MCAS was added to correct that.
- The pre-MCAS MAX was not compliant with the FAR's (which implies, as you write, also not consistent with previous 737's). The MCAS was added to correct that.
Juan Brown, in his latest clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB4lCbT5oX8&t=620, states
There are two flaws here. First, it's ambiguous when he uses the term "an inherently unstable aircraft". That term is not formally defined, and so I'm choosing to use a more precise term, "not compliant with the FAR regulations". Secondly, his argument is that because the MAX passed certification, therefore it's stable (compliant), and therefore MCAS was not required to provide that stability (compliance). The problem is that his argument does not prove the pre-MCAS aircraft was also stable (compliant). Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't ... but you can't use the fact that the post-MCAS aircraft passed certification, to prove that the pre-MCAS aircraft was inherently stable (compliant).
My reading of his words, makes it clear to me that he believes the MCAS system is not related to the 737 stability, and (by implication) the MCAS system is not related to compliance with the FARs. In other words, he's asserting that the first of my above options is the one that's true.
OK, but based on my understanding of the facts, I disagree; I think it's the second of my two options.
May 1, 2019, 6:25 pm
#2736
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 53
Here's the latest video by Juan Brown: 37 Max Update 29 April 2019 'The Cost'
He has requested an opportunity to fly the MAX simulator, as a credentialed member of the press who happens to have held a 737 NG type rating.
Refer to around 10:15 where he talks about what he refers to the myth that the MAX is not stable and MCAS is designed to make it stable or prevent it from stalling. He says what I said above, which is that the purpose of MCAS is to allow the MAX to be the same type rating as previous versions of the 737.
He has requested an opportunity to fly the MAX simulator, as a credentialed member of the press who happens to have held a 737 NG type rating.
Refer to around 10:15 where he talks about what he refers to the myth that the MAX is not stable and MCAS is designed to make it stable or prevent it from stalling. He says what I said above, which is that the purpose of MCAS is to allow the MAX to be the same type rating as previous versions of the 737.
May 1, 2019, 7:28 pm
#2737
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
While it's true that they did not want to do a clean sheet design, it's only indirectly that that led to the crashes. From that perspective, they decided that delivering the planes as promised was more important than doing a proper fix for the issue they found out when flight testing. Hence the MCAS. Talk about wishful thinking.
May 2, 2019, 7:18 am
#2740
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE100K, Bonvoy Platinum Elite, IHG Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 2,132
May 2, 2019, 7:24 am
#2741
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 968
The 757 is heavy and overpowered for it's size. The 757-200 is 25t heavier than the 737-10 at MTOW for the same passenger count (OK, it can take more fuel). So it is not economical. Please note that the 752 has only 700nmi longer range than the 737-10 with literally double fuel capacity. Now, MAX-ing the 752 would certainly help to improve the fuel economy to some extent, however the wing designed in late 70's would still remain. The wing on the 737 is much newer and more modern compared to the 757 (and the 320), as Boeing designed a completely new wing for the 737 in the 90's.
May 2, 2019, 8:20 am
#2744
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 669
The 757 is heavy and overpowered for it's size. The 757-200 is 25t heavier than the 737-10 at MTOW for the same passenger count (OK, it can take more fuel). So it is not economical. Please note that the 752 has only 700nmi longer range than the 737-10 with literally double fuel capacity. Now, MAX-ing the 752 would certainly help to improve the fuel economy to some extent, however the wing designed in late 70's would still remain. The wing on the 737 is much newer and more modern compared to the 757 (and the 320), as Boeing designed a completely new wing for the 737 in the 90's.
May 2, 2019, 8:50 am
#2745
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YXU
Programs: AC SE100K, National E/E, HH Diamond, IHG Diamond, MB, Avis PC
Posts: 968
Boeing doesn't decide whether an aircraft is comfortable or not?
Airlines decide whether an aircraft is comfortable or not!
Did Boeing specify deflating seats on AC widebodies - NO AC decided to do this.
For those who do NOT like MAX interiors, blame Montreal not Chicago.
ps...ANA has terrible seats on 87 in Economy, but for an inter-Asia flight of few hours, I much prefer 87 for the comfort of the air quality and can tolerate the seats...
Airlines decide whether an aircraft is comfortable or not!
Did Boeing specify deflating seats on AC widebodies - NO AC decided to do this.
For those who do NOT like MAX interiors, blame Montreal not Chicago.
ps...ANA has terrible seats on 87 in Economy, but for an inter-Asia flight of few hours, I much prefer 87 for the comfort of the air quality and can tolerate the seats...
That said, the 757 has exactly the same fuselage diameter as the 737. So there is no difference in width.
While one probably can't order a passenger 767, the 767 is still produced as a freighter and as a tanker. So that's not a problem. But Boeing closed the 757 line 14 years ago, long before the last passenger 767 was delivered.