Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

Air Canada Selects Boeing 737 MAX to Renew Mainline Narrowbody Fleet

Old Sep 19, 2017, 10:25 am
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
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
Print Wikipost

Air Canada Selects Boeing 737 MAX to Renew Mainline Narrowbody Fleet

Old Aug 16, 2019, 1:13 pm
  #3106  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,183
Originally Posted by entropy
I doubt 2-3 years from now anyone will be worried about the MAX. Boeing will keep selling them and keep building them. Just like almost nobody today thinks about the 787 battery fires.
Because no one died.
canadiancow is offline  
Old Aug 16, 2019, 1:16 pm
  #3107  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,741
Originally Posted by entropy

Having said all that , if I were AC I'd cancel the order, sell off the remaining 737s and acquire the 320neos but that's because they're better aircraft..
Not really. The A320 is only marginally larger and shorter-legged than the A223. If I were AC I would join the chorus of airlines asking for an A225, which would be larger than the 320, only marginally smaller than the Max, and almost as long-legged.
Fiordland likes this.
Stranger is offline  
Old Aug 16, 2019, 1:22 pm
  #3108  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Mississauga Ontario
Posts: 4,085
Originally Posted by Stranger
Not really. The A320 is only marginally larger and shorter-legged than the A223. If I were AC I would join the chorus of airlines asking for an A225, which would be larger than the 320, only marginally smaller than the Max, and almost as long-legged.
An AN225 would be an awesome thing for AC, don't you think?

(-;
24left likes this.
InTheAirGuy is online now  
Old Aug 16, 2019, 2:20 pm
  #3109  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Originally Posted by InTheAirGuy
An AN225 would be an awesome thing for AC, don't you think?

(-;
Now THAT bird is planeporn.


Originally Posted by tcook052
https://globalnews.ca/news/5775561/b...anada-storage/

A look at what Canadian airlines are doing with their Boeing 737 MAX 8s fleets
A writer at Canadian Press with an interesting vocabulary:

"Air Canada says it is mulling banishing its two-dozen MAX 8s to the desert, where the hot, dry conditions keep corrosion by rain, snow, sleet and ice at bay.

.....Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co. has plunked its 34 Maxes in Californias Mojave Desert.

WestJet ..... planes are languishing in its Canadian hangars, where they receive regular maintenance checks and have their engines run once a week."


Maybe all of these birds need a hug
tcook052 likes this.
24left is offline  
Old Aug 16, 2019, 4:46 pm
  #3110  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: YAM, CIU, CGN
Programs: AC FOTSG, DL WM
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by 24left
WestJet ..... planes are languishing in its Canadian hangars, where they receive regular maintenance checks and have their engines run once a week."
Maybe all of these birds need a hug
It certainly sounds like that's Westjet's approach. Weekly wellness checks, a bit of exercise...wouldn't be surprised to find out there's a massage and spa treatment thrown in there too.
shadowspar is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 10:16 am
  #3111  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by 24left
Maybe all of these birds need a hug
Maybe all of these birds need to be unceremoniously scrapped, turned into aluminum ingots and trucked to Wichita or Renton to start life anew, in another form.
Simon likes this.
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 11:04 am
  #3112  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,741
Originally Posted by 24left

Maybe all of these birds need a hug
My, aren't we an incorrigible romantic? :-)
Stranger is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 11:06 am
  #3113  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: YYC
Programs: Air Canada SE100K, Westjet Platinum, Marriott Platinum Elite, NEXUS
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by entropy
I doubt 2-3 years from now anyone will be worried about the MAX. Boeing will keep selling them and keep building them. Just like almost nobody today thinks about the 787 battery fires.

Boeing foolishly implemented a cut-rate strategy to extend the life of a substandard product, they bet that they could do the modification on the cheap and it wouldn't cause problems. It did and now they have to correct it, with a lot more eyes on them (eyes that should've been on them all along but they weren't because we're cheap). Perhaps the most concerning thing is that they didn't pull the certification as soon as there were issues. The military grounds aircraft a hell of a lot faster than this, and they don't have to answer to the flying general public.

Having said all that , if I were AC I'd cancel the order, sell off the remaining 737s and acquire the 320neos but that's because they're better aircraft..

AC just cant cancel the order. They invested a significant amount of capital in the planes, parts, training, etc. The Max will be flying again, and nobody will care a few years from now.

Boeing decided to update the 737 because that is what airlines wanted. Simply blaming Boeing for updating the 737 vs a new design is ridiculous. Airlines wanted an update only, not a new design. The number of orders for the Max proves it.

AC7E7 is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 11:14 am
  #3114  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,741
Originally Posted by AC7E7


Boeing decided to update the 737 because that is what airlines wanted. Simply blaming Boeing for updating the 737 vs a new design is ridiculous. Airlines wanted an update only, not a new design. The number of orders for the Max proves it.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Airlines bought the plane because Boeing promised miracles which they ended up unable to deliver. I don't think for most airlines, especially AC, an update on a 50 years design vs. a new design was a plus. Probably a minus. But the price was also too good to be true...
RangerNS likes this.
Stranger is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 11:19 am
  #3115  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: YYC
Programs: Air Canada SE100K, Westjet Platinum, Marriott Platinum Elite, NEXUS
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by Stranger
That's a bit of an oversimplification. Airlines bought the plane because Boeing promised miracles which they ended up unable to deliver. I don't think for most airlines, especially AC, an update on a 50 years design vs. a new design was a plus. Probably a minus. But the price was also too good to be true...
Other than the MCAS issue, I have not heard of any airlines complaining about it. Airlines wanted the 50-year old design. If they did not, they would have waited for a clean-sheet design.

bimmerdriver likes this.
AC7E7 is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 11:42 am
  #3116  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by AC7E7


Other than the MCAS issue, I have not heard of any airlines complaining about it. Airlines wanted the 50-year old design. If they did not, they would have waited for a clean-sheet design.
I doubt any airlines wanted a 50-year old design. But they knew the price & timeframe of a new narrowbody airplane replacement precluded any options except for the updated 320/737. Airlines wanted the added airplanes now, not 7 years from now, although they can be accountable for a lack of long term planning by not advising manufacturers with sufficient lead time for a new airplane to be certified & ready to replace existing fleets. I understand its complicated projecting your needs several years in advance, but after nearly a century of commercial air travel, youd think the art would be more finely honed by now.
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 11:47 am
  #3117  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,757
Originally Posted by AC7E7


Other than the MCAS issue, I have not heard of any airlines complaining about it. Airlines wanted the 50-year old design. If they did not, they would have waited for a clean-sheet design.
yeah other than the planes crashing. Airlines wanted a more efficient plane (which Boeing delivered, mostly via the GTF engines, and didn't want to invest the time/money to do it right)
entropy is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 11:48 am
  #3118  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: YYC
Programs: Air Canada SE100K, Westjet Platinum, Marriott Platinum Elite, NEXUS
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer


I doubt any airlines wanted a 50-year old design. But they knew the price & timeframe of a new narrowbody airplane replacement precluded any options except for the updated 320/737. Airlines wanted the added airplanes now, not 7 years from now, although they can be accountable for a lack of long term planning by not advising manufacturers with sufficient lead time for a new airplane to be certified & ready to replace existing fleets. I understand its complicated projecting your needs several years in advance, but after nearly a century of commercial air travel, youd think the art would be more finely honed by now.
I would agree with that. However, airlines are normally very good planning their capital needs (aircraft purchases) years and years in advance. They just did not want to buy/lease more of the same models (NG/CEO) and commit to them for another two decades.
AC7E7 is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 11:50 am
  #3119  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,527
Originally Posted by AC7E7


Other than the MCAS issue, I have not heard of any airlines complaining about it. Airlines wanted the 50-year old design. If they did not, they would have waited for a clean-sheet design.

Airlines wanted fuel efficiency, range, timeliness, at a reasonable cost, etc. Boeing managed to provided those[1] by updating a 50 year old design.

[1] actually, they did not provide those.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2019, 2:08 pm
  #3120  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,741
Originally Posted by RangerNS
Airlines wanted fuel efficiency, range, timeliness, at a reasonable cost, etc. Boeing managed to provided those[1] by updating a 50 year old design.
Boeing managed to promise that, but so far has been unable to deliver. :-) In the meantime the 737 is getting closer to its best before date by the day. Comes a recession, 220 gets delivered, Boeing provided the airlines with a golden opportunity to bail out more or less free. (OK, in exchange for whatever penalties they would otherwise claim against Boeing.)
Stranger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.