I'm suggesting that the aircraft will, short of rescue flights, be idle for a few months because anything else would be harder. You proposed that that would be expensive (maybe, so? So would anything else) and thus they would go into AC shops for some (early) maintenance (with parts on the shelf).

An aircraft capable of flying across the Pacific isn't going to economically help on the domestic MAX/32x type routes that have issues.

Parked they may make bankers happy, but do nothing for the machinest union.

Could they fly these aircraft on routes operated by different aircraft, and send those ones to have new seats or wifi installed?

If there is an empty hanger, with idle workers and a warehouse of seats and access points, yes. But, for example, a hanger (and associated work force) is scheduled to be May 1, and parts have been ordered to arrive on May 1, there may be no opportunity just sneak it in for a quick job.

I recall back in 2011 during Japan tsunami, AC1 was downgraded from 77W to 333, and the freed up 77W was deployed to an European 333 route, MUC IIRC.

I expect certain 763/788/789 routes to be up-gauged.

I wonder what AC's excuse for delaying the deflategate fixes will be, now? They have some number of the core planes that are impacted by the deflated seats, sitting idle .... surely getting the J seats replaced (fixed) on those planes should be a priority.

My whole point in starting this thread was to see if anyone thinks that AC will replace a 333 Lion and 763 on the YYZ-SFO route where a 787 was originally scheduled. If you have to park a plane, wouldn't it make more sense to park an older, less efficient frame like a 333 or 763 than a 787? I keep checking, but so far they haven't changed anything.

It's very difficult to predict that certain aircraft type will be deployed on certain route. Aircraft type can change at last minute for operational reasons.

And, everyone here on FT can THINK AC will deploy 787 to SFO, but unless AC think the same, it doesn't mean anything.

As I pointed out in post 11, and RangerNS reiterated in post 33, it's not that simple. You need to have the parts available, and the space at a facility to do the work. Has the DeflateGate fix even been certified yet, or is AC still just replacing damaged bladders with new or repaired copies of the old (flawed) design? If the new design hasn't even been certified, having a bunch of planes grounded does nothing.

Even if the new design has been approved, who knows on what schedule Collins was manufacturing them. Again, if the new bladders were ordered for June, or October, or whenever, AC can't just pull them off the shelf tomorrow and throw them in a plane.

Same with 333 refurbishments. Or any other maintenance work.

And if the parts are ready, you still need time and space to install them. New bladders, AC can probably do that in-house in very little time. But most things require space at an MRO, which you can't necessarily get overnight.

Your question is logical, but there's simply no guarantee what AC will do. A 789 may be more fuel efficient on a per seat basis than a 763, but it also has a lot more seats, so it may not actually be cheaper to fly it. If AC is confident it can sell those extra seats and upgauges the flight far enough in advance, it may be a good trade. But if you're making the equipment swap today for a flight tomorrow, or even in a week, how many extra seats are you going to sell on such short notice?

The one thing I think we can say with pretty high confidence is this should reduce the number of extreme mechanical-related delays since AC will have some spare metal lying around.

Which rescue flights are you referring to? Air Canada is not participating in any.
Subbing a different aircraft onto a route is not difficult. There are a lot of factors to consider (availability of crews for example), but that's what the large scheduling departments of airlines like AC do on a daily, dynamic basis. You can swap a 787 in place of another type as soon as, well, right now.
Airlines don't do early maintenance. They do it on a scheduled basis, or sooner if required. Doing early maintenance makes no sense on a cost or efficiency basis.
Parked assets do not make bankers happy; they do the exact opposite. An aircraft is acquired to generate revenue, which it doesn't do while on the ground.

Yes, I get that .... and no, I'm not sure that we've heard if the replacement seat bladders were even approved yet - but my inclination (albeit with limited evidence) was that the key blocker for now was the availability of the aircraft, given the MAX problem has strained overall capacity. If I happen to be right (just this once :)), then the China situation may make it possible to accelerate the seat installation timeline.

Sure, but .... we're talking about seat bladders, not engine turbine blades. Yes, it's got to be done correctly, but they could literally do it seat by seat, and if they only have time to fix 3 seats on a particular plane, then that's still progress and the plane would still be operational ... they don't have to complete the entire process in a single night.

I am not sure I understand the difference between early and sooner in that context? What am I missing?

My understanding is, if A Check is scheduled for every 1000 flight hours, then there is no need to perform an A Check after only 800 hours, as another A Check would be required 1000 hours after the previous A Check.

"Sooner" means that if there is any unscheduled repair is required, it can be done sooner as the aircraft utilization rate is now lower.

I interpreted rescue flights as referring to extra segment (usually widebody) flights that are sent into airports to clear out IRROPS-related backlog.

You're missing the possibility that a part fails prior to reaching its scheduled replacement time.


Done sooner, or done immediately, but with less disruption to the schedule.

Thanks. Indeed, the distinction between repairs/replacement of faulty parts and a maintenance check was not clear.