With watching other major airlines announce orders for fleet replacement, (due to a combination of aging aircraft and fuel consumption), I am curious as to Air Canada's plans (if any) for the A320's. Some of these aircraft must be getting up there in their life expectancy, why would they not place an order for some A320NEO, more Embraers, or 737Max. Their Dreamliners are coming to replace the 767's which is great. But the 320's can't go forever. Anyone have some ideas ?

I'm sure they'll be looking at both major types - 737 Max and A320Neo; they will be under considerable political pressure to give some support to the Bombardier C-series, too.

They have a significant number of 320s which are already over 20yrs old, coming up for their third D-checks.

There are a lot of things on Air Canada's plate at the moment, including industrial unrest; I'm quite sure that they are aware of the need to replace older A320s and I am sure that studies are ongoing, as probably are talks with both manufacturers.

AC takes very good care of their A319/20/21's. They are still in good shape. The older ones can be replaced by leased aircraft for the short term, until they decide which avenue they are going to take, NEO, MAX and/or maybe Cseries.

Besides, AC has never been one to rush into these kinds of decisions. Not to mention that they have their hands full with other problems right now.

Thenoflyzone

Air Canada is the only major A320 operator that I can see switch to the 737Max completely.

AC capital expenditures will rise sharply during the 787 delivery cycle, which will limit their ability to simultaneously add another new replacement type, combined with poor financial performance will mean an A320 replacement order will not be coming soon.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 1): they will be under considerable political pressure to give some support to the Bombardier C-series, too.

I disagree. AC is a privately run carrier; they make their own fleet decisions. Witness their early order for the E175/190.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 2): AC takes very good care of their A319/20/21's.

Compared to who? Is there an analysis or report indicating which airlines take care of their 32x fleet, and which don't?

Quoting columba (Reply 3): Air Canada is the only major A320 operator that I can see switch to the 737Max completely.

That would mean a mixed fleet for many years. Boeing would have to discount significantly.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 4): Compared to who? Is there an analysis or report indicating which airlines take care of their 32x fleet, and which don't?

One comparison that can be easily made without an analysis or report is that AC's Airbuses, although old, have far less cycles than similarily aged airbuses in Europe, for the simple fact that a lot of the AC airbus flights are 3+ hours long. (west coast to east coast, caribbean runs, etc)

Airlines in Europe have far more cycles on their A320's, due to the proximity of all the destinations they serve with their A320s.

Thenoflyzone

The majority of the current A32S fleet is leased, I think they will do the same again. Many of the neo / MAX orders are from lessors and I think AC will be an early operator of these, and I would be shocked if it was not the A32Sneo, the 321 in particular will be a great for them.

The subject has come into many of the recent AC threads. Personally, I dont see any room for the C Series at this time. Would love to be proved wrong though.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 5): Quoting yyz717 (Reply 4): Compared to who? Is there an analysis or report indicating which airlines take care of their 32x fleet, and which don't? One comparison that can be easily made without an analysis or report is that AC's Airbuses, although old, have far less cycles than similarily aged airbuses in Europe, for the simple fact that a lot of the AC airbus flights are 3+ hours long. (west coast to east coast, caribbean runs, etc) Airlines in Europe have far more cycles on their A320's, due to the proximity of all the destinations they serve with their A320s.

The heaviest route usage for the AC A32x fleet is YVR-YYC/YEG and YYZ-YOW/YUL/LGA which are all short haul routes.

As for EU airlines, you can't lump themm altogether. The LCC's (easyJet, AirBerlin etc) likely have high utilization while the legacy carriers likely have much lower utilization than AC due to high airport congestion at the traditional hubs of LHR, AMS, FRA, CDG, etc.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 6): Many of the neo / MAX orders are from lessors

NONE of the MAX orders are from lessors. All 451 booked to date are from airlines.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 6): I would be shocked if it was not the A32Sneo, the 321 in particular will be a great for them.

I agree. I think AC will stick with Airbus. Whether they can afford the neo is another topic.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 6): Personally, I dont see any room for the C Series at this time.

I agree.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 7): NONE of the MAX orders are from lessors. All 451 booked to date are from airlines.

Well, sort of...ACG signed a commitment for 35 of them. You can see the press release here. But no leasing company has a firm order for the MAX.

265 of the firm NEO orders are from lessors.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 4): Boeing would have to discount significantly.

Isn't this the wonderful thing about business, it looks like B has got the long haul business from AC, what stopping them from getting the short haul? Boeing wants market share, it would have to be a huge commitment from both sides to make the short haul switch. 80 or so aircraft is a significant replacement if all the airbus aircraft are to be replace. I feel its possible, but agree with above, very unlikely.

AC has other things to deal with now, short haul isn't one of them!

G

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 4): Boeing would have to discount significantly.

I agree, but maybe not as deeply discounted as what they gave WN.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 7): I think AC will stick with Airbus. Whether they can afford the neo is another topic.

I think AC will replace their current A-32X fleet with the best deal, Airbus or Boeing.

I could see a 3 way deal going on here with someone like GECAS, ILFC, ACG, etc. dry leasing new Boeing NBs to AC. The deal could go something like this, replace 25 of the oldest A-32X series with 25 new build leased B-737NGs for 10-12 years. Then replace the remaining 63 A-32X series with new build leased B-737MAXs, and finally replace the leased 25 B-737NGs with new build leased B-737MAXs.

Dispite the deliveries of the new Boeings and E-Jets in recent years, AC's fleet still has an average age of about 15 years.

The engineering department of Air Canada, which among other things selects new aircraft types, goes through a very long involved process. As well they should.

To their credit, they rarely make a mistake. But, as one would imagine, it comes down to simple cost. For example, I remember when the B727 was replaced by the A320. Everyone wondered why such a relatively new aircraft was being replaced when the 20+ year old (at the time) DC-9s were not. Simply, the seat mile cost improvement of the A320 over the B727 was significantly greater than whatever would have replaced the DC-9 at the time. And ... the DC-9s stayed another 10 years.

That seat mile improvement is the major factor now, as the narrow body replacement has been talked about a lot internally. And a lot of the numbers and types have been batted around. It makes me think that this issue is being addressed and will be announced when appropriate and a decision has been made.

Some of the numbers have me scratching my head. As they are quoting that the A320neo is only a seat mile cost improvement of 2% over a regular B737-800, let alone a MAX. That leads people to think maybe AC was aiming toward Boeing.

The biggest issue being addressed right now is installing GPS in the older A320s and A319s. This is very expensive as it has to be coupled with the FMS for GNSS approaches. The process has started, and I am sure either A or B will come with an interim solution, as a 100+ fleet is being replaced.

Quoting columba (Reply 3): Air Canada is the only major A320 operator that I can see switch to the 737Max completely.

Any particular reason? Also, can you elaborate what you mean by "switch completely"?

Regarding the question from the thread opener - I think AC hasn't added any new A32S in the last 10 years or so (some have returned to the fleet after extended leases to other carriers, though). All of the A321 and A319 were delivered between 1997 and 2002. They do have a few older A320s, though, (including some double-digit MSNs). About 1/3 of their A320 fleet is leased.

So given that picture I'd say that they're not in a particular hurry to place any new orders. They can safely wait for another 12 - 18 months (at which point MAX would be better defined) and then order with a first delivery target in 2020 or thereabouts for any MAX_NEO orders. Early-built A320s could be replaced by leased examples or cheap new-built NG/OEO that Boeing/Airbus could make part of the deal to also bridge their own assembly line slot gaps between NG/OEO and MAX/NEO.
With regard to MAX vs NEO - could go either way. Given the pretty long routes that they use their A32S on, I'd say that Airbus may have slightly better cards here if it's true that the A32S generally fares better on longer haul routes than the NG (assuming that this difference remains similar between NEO and MAX, although Boeing hasn't released any firm dates on MAX's range to date, as far as I can see).

Just my 2c, and I could of course be proven completely wrong by AC announcing a surprise order for 75 MAX/NEO at the end of July  

Quoting longhauler (Reply 11): To their credit, they rarely make a mistake. But, as one would imagine, it comes down to simple cost. For example, I remember when the B727 was replaced by the A320. Everyone wondered why such a relatively new aircraft was being replaced when the 20+ year old (at the time) DC-9s were not. Simply, the seat mile cost improvement of the A320 over the B727 was significantly greater than whatever would have replaced the DC-9 at the time.

Rarely make a mistake? There are several examples of where engineering did indeed make mistakes. The entire A340 fleet was shortlived which likely reduced its ROI significantly (however inefficient it was compared to the 77W), and the subfleet of 2 345 aircraft was clearly a mistake -- a subpar special purpose aircraft that was quickly withdrawn from service after a few years. The 744 Combi's with the fixed cargo-passenger apparently made them very heavy 744's with limited route fit (really just YUL-FRA).

You mentioned the early adoption of the A320 to replace a late model 722 fleet (AC was one of the last airlines to order the 722 new and hence its fleet was young) -- yes the A320 was more efficient but the ROI on the 722 was cut short by its early withdrawal, not to mention the premature huge capital expense of adding the 320. Business financials are about minimizing operating costs while also minimizing or deferring capital costs -- it's a delicate balance.

Back to the A340 -- AC ordered (then cancelled) the 346, a clear sub-par aircraft to the 77W.

Other possible mistakes were aircraft NOT bought - such as the 752 which would have been efficient on the transon routes and rapidair AND the "thin" TA routes -- AC perhaps had too many 762's and would have benefited from the 752. AC mx would have had familiarity with the RR engine. Look how many routes would be ideal for the 752 which can only operate with the 319 or the 763 (with the resulting huge capacity gap): BOG, POS, CCS, BGI, MEX. Also the thin TA routes: MAN, GLA, DUB, MAD, AMS, DUS, LIS.

Going back further -- The L1011 purchase was likely a mistake since the DC-10 proved to be more efficient worldwide.

AC also missed out on the DC-9-50 and MD-80 which would have complemented the DC-9-30 fleet.

So I do not agree that AC Engineering rarely made a mistake.

[Edited 2012-05-06 11:06:43]

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): AC also missed out on the DC-9-50 and MD-80 which would have complemented the DC-9-30 fleet.

If AC ordered the MD-80 series, they would not have needed those early ordered A-320s.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 12): Any particular reason? Also, can you elaborate what you mean by "switch completely"?

I can see Air Canada switching to an all Boeing fleet if they get an order they can not refuse. With completely I mean no mixed fleet like AA, Air Berlin or Norwegian.

Quoting columba (Reply 15): I can see Air Canada switching to an all Boeing fleet if they get an order they can not refuse. With completely I mean no mixed fleet like AA, Air Berlin or Norwegian.

If they get an offer they cannot refuse, they'll go with whichever OEM made them that offer.  
Hypothetically - assuming they did order MAX - I wouldn't see them order A and B narrowbodtypes side by side like the airlines you mentioned. Still, I wouldn't see them shedding all their A32S immediately, either. They'll keep them flying side by side for a good while yet. Look at how long BA and LH have kept their 737 Classics flying - long after effectively switching to Airbus as their single supplier for new narrowbodies.
Another point: AC don't operate 737 NGs at the moment, so Boeing offering a bunch of cheap 737 NGs to bridge AC's as well as Boeing's own gap before MAX comes on line isn't that attractive an option when compared to Airbus offering A320OEOs with a buy-back option. Doesn't mean that Airbus is going to win a hypothetical AC narrowbody order, but I do think they're at a bit of an advantage here. Much more so than with UA and DL, who already had huge 737NG fleets before their latest RFPs.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): Rarely make a mistake?

You're kidding, right?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): The entire A340 fleet was shortlived which likely reduced its ROI significantly (however inefficient it was compared to the 77W),

The A340 was a tremendous aircraft for its time, more capable than earlier versions of the B777, and much more efficient that the aircraft it replaced. And the newer versions of the B777 weren't even a dream in Seattle when the A340s were ordered.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): and the subfleet of 2 345 aircraft was clearly a mistake

The A340-500 made perfect sense when it was ordered. An aircraft that could fly the very high yield YYZ - Hong Kong non-stop year round, with no restrictions. Same crews as the A340-300 and the A330, with similar engines to the A330. And, had the newer versions of the B777 not been ordered, it would have fit with the ordered A340-600s.

The selection of the B777 was made eventually as the newer versions of the aircraft were more capable. These versions of the B777 were not yet designed when the A340-500 and -600 were ordered.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): The 744 Combi's with the fixed cargo-passenger apparently made them very heavy 744's with limited route fit (really just YUL-FRA).

Clearly you don't know the whole story. I have mentioned it several times on here before and wont repeat the "long version". To jog your memory, the order of the fixed wall B744 had a lot do with the loss of a South African B747 in the Indian ocean, Transport Canada banning main deck cargo, then Canadian threatening to pull out of the Arctic with its combi B737s. Remember now? Or do you need the "long version".

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): You mentioned the early adoption of the A320 to replace a late model 722 fleet (AC was one of the last airlines to order the 722 new and hence its fleet was young) -- yes the A320 was more efficient but the ROI on the 722 was cut short by its early withdrawal, not to mention the premature huge capital expense of adding the 320. Business financials are about minimizing operating costs while also minimizing or deferring capital costs -- it's a delicate balance.

Because Air Canada was able to sell the entire fleet to one buyer, with low time airframes, with identical cockpits, they were able to sell the B727s for more than they paid for them. (But still less than the cost of new B727s). A good deal for both parties.

In return, they got a 40% reduction in fuel costs, one less pilot, one less engine, Stage 3 noise compliance and an aircraft which is still competitive 20 years later. Further, they knew the A319 would eventually replace the DC-9 with like crews and airframes. (The A321 was just a bonus). That doesn't make sense to you?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): Going back further -- The L1011 purchase was likely a mistake since the DC-10 proved to be more efficient worldwide.

The L1011 vice the DC-10 is like an A vs. B argument. But really, other than the grounding and subsequent bad press, is there anything the DC-10 offered that the L1011 did not? And for the record, the DC-10 was not more efficient, than the L1011. The fuel burn edge was in the big Lockheed's corner.

It is before your time, but a part of the reason for the L1011 decision over the DC-10 was the work that Lockheed promised to Canadian companies, something that McDD was not willing to do. (Like they did to get the DC-9 order).

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): AC also missed out on the DC-9-50 and MD-80 which would have complemented the DC-9-30 fleet.

Missed out? It's not like the aircraft were a surprise, nor a secret. McDD certainly did try to sell the aircraft to AC. And had they fit, they would have been purchased. And ... with respect to the MD-80, AC already had a 150 seat aircraft, with the B727-200, then A320. The MD-80 could not do what the B727 could, and was far far less efficient than the A320.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): the 752 which would have been efficient on the transon routes and rapidair AND the "thin" TA routes

This is an odd "what if". When AC first ordered the B767-200, the order was only for 12, to replace domestic DC-8-61s. A "wide body" aircraft was needed for competitive reasons, that all important bold face type in the timetable! Not only did the B757 not cut it, but the thought of sending any twin engined aircraft across the water was not even a pipe dream yet. By the time ETOPS became a possibility, it made more sense to buy more B767-200s, then -300s for fleet commonality and competitive reasons. For a passenger buying a ticket, a "wide body" B767 of AC was no different than a "wide body" B747 of BA or AF. A B757 would have been a disadvantage.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 7): The heaviest route usage for the AC A32x fleet is YVR-YYC/YEG and YYZ-YOW/YUL/LGA which are all short haul routes.

Not quite. Aside from a couple of the peak flights, YVR-YYC/YEG are almost exclusively E190's. YYZ-LGA is an almost even split between A320/319 and the Embraers.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 12): They can safely wait for another 12 - 18 months (at which point MAX would be better defined) and then order with a first delivery target in 2020 or thereabouts for any MAX_NEO orders.

I agree. Short term focus is on the 787's and their integration into the fleet, as well I wouldn't be surprised to see some 789's ordered. I think there will be a decision made once there are some real world performance numbers from both models, as right now it is just paper numbers. Like longhauler and others have noted, AC's A32x's are not that old, and are not high in cycles. The 319's and 321's still have another 10 or more years left in them, it really is only the 320's that are the oldest and in need of replacement.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 16): If they get an offer they cannot refuse, they'll go with whichever OEM made them that offer.

AC won't go with whoever offers the cheapest planes, unless for some inexplicable reason the difference in price was huge. They'll go with the A/C that makes the most sense for them, and the routes they intend to use them on, along with a host of other criteria. I personally think they will stay with Airbus, as the costs associated with adding the 737 to the fleet would be quite large, probably more then enough to offset any sort of creative pricing Boeing can offer. Although I have to admit, the MAX would look pretty sharp in AC colours  

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 6): Personally, I dont see any room for the C Series at this time. Would love to be proved wrong though.

Sadly, I agree. Although they had some early teething problems with the 175/190's, they are great little planes. Perfect for a lot of AC's high frequency routes like YVR-YYC/YEG, YVR-LAX/SFO, and YYZ to the east coast US cities.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13): Going back further -- The L1011 purchase was likely a mistake since the DC-10 proved to be more efficient worldwide. The L1011 vice the DC-10 is like an A vs. B argument. But really, other than the grounding and subsequent bad press, is there anything the DC-10 offered that the L1011 did not? And for the record, the DC-10 was not more efficient, than the L1011. The fuel burn edge was in the big Lockheed's corner.

The L-1011 had nothing comparable to the DC-10-30 in terms of range or economics.The "shrunken" L-1011-500 was much less efficient, as most "shrinks" are due to the lower capacity, both passenger and cargo, and the DC-10-30 still generally had more range than the L-1011-500 if not mistaken.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 7): The heaviest route usage for the AC A32x fleet is YVR-YYC/YEG and YOW/YUL/LGA which are all short haul routes.

That's not correct for YVR-YYC/YEG. Based on tomorrow's schedule (May 7), AC has 15 YYC-YVR flights. Only 4 are A319/320. The other 11 are all E-190. And of 9 YEG-YVR flights, only 2 are A319/320 and the other 7 are E-190.

Of AC's 14 YYZ-LGA flights tomorrow, only 5 are A319/321 (4 A319, 1 A321). The other 9 are E-175/190 (5 E-190, 4 E-175).

[Edited 2012-05-06 18:28:25]

[Edited 2012-05-06 18:29:29]

[Edited 2012-05-06 18:56:27]

Quoting anfromme (Reply 16): Quoting columba (Reply 15): I can see Air Canada switching to an all Boeing fleet if they get an order they can not refuse. With completely I mean no mixed fleet like AA, Air Berlin or Norwegian. If they get an offer they cannot refuse, they'll go with whichever OEM made them that offer.

Indeed. Heck, the "offer they can't refuse" might just come courtesy of BBD. Not only will AC have political pressure to buy in-country, but if BBD can't get secure an order from the most likely of customers, it could deal the C-series a pretty big PR blow...and they might be willing to go very low $$ to prevent this. Although, I think the program's got enough orders by now to get it built and in the air, at which point more orders should follow IMO. The CS300 would be a good fit capacity-wise to replace the A319's 1:1, however the 319's aren't as old as the 320's, so those replacement frames wouldn't be needed for another 5-10 years. The ultimate factor will be how important the NB fleet commonality is to AC, or if they feel those 40 or so replacement frames are enough to stand alone, in which case the C-series would have a chance.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19): The L-1011 had nothing comparable to the DC-10-30 in terms of range or economics.The "shrunken" L-1011-500 was much less efficient, as most "shrinks" are due to the lower capacity, both passenger and cargo, and the DC-10-30 still generally had more range than the L-1011-500 if not mistaken.

The L1011-500 had greater range than the DC-10-30, but less than the DC-10-30ER using black power take-offs.

More capable versions of the L1011 were offered as more capable RB211s were designed, much like the more capable versions of the DC-10 were more a result of better engines than the airframe. However, no airlines ordered the longer range/large fuselage version of the L1011, so it was never built.

One of the outcomes of the CP DC-10 runway over-run at YVR, was that the engineering and performance figures of the DC-10-30ER fell under close scrutiny during the investigation. It was shown that the McDD performance figures for the DC-10-30 were more than (ahem) optimistic, and when push came to shove, the airplane was not as capable as promised! As a result, black power take-offs were discontinued.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): The A340 was a tremendous aircraft for its time, more capable than earlier versions of the B777

The A340 was more capable than the 777-200ER? Don't think so. The 777-200ER outsold the 340 and remains in production. The 340 is no longer produced,

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): The A340-500 made perfect sense when it was ordered. An aircraft that could fly the very high yield YYZ - Hong Kong non-stop year round, with no restrictions.

AC ordered its 345's in 1998, when the 77L/77W were on offer (Eva Air and PIA placed the initial 77/77L orders shortly after).

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): the order of the fixed wall B744 had a lot do with the loss of a South African B747 in the Indian ocean, Transport Canada banning main deck cargo, then Canadian threatening to pull out of the Arctic with its combi B737s.

Oh I know the story. It remains a bad order for AC: operating a stub fleet of only 3 744's (since no others were ordered) and operating very heavy Combi's with a fixed barrier.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): Because Air Canada was able to sell the entire fleet to one buyer, with low time airframes, with identical cockpits, they were able to sell the B727s for more than they paid for them. (But still less than the cost of new B727s). A good deal for both parties. In return, they got a 40% reduction in fuel costs, one less pilot, one less engine, Stage 3 noise compliance and an aircraft which is still competitive 20 years later. Further, they knew the A319 would eventually replace the DC-9 with like crews and airframes. (The A321 was just a bonus). That doesn't make sense to you?

They got a good deal from Fedex but as I said earlier, it forced AC into an early high-capital-cost purchase of A320's, a capital expense that could have been deferred. The A319 did not replace the DC-9 exactly -- it was a larger more capable aircraft. Arguably, the DC-9 replacement was the E190 which (yes I know) was added years later.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): with respect to the MD-80, AC already had a 150 seat aircraft, with the B727-200, then A320. The MD-80 could not do what the B727 could, and was far far less efficient than the A320.

Had the M80 been added from 1980, AC would have benefited from the superior performance of the M80 over the 727 for the 10-year period before the A320 was available and benefited from DC-9 commonality. The (eventual) 320 order could have been deferred fort years and years.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): A "wide body" aircraft was needed for competitive reasons, that all important bold face type in the timetable! Not only did the B757 not cut it, but the thought of sending any twin engined aircraft across the water was not even a pipe dream yet. By the time ETOPS became a possibility, it made more sense to buy more B767-200s, then -300s for fleet commonality and competitive reasons. For a passenger buying a ticket, a "wide body" B767 of AC was no different than a "wide body" B747 of BA or AF. A B757 would have been a disadvantage.

You are only referencing the 757 as it was positioned upon service entry. It began flying TA routes in the late 80's at which time its TA capability became well known. Many airlines added 757's after their 767 fleet entry (AA, UA, TW, DL) all carriers of which had thin TA routes and transcon routes just like AC. I'm just saying that the 752 would have been a good fit for many short, medium and long haul AC routes.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): The A340-500 made perfect sense when it was ordered. An aircraft that could fly the very high yield YYZ - Hong Kong non-stop year round, with no restrictions. AC ordered its 345's in 1998, when the 77L/77W were on offer

AC took delivery of the two 345s in June/July 2004. The 77L hadn't even made its first flight then and wasn't certified and delivered until almost 2 years later (February 2006). What would AC have used for the YYZ-HKG nonstop route for those two years? I don't think the 343 could do it nonstop unless the winds were very favourable, and probably with a payload restriction.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): with respect to the MD-80, AC already had a 150 seat aircraft, with the B727-200, then A320. The MD-80 could not do what the B727 could, and was far far less efficient than the A320. Had the M80 been added from 1980, AC would have benefited from the superior performance of the M80 over the 727 for the 10-year period before the A320 was available and benefited from DC-9 commonality. The (eventual) 320 order could have been deferred fort years and years.

The MD-80 didn't have the range to operate many of the routes AC's late-production 727-200s operated, like YYZ/YUL-west coast. The MD-87 was an exception but it was a "shrink" and didn't have the 727's seating capacity. I expect the 727's resale value was also much higher than the MD-80 due to strong demand for 727s for freighter conversions.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24): AC took delivery of the two 345s in June/July 2004. The 77L hadn't even made its first flight then and wasn't certified and delivered until almost 2 years later (February 2006). What would AC have used for the YYZ-HKG nonstop route for those two years? I don't think the 343 could do it nonstop unless the winds were very favourable, and probably with a payload restriction.

AC could have flown the 343 on YYZ-HKG one-stop via ANC as did Cathay, and waited simply 2 years (or just 20 months actually) for the 77L.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24): I expect the 727's resale value was also much higher than the MD-80 due to strong demand for 727s for freighter conversions.

AC got a good deal selling 33 or 34 of their 39 722's to Fedex, as the AC 722's were late models built betw 74 and 82. I seem to recall the per unit price was about $8M. But, as I said, this significantly reduced the ROI on the 722 fleet, and brought AC into an earlier than necessary capital expense. A good argument could have been for keeping the young 722 fleet another 10+ years to help shore up the balance sheet. Keep in mind AC filed for CCAA in 2004 (given or take a year), something which a stronger balance sheet could have prevented or deferred.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): Had the M80 been added from 1980, AC would have benefited from the superior performance of the M80 over the 727 for the 10-year period before the A320 was available and benefited from DC-9 commonality. The (eventual) 320 order could have been deferred fort years and years.

AC first ordered 727s in 1973, with first delivery in September 1974.
The first MD-80 order was in 1977, and EIS wasn't until September 1980.
Of the 39 727 that AC ever took delivery of, only 9 were delivered after the MD-80's EIS.

I don't see how taking MD-80s would in any way have been better for AC on the whole; nor do I see how introducing MD-80s in 1980, at a point where they already had 30 727s, would have given them a better ROI on their 727 fleet than they eventually got. Nor do I see how the ROI on the MD-80s would have been any good in that scenario.

Also keep in mind that they probably got a much better deal selling 727s for freighter conversions even in 1993 (year that the last 727 left the fleet) than they would have got for any MD-80 after over 10 years of operation.

So effectively, what they did was that they stuck with a type they had operated since 1974, passed on the MD-80, sold their 727s at good prices, and in July 1988 ordered the A320, a type that they still operate and that is still competitive today, 22 years after they took first delivery.
Not sure what's wrong with that.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 25): AC got a good deal selling 33 or 34 of their 39 722's to Fedex, as the AC 722's were late models built betw 74 and 82. I seem to recall the per unit price was about $8M. But, as I said, this significantly reduced the ROI on the 722 fleet, and brought AC into an earlier than necessary capital expense. A good argument could have been for keeping the young 722 fleet another 10+ years to help shore up the balance sheet. Keep in mind AC filed for CCAA in 2004 (given or take a year), something which a stronger balance sheet could have prevented or deferred.

The last 727 left the fleet in 1992/93. So you suggest pushing that to 2002/03. This would not only mean operating very uncompetitive airplanes for the better part of 10 years, but also places the replacement expenditure right into the period when AC had to file for CCAA protection anyway, even without that expenditure.
Just to clarify the chronology here: They took delivery of the bulk of A320s between 1990 and 1992. Over 10 years before they filed for CCAA (which they did in April 2003).
When they did enter CCAA at that point, at least they didn't have to worry about replacing a bunch of old 727s and/or MD-80s whose fuel costs (and resale value) would have been a substantial headache for the balance sheet.

AC got between 10 and 18 years out of every 727. Even the youngest 727 AC had was in the fleet for over 10 years before it was taken by FedEx. As you admitted, AC got a pretty good deal on selling their 727s, thanks to the type's popularity for freighter conversions at the time.
I really don't see why you're trying to paint it as a bad business decision on AC's part to offload their 727s at good prices and to then order an aircraft - the A320 - that still serves them well and that is still competitive in 2012 (and will be for at least another 5 to 7 years)?

[Edited 2012-05-07 06:51:20]

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): The A340 was more capable than the 777-200ER? Don't think so. The 777-200ER outsold the 340 and remains in production. The 340 is no longer produced,

That's right, 20 years later, the A340 is no longer produced. 20 years ago, with four engines and no ETOPS restrictions it was more capable ... in that it could fly anywhere. The B777 was not so unrestricted. I still maintain that 20 years ago, the A340/A330 combo made more sense. Not only were the A340 engines the same as the A320 series, the crews could also fly the A330. In fact, even today, the A320 to A330/A340 requalification course is very very short.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): Oh I know the story. It remains a bad order for AC: operating a stub fleet of only 3 744's (since no others were ordered) and operating very heavy Combi's with a fixed barrier.

Not a bad order. More likely bad luck. The combi B744s were required for the YYZ-LHR-BOM route, as the B742 combis that were operating the route were load restricted. Right as the final touches were being placed on the order, Transport Canada advised Canada's airlines that main deck cargo would not be allowed in a combi configuration. Working with Boeing's engineers, AC's engineers devised the fixed barrier. It was brilliant, and complied with the Transport Canada requirements. Which, as luck would have it, were no longer required after the barrier was built.

And, the aircraft was not very very heavy, as everyone thinks. The barrier was not a structural barrier, it was a smoke/fire/fumes barrier. It was only a few thousand pounds heavier than a standard B744C, and lighter than an all passenger B744. What made the aircraft undesirable, was not its performance, (it flew the YVR-HKG flights for AC when granted), but that the barrier could not be moved. Defeats the purpose of the whole combi concept. The separate A/C system required by TC was never installed at the factory as by then it was not required.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): They got a good deal from Fedex but as I said earlier, it forced AC into an early high-capital-cost purchase of A320's, a capital expense that could have been deferred.

I remeber the press release when the A320 order was announced (or it might have been at delivery). Hollis Harris' comments were interesting when he stated that it would take only 18 months for the aircraft to "break even", and felt sorry for airlines "saddled" with old technology with the B727.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): The A319 did not replace the DC-9 exactly

No. But that was the plan. And, much like other airlines found, keeping the DC-9s was a wise move, even with the A319s on the property.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): Had the M80 been added from 1980, AC would have benefited from the superior performance of the M80 over the 727 for the 10-year period before the A320 was available and benefited from DC-9 commonality. The (eventual) 320 order could have been deferred fort years and years.

As addressed above, the MD-80 could not have done a lot of what the B727/A320 did/does. Also, how common is the MD-80 with the DC-9? For one thing in Canada, it is a different type endorsement/different crews.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 25): AC could have flown the 343 on YYZ-HKG one-stop via ANC as did Cathay, and waited simply 2 years (or just 20 months actually) for the 77L.

Or pick up 2 A340-500s white tails sitting in Toulouse, for a very very good price and fly them right away! Instead of adding another aircraft type to an already diverse fleet.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 25): Keep in mind AC filed for CCAA in 2004 (given or take a year), something which a stronger balance sheet could have prevented or deferred.

As I noted above, the balance sheet was better in 2003 as a result of the A320 purchase 13 years earlier. Not only were economics better, but had the B727 been kept, by 2003 another aircraft type would already have been purchased. And ... as we know early airframe purchases are far cheaper than later ones.

But then of course, that's assuming you think the 2003 CCAA filing was finance related ...

Quoting columba (Reply 15): I can see Air Canada switching to an all Boeing fleet if they get an order they can not refuse. With completely I mean no mixed fleet like AA, Air Berlin or Norwegian.

I agree.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): The A340 was a tremendous aircraft for its time, more capable than earlier versions of the B777, and much more efficient that the aircraft it replaced. And the newer versions of the B777 weren't even a dream in Seattle when the A340s were ordered.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): The A340-500 made perfect sense when it was ordered.

If it made perfect sense, why only 2? Even AC's order for the B-77L was an order for 6.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17): The selection of the B777 was made eventually as the newer versions of the aircraft were more capable. These versions of the B777 were not yet designed when the A340-500 and -600 were ordered.

First AC never ordered or considered the A-346. The B-77L and B-77W were in developement stages, as was the A345 when AC ordered them in 1998.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 21): The CS300 would be a good fit capacity-wise to replace the A319's 1:1, however the 319's aren't as old as the 320's, so those replacement frames wouldn't be needed for another 5-10 years.

That is why I see AC ordering the B-737-7MAX to replace the A-319s. I also see the B-737-8MAX replacing the A-320s over time, with a possible short term and low cost lease of the B-737-800NG to replace the oldest A-320s coming soon.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 21): the "offer they can't refuse" might just come courtesy of BBD. Not only will AC have political pressure to buy in-country, but if BBD can't get secure an order from the most likely of customers, it could deal the C-series a pretty big PR blow...and they might be willing to go very low $$ to prevent this.

I think if AC orders the CS-100/-300, they would be to replace the E-175/-190s, which BBD may help them remarket.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28): First AC never ordered or considered the A-346. The B-77L and B-77W were in developement stages, as was the A345 when AC ordered them in 1998.

Yes AC held orders for the A340-600. It was to be a combined fleet of -500s and -600s. The aircraft were to be flown by the same crews, the A330, and the A340-300, -500 and -600s.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): Oh I know the story. It remains a bad order for AC: operating a stub fleet of only 3 744's (since no others were ordered) and operating very heavy Combi's with a fixed barrier.

Were't those 3 744's from CP??

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28): If it made perfect sense, why only 2? Even AC's order for the B-77L was an order for 6.

I think as longhauler said, no additional training needed for crews from the A343 and it was cheap at the time they ordered it. without the ancillary costs of certifying crews for a new type it's just buying two more planes of the same type essentially. They only wanted it to do YYZ-HKG non-stop without restrictions at the time and as said there was no 77L at the time and even 77W's are weight restricted on that route.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 30): Were't those 3 744's from CP??

No, CP brought in 4 B744s with the merger. These were full passenger aircraft, but had GE engines, unlike AC's which had PW engines. After the merger though, the crews could, and did, fly all aircraft.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28): If it made perfect sense, why only 2? Even AC's order for the B-77L was an order for 6.

2 were ordered because 2 were sitting unsold in Toulouse. And 2 were all that were required to maintain a daily YYZ-HKG-YYZ rotation. At the time, it was assumed when ready, the ordered A340-600s would fly the route, and the -500s would have been re-marketed.

Which incidentally they have been. AC still owns them!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28): First AC never ordered or considered the A-346.

AC was in fact one of the first to place an order for 3 A340-600 in 1998 (along with an order for 2 A340-500).
The A340-500 got delivered, used for a short time and then transferred to TAM, after AC had bought a bunch of 777s.
The A340-600 order got deferred a few times and eventually got cancelled in 2010.
Source.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28): That is why I see AC ordering the B-737-7MAX to replace the A-319s. I also see the B-737-8MAX replacing the A-320s over time, with a possible short term and low cost lease of the B-737-800NG to replace the oldest A-320s coming soon.

Based on what do you think that AC is going to order MAX over NEO?
Regarding NGs as a stop-gap solution: As stated before, I don't think that is very likely.
Irrespective of whether AC eventually orders MAX or NEO (as a reminder: so far, they haven't even issued an RFP as far as we all know), I don't think NGs are going to be part of the mix, because they would basically introduce a completely different type for a very short period indeed. In a hypothetical RFP, Airbus - being the incumbent manufacturer - have much more leverage in terms of offering interim OEO airplanes to replace the oldest A320s before any NEO would be delivered.
I know AA did it, ordering OEOs from Airbus even though Boeing was incumbent, but the fleet sizes, projected delivery times, and replacement needs are of quite a different scale with AA than they would be with AC.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 31): Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 30): Were't those 3 744's from CP?? No, CP brought in 4 B744s with the merger. These were full passenger aircraft, but had GE engines, unlike AC's which had PW engines. After the merger though, the crews could, and did, fly all aircraft.

The 3 AC 744M combis were delivered in 1991, a decade before the merger.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23): You are only referencing the 757 as it was positioned upon service entry. It began flying TA routes in the late 80's at which time its TA capability became well known. Many airlines added 757's after their 767 fleet entry (AA, UA, TW, DL) all carriers of which had thin TA routes and transcon routes just like AC. I'm just saying that the 752 would have been a good fit for many short, medium and long haul AC routes.

This I agree with, but then again AC got the A321 instead which can do everything apart from TA.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 21): Indeed. Heck, the "offer they can't refuse" might just come courtesy of BBD. Not only will AC have political pressure to buy in-country, but if BBD can't get secure an order from the most likely of customers, it could deal the C-series a pretty big PR blow...and they might be willing to go very low $$ to prevent this. Although, I think the program's got enough orders by now to get it built and in the air, at which point more orders should follow IMO. The CS300 would be a good fit capacity-wise to replace the A319's 1:1, however the 319's aren't as old as the 320's, so those replacement frames wouldn't be needed for another 5-10 years. The ultimate factor will be how important the NB fleet commonality is to AC, or if they feel those 40 or so replacement frames are enough to stand alone, in which case the C-series would have a chance.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28): I think if AC orders the CS-100/-300, they would be to replace the E-175/-190s, which BBD may help them remarket.

No political pressure to buy in country, hence lots of Brazilian jets in the Canadian skies. The Embraer's are too young to be replaced and I think they will stick around for the same reason as the DC9's did, not to mentioned they are extremebly able, versatile & flexible aircraft. AC need the 319 for its performance and range and they have a large sub-fleet of them (around 40% of the current A32S fleet IIRC). As they also need the 320 & 321, it is a no brainer to get the 319 too instead of add another fleet type and with the EJets still pretty new, I see no gap in the fleet at this time for the C Series.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 7): NONE of the MAX orders are from lessors. All 451 booked to date are from airlines.

Mea culpa. All the more reason to lean towards the A320neo then IMO...

Another factor - cargo. Does the MAX address the carrying of containers? Pretty nice capability in a large country like Canada with some international routes too.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 31): No, CP brought in 4 B744s with the merger. These were full passenger aircraft, but had GE engines, unlike AC's which had PW engines. After the merger though, the crews could, and did, fly all aircraft.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34): The 3 AC 744M combis were delivered in 1991, a decade before the merger.

Sorry I assumed the full passenger 747-400 from the notation (744) and assumed that the 74E combi notation would be used  

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22): The L1011-500 had greater range than the DC-10-30, but less than the DC-10-30ER using black power take-offs.

I'm sorry if I'm dense, but I've never heard the term "black power take-offs" before. What do you mean?

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 25): Keep in mind AC filed for CCAA in 2004 (given or take a year), something which a stronger balance sheet could have prevented or deferred.

So... AC went bankrupt because more than a decade before they had sold their 727s??

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 35): Another factor - cargo. Does the MAX address the carrying of containers? Pretty nice capability in a large country like Canada with some international routes too.

Does AC use cargo containers on its A32X aircraft? I thought BA was the only one who did.

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 37): Does AC use cargo containers on its A32X aircraft? I thought BA was the only one who did.

BA certainly isn't the only one using containers on their A32S. I'm on EI quite frequently, and they use them as well.
Regarding AC: according to this thread A320 Cargo Containers (by Modesto2 Dec 15 2001 in Tech Ops) , they do indeed use cargo containers on their A320s and A321s, not their A319s.
In that thread, it is also pointed out that the majority of scheduled A32S flights in Europe do indeed employ containers.

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 37): I'm sorry if I'm dense, but I've never heard the term "black power take-offs" before. What do you mean?

The CF6-50-C2B engines on the DC-10-30ER allowed three possible power settings:

Standard Power (similar to Flex or Reduced Thrust)
C2 or Max Power (full thrust)
C2B or Black Power

It is has been a while since my DC-10 Performance course, but basically with Black Power you can go to "more than maximum thrust" under certain conditions. When using C2B or Black Power thrust, the extra thrust allows either heavier take-off weights, or shorter or contaminated runways.

While never discouraged from using Black Power, we are reminded that it does reduce engine life, and Black Power take-offs must be noted in the log book.

Thank you to both anfromme and longhauler for filling me in -- one thing I love about aviation is that there's always more to learn!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 27): Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23):The A340 was more capable than the 777-200ER? Don't think so. The 777-200ER outsold the 340 and remains in production. The 340 is no longer produced, That's right, 20 years later, the A340 is no longer produced. 20 years ago, with four engines and no ETOPS restrictions it was more capable ... in that it could fly anywhere. The B777 was not so unrestricted. I still maintain that 20 years ago, the A340/A330 combo made more sense. Not only were the A340 engines the same as the A320 series, the crews could also fly the A330. In fact, even today, the A320 to A330/A340 requalification course is very very short.

First of all, the CFM-56-5A/5B engines that power the A-32X series are very different engines than the CFM-56-5C engines on the A-342/3. They share very few, if any common parts, and the -5C engine weighs some 3500 lbs (on the wing) more than the CFM-56-5B engine. The B-77A was granted ETOPS-180 before it entered airline service (but a few days after the first one was delivered to UA) in May, 1995, 1nd in Oct. 1995 that was upgraded to ETOPS-207. When the B-77E EIS in Feb. 1997, it was granted ETOPS-240, and eventually ETOPS-330. So, the A-342/3 had very little advantages as to where it could and could not fly over the B-77E. But, it is clear the A-340 will burn a lot more fuel, no matter which route it flies than a B-77E between any two city pairs.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 27): Quoting yyz717 (Reply 25):AC could have flown the 343 on YYZ-HKG one-stop via ANC as did Cathay, and waited simply 2 years (or just 20 months actually) for the 77L. Or pick up 2 A340-500s white tails sitting in Toulouse, for a very very good price and fly them right away! Instead of adding another aircraft type to an already diverse fleet.

Why couldn't the A-343 fly the YYZ-HKG route non-stop? The GC distance is only 6790 nm, well within the 7,700 nm range the A-343 is suppose to have (same range as the B-77E).

YYZ-HKG&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=450&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=" target="_blank">http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=Y...STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=

Quoting longhauler (Reply 27): Quoting yyz717 (Reply 25): Keep in mind AC filed for CCAA in 2004 (given or take a year), something which a stronger balance sheet could have prevented or deferred. As I noted above, the balance sheet was better in 2003 as a result of the A320 purchase 13 years earlier. Not only were economics better, but had the B727 been kept, by 2003 another aircraft type would already have been purchased. And ... as we know early airframe purchases are far cheaper than later ones. But then of course, that's assuming you think the 2003 CCAA filing was finance related ...

The AC balance sheet in their 2003 bankruptcy had nothing to do with the types of airplanes they flew in the previous decade +. AC had the B-727 up until about 2002. What caused the bamkruptcy was AC didn't look at the CP books close enough when they aquired them in 2001. It was the financial condition of CP that put AC under CCAA protection.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 29): The aircraft were to be flown by the same crews, the A330, and the A340-300, -500 and -600s.

What's your point there? The B-757/B-767 combination were the first to be granted a common type rating. At UA, pilots can fly the B-757-200/-300, B-767-200ER/-300ER/-400ER all under the same type rating, and that may even extend to the B-777 series, but I'll reconfirm that.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): First of all, the CFM-56-5A/5B engines that power the A-32X series are very different engines than the CFM-56-5C engines on the A-342/3. They share very few, if any common parts.

Phrased that way, this is untrue.
According to CFM themselves, regarding the -5C engine (source)
* "Other versions of the CFM56 are also in service on the A320, providing airlines that operate A320/A340 mixed fleets a valuable commonality benefit due to reduced inventories and spare parts levels."
* Major changes are a larger fan, and a fifth low-pressure turbine stage, while the four-stage low pressure compressor is the same between the 5B and 5C.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): The AC balance sheet in their 2003 bankruptcy had nothing to do with the types of airplanes they flew in the previous decade +. AC had the B-727 up until about 2002.

Also untrue.
The last 727 left AC in 1993.
Also see
Air Canada Boeing 727's (by American MD-80 Jul 15 1999 in Civil Aviation)
http://www.yyznews.com/727.html
http://www.planespotters.net/Product...g&type=727&fleet=471&fleetStatus=5
...and check the date on the last photo of an AC 727 on a.net, which is this one:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Canada/Boeing-727-233-Adv/0010805/

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): The B-77A was granted ETOPS-180 before it entered airline service (but a few days after the first one was delivered to UA) in May, 1995, 1nd in Oct.

In the United States, not Canada. When Air Canada introduced the B777 in 2007, that was the very first time in the history of Transport Canada, that they ever granted any ETOPS relief without airline/engine/type history. The shortest time was 12 months for Canadi>n with the B767-300ER.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): So, the A-342/3 had very little advantages as to where it could and could not fly over the B-77E.

See above. The A340 was completely unrestricted upon delivery to Air Canada.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): But, it is clear the A-340 will burn a lot more fuel, no matter which route it flies than a B-77E between any two city pairs.

On a per seat basis, yes ... not on a per aircraft basis. And if an airline is only going to sell say 200 seats anyway ....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): Why couldn't the A-343 fly the YYZ-HKG route non-stop? The GC distance is only 6790 nm, well within the 7,700 nm range the A-343 is suppose to have (same range as the B-77E).

If I recall, the A340-300 could fly non-stop around 50% of the time. While Great Circle is an interesting concept, it is no where near reality in a lot of cases. On a Pacific crossing, I have seen flight plan distances as much as 700nm over great circle. Less so now that Russian overflight is commonplace, and Russian en-route alternates have been secured. Not so early in the last decade. In fact until the overflight and emergency landing rights were secured, flight plans from eastern Canada to Asia were very creative, at best, and flew far further south than desirable.

Today still, flight plans can be greatly altered with bizarre circumstances. Solar flares being an example.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): What caused the bamkruptcy was AC didn't look at the CP books close enough when they aquired them in 2001. It was the financial condition of CP that put AC under CCAA protection.

This is funny. Yeah right .... AC's accountants "missed something" in the two years they were looking at the books! In reality Canadi>n brought less than a Billion dollars debt with the merger. And ... Robert Milton stated in 2002 that the only routes in the merged Air Canada that were making money were Asia and Latin America. (mostly ex Canadi>n routes!)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): What's your point there? The B-757/B-767 combination were the first to be granted a common type rating. At UA, pilots can fly the B-757-200/-300, B-767-200ER/-300ER/-400ER all under the same type rating, and that may even extend to the B-777 series, but I'll reconfirm that.

The point is why bring another aircraft type into a very diverse fleet? The A330/A340 pilots already flying at Air Canada could fly the A340-500 with virtually no training. And, A320 pilots can be cross trained to the A330/340 with only 3 simulator sessions! Transport Canada does allow common type flying between the A320 and A330/340, but there was and is no economic reason to do so.

In Canada, the B767 and B777 do not hold a common type rating, so no Air Canada pilots were already rated on the B777.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): Why couldn't the A-343 fly the YYZ-HKG route non-stop? The GC distance is only 6790 nm, well within the 7,700 nm range the A-343 is suppose to have

Remember that quoted manufacturer range numbers don't take winds into consideration. They also only consider passengers and baggage, not cargo. Cargo has always been very important for AC's longhaul international routes. Add about 15% to the range numbers quoted by the manufacturer to get a real-world figure.