Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5628915/

Topic: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: spqr
Posted 2012-12-06 20:21:18 and read 21360 times.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...ts-as-return-to-profit-is-forecast

didn't see this mentioned elsewhere, if it was my apologies.

Hopefully the home team (BBD) will get at least a portion of this, assuming their offering is in line with what A and B propose.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: sebring
Posted 2012-12-06 21:13:29 and read 21173 times.

It's probably more accurate to say that Air Canada is within a few months of placing a narrow body order. They have been considering the competing aircraft for over a year now. Talks must be an intensive stage because management indicated that it likely won't take the year originally thought to do a deal.

The question is whether they want to deal with one manufacturer, likely Airbus, or split the order between Airbus and Bombardier and possibly offload all of the Embraers as was indicated in the pilot arbitration submission.

Cseries for up to 120 seats, Airbus over 120 seats, something like that.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-06 21:28:21 and read 21106 times.

Quoting sebring (Reply 1):
The question is whether they want to deal with one manufacturer, likely Airbus, or split the order between Airbus and Bombardier and possibly offload all of the Embraers as was indicated in the pilot arbitration submission.

As per the Final Offer Submission, the E175s are leaving the fleet as we speak. They will be operated by SkyRegional, and training has started. My guess is that by next summer, they will all be operated under the Air Canada Express brand.

That leaves the 45 E190s, which must be flown in mainline Air Canada. While the CSeries does offer a competitively sized aircraft, that leaves Bombardier to make a case for replacing the E190s. That may be hard, as while the seat mile fuel burn is promised to be less, the capital outlay to purchase/lease the new aircraft would be considerable.

Not to mention the (very expensive) infrastructure put in place to support the E190s.

As the announcement was for 100 narrow bodies, it makes me think they are looking for an A319-A321 replacement, as that present fleet is roughly 100 aircraft.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: sebring
Posted 2012-12-06 21:59:21 and read 20986 times.

There currently are 88 Airbus narrowbodies in the fleet roster, and that presumably includes a couple of A320s flying for JETZ. Normally, if the NHL were alive, I'd suspect the active mainline Airbus fleet would be around 80. Next, a few older planes likely are headed for the LCC.

I think the most likely scenario is an all-Airbus order, but if Bombardier wanted a marquee customer for the CSeries, it could remarket the E-190s for AC which are pretty new and were acquired at significantly discounted launch prices. That kind of arrangement has happened many times before. Considering AC went for the Embraers in the first place, passing over a bigger fleet of CRAs, it has a great deal of credibility in the marketplace for making independent decisions. A CSeries buy would therefore not be seen as a hometown or politically inspired decision, but a vote in favor of the better aircraft. So I wouldn't say that it is inconceivable, just unlikely.

[Edited 2012-12-06 22:00:24]

[Edited 2012-12-06 22:02:14]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: boeingorbust
Posted 2012-12-06 22:08:48 and read 20919 times.

Article also mentioned they were in talks with Boeing.. Any likelyhood they could be considering the 737MAX? I assume if they go airbus it'll be NEO's all the way? I know AC recently changed their wide body preferencing to Boeing using the 777 and placing 787 orders. Would they consider the 737 for fleet commonality?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: threepoint
Posted 2012-12-06 22:50:29 and read 20756 times.

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 4):
Would they consider the 737 for fleet commonality?

That's not fleet commonality, that's manufacturer commonality. As there is no common type rating between Boeing (or Airbus for that matter) narrow and widebody aircraft, there would be no apparent benefit for AC to select a sole manufacturer; they would still require separate training and maintenance programs, whatever the new type.

[Edited 2012-12-06 22:51:20]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: faro
Posted 2012-12-07 09:24:01 and read 19923 times.

How much weight does the Airbus Affair of the 1990's still have? Is it fair to say that Boeing have a 'moral' head start in this race?


Faro

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-07 09:29:26 and read 19785 times.

Quoting faro (Reply 6):
How much weight does the Airbus Affair of the 1990's still have? Is it fair to say that Boeing have a 'moral' head start in this race?

That was in the 1980s, as the first A320 arrived at AC in January of 1990. There are many that think the right decision was made, no matter how it was decided as today the A320 lasted longer than would have the B737-400 offered by Boeing.

Air Canada is likely to make a decision based on aircraft merit, and not the alleged actions of a politician 25 years ago.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: yowviewer
Posted 2012-12-07 09:46:41 and read 19431 times.

Just curious as I must have missed something over time with the E190s. When AC first got them, they were claiming up to 20% savings on routes compared to the A320s. AC143 YUL-YOW-YEG for example has been changed from A320 to E190 ever since, and with rare exception (last weeks' extreme headwinds causing refuelling stop in Winnipeg) I thought it was doing well for AC.
Why are they so eager to get rid of them now ?
Thanks !

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: lostsound
Posted 2012-12-07 09:47:27 and read 19433 times.

Air Canada will want to keep both Boeing and Airbus aircraft in their fleet in order to receive the best possible deals by playing the manufacturers against each other in years to come. So it is my opinion that the A32X fleet will be replaced with A32XNEOs.

Air Canada does appear to be interested in losing the Embraers, so I'm thinking the CSeries has a chance there. Air Canada might be poised to support the Home-Country's aviation-manufacturing sector.

Personally I hope Air Canada sticks with the Airbus narrowbodies and WestJet with the Boeings. I like having that diversity here, otherwise there will be no A32X operator here which would bum me out.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: yyz717
Posted 2012-12-07 09:54:09 and read 19285 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 2):
As per the Final Offer Submission, the E175s are leaving the fleet as we speak. They will be operated by SkyRegional, and training has started. My guess is that by next summer, they will all be operated under the Air Canada Express brand.

The E175 transition to SkyRegional is scheduled for Feb-June 2013 according to print at the time it was announced.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 2):
That leaves the 45 E190s, which must be flown in mainline Air Canada. While the CSeries does offer a competitively sized aircraft, that leaves Bombardier to make a case for replacing the E190s. That may be hard, as while the seat mile fuel burn is promised to be less, the capital outlay to purchase/lease the new aircraft would be considerable.

Not to mention the reduced ROI if the E190 fleet is removed from service after only a few years and are heavily discounted for re-sale (45 aircraft is alot to release onto the market). The business case to replace such a relatively new aircraft with only marginally newer aircraft might be difficult.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 2):
As the announcement was for 100 narrow bodies, it makes me think they are looking for an A319-A321 replacement, as that present fleet is roughly 100 aircraft.

Seems likely, given the age of the A320 fleet. The A32xneo seems like the logical choice, unless Boeing can win them over to the 8/9MAX. Given the popularity of the neo and the increasingly fewer earlier delivery slots, AC needs to move fast with a neo order.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-07 11:03:16 and read 18433 times.

Either the MAX or NEO will work fine for the A320/321 replacement, let the salespeople from Boeing and Airbus earn their salaries...
The to me question is, do they replace the 319 with same or with CS100 or 300? The CS300ER can cover all of North America from YYZ, most of it from YVR... very little of the flying the A319 does for AC is beyond the range (with obvious exceptions like YYT-LHR which could be moved to the larger 320 replacement). The CS300 is just slightly smaller than the A319, but thats not a bad thing necessarily. And with alot of the 319s possibly moving to the LCC... BBD might have a foot in the door if the price is right.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-07 11:08:44 and read 18331 times.

The A320neo would not require any re-training, but if AC wants to start replacing planes sooner rather than later, I wonder if the MAX might have better availability.

The engine manufacturers might have a say in this, as well. A CSeries order would allow Pratt to push A320neos with GTFs. On the flip side, AC's widebody fleet moving to GE power could have CFM making an offer for the neo or the MAX.

[Edited 2012-12-07 11:11:11]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-07 11:38:34 and read 17967 times.

Quoting yowviewer (Reply 8):
AC143 YUL-YOW-YEG for example has been changed from A320 to E190 ever since, and with rare exception (last weeks' extreme headwinds causing refuelling stop in Winnipeg)

The E190 can easily fly non-stop from YOW-YEG, even with a 100 knot headwind. The big problem is if the winds were higher than planned, or if weather at the destination or alternate changed. Or some combination of the above, namely a far alternate, more than normal contingency fuel combined with a longer flying time.

Quoting yowviewer (Reply 8):
I thought it was doing well for AC.
Why are they so eager to get rid of them now ?

I wasn't aware they were ... as far as I can tell, this planned purchase is to replace the A320 series.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
The A320neo would not require any re-training, but if AC wants to start replacing planes sooner rather than later, I wonder if the MAX might have better availability.

I think the training and crewing aspect is what gives the A320neo the edge. They can be introduced into the fleet with only minimal training meaning a crew compliment already exists. They just introduce them into the schedule when they arrive.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: beechnut
Posted 2012-12-07 11:59:06 and read 17725 times.

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 4):
Article also mentioned they were in talks with Boeing.. Any likelyhood they could be considering the 737MAX? I assume if they go airbus it'll be NEO's all the way? I know AC recently changed their wide body preferencing to Boeing using the 777 and placing 787 orders. Would they consider the 737 for fleet commonality?

It would very much surprise me. The main reason, being the Airbus containerized cargo capabilities and the infrastructure already in place to handle it. Currently the A320s are the backbone of the transcontinental fleet, and carry considerable cargo across the country. It would surprise me to see AC give this up, unless the Max has this ability as well which I don't think it does. This isn't such an issue on really short haul, so won't likely impact on the C-series vs. Embraer debate, if indeed that is on the table (not so sure about that either).

Underbelly cargo is big business for AC. It's one of the things in favour of the 777 as well, for long haul. I don't think that's changing any time soon.

Also as mentioned elsewhere, the 737 wouldn't have any commonality with anything else in the AC fleet, so that's a non-issue. The only commonality would be the manufacturer, and the only benefit I could see would be deeper discounting. Maybe. But it's in AC's favour to play one manufacturer off the other until they whittle down the price to what they're prepared to pay. Really, the order is Airbus's to lose.

I'm sure the bulk of the order won't be a surprise: a mix of 320/321 NEO, with perhaps some 319 NEO, the big question mark being the exact ratios (1:1 replacement, or a different mix?), and what, if anything, migrates to the LCC fleet. Any surprises would be the replacement of the EMB fleet with BBD C-series. And that would be a BIG surprise IMHO. If AC does do it, you can bet that national pride won't have anything to do with it, the decision will be strictly economic and technical.

Beech

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: ytz
Posted 2012-12-07 13:27:39 and read 16841 times.

I have always thought that the best combination for AC would be something like 50 A321s and 100 CSeries birds (some combination of CS100/CS300). Get rid of the E-Jets.

That would provide maximum CASM for thicker routes like YVR or the sun routes, and solid range-payload for long US routes like LAX/SFO/SEA. Or more TATL to hubs: YHZ-FRA? The 321NEO really is the perfect bird for routes in this hemisphere. I'd imagine AC could make AC could even deploy them on some longer, thinner routes. YVR-CUN or all-year YYC-HNL? Or YZF-YYZ direct? Or even TATL: YHZ-GLA. YHZ-MAN. YHZ-DUB. YYT-LHR all year-round.

The E-Jets really aren't all that much better than RJs. And getting 319s would be a bad CASM buy.

Just my    ...

[Edited 2012-12-07 13:37:44]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: ytz
Posted 2012-12-07 13:41:53 and read 16643 times.

I sincerely hope Bombardier goes for the win and strikes a deal to get the CSeries in AC's fleet. Remarket the E-Jets.

As a passenger, I would love to be flying on the CSeries. It would be the most comfortable offering in North America.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: davs5032
Posted 2012-12-07 14:16:19 and read 16282 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 11):
Either the MAX or NEO will work fine for the A320/321 replacement, let the salespeople from Boeing and Airbus earn their salaries...
The to me question is, do they replace the 319 with same or with CS100 or 300? The CS300ER can cover all of North America from YYZ, most of it from YVR... very little of the flying the A319 does for AC is beyond the range (with obvious exceptions like YYT-LHR which could be moved to the larger 320 replacement). The CS300 is just slightly smaller than the A319, but thats not a bad thing necessarily. And with alot of the 319s possibly moving to the LCC... BBD might have a foot in the door if the price is right.

It will be interesting to see how the C series shakes out here. Normally, you wouldn't expect it to have much of a chance. The efficiency $$ advantages of more optimized -300 over the A319 are probably not large enough to overcome the allure of a single common fleet with minimal crew transition costs...but that assumes a buyer that has no political pressures or allegiances to think about. I don't think politics will be a major sway here given AC's a private company, but it could at least be enough of a consideration to tip the scales to the underdog. Other things that might help BBD would be if AC needs some smaller ~100 seaters added to its fleet for replacement/growth needs (CS100), in which case the scope argument may not be as strongly in the A319's favor. Also, if AC needs frames faster than they can get on a long NEO backlog, that might be a factor as well. (I'm not sure of all the facts surrounding AC at this point, so others will have to expand.)

-As for the size of an A319 vs. a CS300, I actually think it's similar enough to be a 1:1 replacement, so that wouldn't be an issue IMO. Looks like AC has their 319's configured 14F/106Y. The -300 would seem to allow for basically the same configuration.

Quoting ytz (Reply 16):
I sincerely hope Bombardier goes for the win and strikes a deal to get the CSeries in AC's fleet. Remarket the E-Jets.
As a passenger, I would love to be flying on the CSeries. It would be the most comfortable offering in North America.

The Y comfort would be very refreshing, and it's one of the reasons I like the plane so much; seems to accomodate both the airline's cost concerns and customer comfort very well.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: ac853
Posted 2012-12-07 15:14:14 and read 15770 times.

Just Curious. Why is Air Canada not happy with the E190?. Are the operating costs that bad or are they just too small? They are extensively used in western Canada and very comfortable to fly in. They seem much more spacious than the CRJ-705s

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2012-12-07 16:01:21 and read 15373 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
The A320neo would not require any re-training, but if AC wants to start replacing planes sooner rather than later, I wonder if the MAX might have better availability.

It's an interesting situation for the Airbus/Boeing duopoly. Even if a plane is not as good as the other (in the buyers opinion), both manufacturers offer competitive planes that do the job well. The manufacturing constraints on both mean that they are guaranteed a good part of the market either way. (except for the much more specialised markets, such as the VLA market)

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-07 16:11:55 and read 15291 times.

Quoting ac853 (Reply 18):
Just Curious. Why is Air Canada not happy with the E190?.

Air Canada is very happy with the E190.

After the initial teething trouble, (like the A320, like the DC-8, like the Super Connie, like the CSeries etc etc etc), the aircraft is as reliable as the A320 series. The E190 has a seat mile cost somewhere between the A319 and the A320, which is astounding for an aircraft its size.

Also, with one of the largest Y seats in the business, Marketing has stated there is a preference by passengers over other competing narrow body aircraft.

If this purchase for narrow body aircraft includes the E190, (VERY big if btw) then Bombardier better come up with a very good sales pitch. As I said above, the existing infrastructure and the low capital outlay of the E190 are hard to overcome by lower fuel burn alone.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: ytz
Posted 2012-12-07 17:09:05 and read 14857 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 20):
As I said above, the existing infrastructure and the low capital outlay of the E190 are hard to overcome by lower fuel burn alone.

There's good opportunity here for Bombardier, since it won't be a 1:1 trade. It would be a 2:1 deal. Trade in 45 E190s and Bombardier gets to replace these and the ~40 319s. That's at least 80 aircraft. Heck, they could also get a deal to trade the E175s for more CRJ705s.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-07 17:16:38 and read 14805 times.

Who says AC is very happy with the 190? You think an airplane less than 10 years old is up for replacement signifies satisfaction? It was a bad purchase. You speak of lots of legroom but that was before they added more rows. It's cramped now.

EMJ and Bombardier build cheap disposable airplanes. They're amateur hour compared to Boeing and Airbus. Notice they never mucked about in that segment.

Either way Bombardier has a real possibility of landing this order. Remember AC is on bended knee to the govt looking for pension funding relief...... Use your imagination. And if govt meddling doesn't come into the mix realize this about Air Canada.

THE BEAN COUNTERS WILL PICK THE CHEAPEST OPTION REGARDLESS OF AIRCRAFT MERITS.

Always have always will. Except when Milton's ego got involved and he got the 777s and 787s for a song. Good on him.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-07 17:34:52 and read 14672 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
Who says AC is very happy with the 190? You think an airplane less than 10 years old is up for replacement signifies satisfaction?

Air Canada says they are happy with the Embraers, and where have they stated they are up for replacement?

AC had the opportunity to ditch the E175s and replace them with more CRJ705s, but they chose to keep them. Why do you think that is?

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
Notice they never mucked about in that segment.

They tried with the B737-600 and the A318. Or as I like to refer to them, the Vega and the Pinto.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
EMJ and Bombardier build cheap disposable airplanes.

It is a tough engineering assignment to build a less than 100 seat aircraft that has reasonable seat mile costs, yet both BBD and Embraer have done that well. Yes, they are lighter, that is what makes them efficient. If you see that as "disposable" then why don't airlines? Because, as you state:

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):

THE BEAN COUNTERS WILL PICK THE CHEAPEST OPTION REGARDLESS OF AIRCRAFT MERITS.

Yes, the B737-600 and the A318 are excellent aircraft, and they do their job superbly, except ... seat mile cost.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-07 17:58:05 and read 14503 times.

They are cheaply built airplanes.

Why do you think the big boys didnt stick their nose into this segment? Pinto and Vega sure. How many did they sell and how much capital did they sink into those programs? Not much which is why they didnt sell and are not selling. They were too heavy. Big airliners chopped into small ones with all the big boy parts weighing them down. Now. I would hazard a guess the boys at EADS and Boeing know a little more than you or I when it comes to where the market is. And I think the 100 seat market is a bogus one nowadays as the airplanes dont provide the airlines with the upflex they need when things open up. Im sure we will agree to disagree on this.

Now. You say Air Canada has no plans of getting rid of the EMJs. Hmmmm. Is it a narrowbody? They're looking to replace their narrow body fleet.

Remember that the 10 year plan has the fleet composition looking 50/50 widebody/narrowbody. Dont be looking for narrowbody growth ie: 100 new narrowbody jets and keeping the EMJs too. aint gonna happen. There is not going to be 160 narrowbody jets at AC.

Much like I dont think the LCC will ever reach 50 airframes.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-07 18:28:39 and read 14727 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
Pinto and Vega sure.

I am not sure if you understood my Pinto and Vega reference, as you are younger than me. But Ford and GM designed the two, as there appeared a new threat ... the then unheard of (in North America) Toyota and Honda . They didn't need the two for profit, as much as they needed the two to stop Americans from buying Toyotas and Hondas.

It didn't work, much like the A318 and B737-600 didn't stop airlines from buying larger CRJs and EMJs.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
And I think the 100 seat market is a bogus one nowadays

With a couple thousand CRJs and EMJs built, I am not so sure one could consider it a bogus market.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
Dont be looking for narrowbody growth ie: 100 new narrowbody jets and keeping the EMJs too. aint gonna happen. There is not going to be 160 narrowbody jets at AC.

Techically, it would be 145 narrowbody jets (as 15 E175s are leaving), but then you have to include the LCC. There is talk of "a hundred" narrow body aircraft aircraft replaced, but really there are 88 A320 series aircraft to be replaced. Plus, whatever happens at the LCC. Don't forget that two of the 4 A319s slotted for the LCC are coming from "the desert" not from mainline AC.

Both internally and publicly, I have still not seen any indication that AC is not happy with the E190s, nor would they like to get rid of them. I am not saying it wont happen, just that if it will, it is a very tight secret!

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-07 18:42:24 and read 14579 times.

By Bogus I mean for the mainline legacy carrier.

AC has everything in place to grow internationally and shrink its domestically

Thanks for the history lesson! Very useful.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: ytz
Posted 2012-12-07 19:14:26 and read 14634 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
EMJ and Bombardier build cheap disposable airplanes.

1) Normally Embraer is shortened to EMB. What's EMJ?
2) By what definition are their aircraft cheap and/or disposable? The Dash series (now Q series at Bombardier) has been used in some of the harshest conditions ever. RJs and turboprops in general tend to operate from more austere conditions than mainline narrowbodies. I'd say they're less delicate.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
They're amateur hour compared to Boeing and Airbus.

And you're clueless. See? We can all make generic statements without any real knowledge of the subject we are talking about.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
Notice they never mucked about in that segment.

Look at how many seats were in the original and classic 737s. Go on. You can use Wikipedia. It's easy. They did play in this market. They grew their airplanes with the market. And that's created room for Embraer and Bombardier.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
THE BEAN COUNTERS WILL PICK THE CHEAPEST OPTION REGARDLESS OF AIRCRAFT MERITS.

Publicly traded companies aiming for profit through efficient deployment of capital. Imagine that. Cheapest tool that gets the job done. Every company should be run that way. Especially airlines where capital costs are massive and misallocation of capital terminal.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
I would hazard a guess the boys at EADS and Boeing know a little more than you or I when it comes to where the market is.

No. They know how to allocate capital to make the most of their abilities. Bombardier and Embraer understand that they don't have the technical capabilties (frequently subsidized in Europe and the USA by national governments) or marketing or financial backing (government loan guarantees) to compete in the deep end of the pool. So they wisely focus on where they can make the most money. Comparatively, Boeing and Airbus are utterly terrible at playing in 90-120 seat market. Embraer alone has sold over 1000 E-Jets. The smallest model, the E-170 has 192 sales. Boeing has 69 sales for the 737-600. Airbus has sold 80 318s. A more direct comparison? The E-195 has sold 137. Just under Boeing and Airbus' sales in this exact same category...combined. And we aren't even including Bombardier in this mix.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
And I think the 100 seat market is a bogus one nowadays as the airplanes dont provide the airlines with the upflex they need when things open up.

Nonsense. See what happened with the RJ? The same situation will repeat itself with the E-Jets and CSeries. 100-120 seaters are the new RJs. This category of flying will get relegated to the minors (regionals). And given that the CSeries supposedly has CASM close to a 320NEO, this makes for a really good recipe for profit.

And if the CSeries and the upgraded E-190/195 are anywhere close to the promised CASM, the market will flourish for two other big reasons: fragmentation and frequency. These planes will let AC fly some thin routes like YYZ-YXE with the 175 today. And they'll allow for much higher frequencies on major routes. I imagine we'll see more frequencies on markets like YYZ-EWR/JFK for example.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: ytz
Posted 2012-12-07 19:30:33 and read 14473 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 25):
Both internally and publicly, I have still not seen any indication that AC is not happy with the E190s, nor would they like to get rid of them. I am not saying it wont happen, just that if it will, it is a very tight secret!

It's not whether they want to get rid of them or not. They aren't anywhere close to End-of-Life like the A319s and A320s. So the ball is in Bombardier's court to make an offer than creates a sound business case, to replace the 319, and the 190s in one shot.

And I'd argue that this kind of proposal is the only way Bombardier has any shot at all. I doubt AC wants to operate the E190, the CS300, and the 320s and 321s. So the only way Bombardier can sell the CS300 as a 319 replacement is to make a pitch that takes the 190s off AC's hands.

Otherwise, AC might as well go NEO for fuel efficiency or MAX for OEM commonality (eases transition to the widebody fleet). So it's 100 birds to be replaced. But could be 145 with the right offer.....

I still think that AC would be best served by the CS100/CS300 and the A321. Actually, I could even see a case for just the CS100 (short-haul) and A321 (medium-haul). Alternatively, I could see AC being a launch customer for the CS500 as the 319 replacement. I also see an opportunity with this kind of mix for AC to really elevate service. Short-haul J moves to a standard almost like VX.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2012-12-07 20:01:12 and read 14276 times.

Not sure why the hate for the E190. Its a wonderful aircraft for AC, very flexible, long legs, equally happy on short hops and they got them for a very good price.

Quoting ytz (Reply 15):
The E-Jets really aren't all that much better than RJs. And getting 319s would be a bad CASM buy

Compared to a 50 seater they are. The A319 is good for AC beacause of its range. Despite the poorer CASM, I think it would save more money to have the 319 as a common family with the 320 and 321 rather than introduce another fleet type and the associated costs at the present time. If one type (E190) went away, its a wash, but I do not think that will be happening for a while yet.

Quoting ac853 (Reply 18):
Just Curious. Why is Air Canada not happy with the E190?.

They are happy.

Ultimately I can see the E190 being replaced by the CS down the road (subject to what EMB do themselves of course in terms of a 190NG / replacement), say in 5-8 years time, but not now. Clearly the more pressing need is A32S replacement. I dont think AC has the cash resources to do both, or more exactly the spare cash needs to be used elsewhere. Its not only the aircraft themsleves, but all the infrastructure and crew training / simulators etc too.

I think the A32Sneo has the clear edge over the MAX

1) Easy transition from existing fleet - reduced crew training costs
2) The 321neo surely has to be more attractive to AC vs the 739ER for the long transcons
3) Containerized cargo - HUGE deal for AC
4) Airbus will be very keen to retain the client and price accordingly, particularly after losing their widebody custom
5) WS operate the 737  

I think 30x 319, 50x 320 & 20x 321.

Engine selection may be interesting too - PW may indicate hints long term as to another aircraft with a similar engine...

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-12-07 20:05:28 and read 14247 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
They are cheaply built airplanes.

Why do you think the big boys didnt stick their nose into this segment?

If they are cheaply built jets, why DIDN'T Airbus and Boeing stick their noses into this segment? They could have eaten Bombardier's and Embraer's lunch with their higher expertise and levels of quality, as you say.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
THE BEAN COUNTERS WILL PICK THE CHEAPEST OPTION REGARDLESS OF AIRCRAFT MERITS.

And how do you define an aircraft's merits? Greater range, even if you don't need it? Size, even if you don't need it?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: ytz
Posted 2012-12-07 20:48:47 and read 14056 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
Compared to a 50 seater they are.

Except that the E-Jets effectively were A32S replacements.....or rather supplanted the growth of the A32S fleet. There's a good reason they're mainline.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
Ultimately I can see the E190 being replaced by the CS down the road (subject to what EMB do themselves of course in terms of a 190NG / replacement), say in 5-8 years time, but not now.

Except this clearly won't be an order for now. If they are going NEO, they aren't getting it till the end of the decade.

They could get the CSeries in 2015-2016. CS500 (if desired) in 2016-2017.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
I think 30x 319, 50x 320 & 20x 321.

I'd be surprised if AC doesn't get a few more 321s. It really offers tons of potential as a medium-haul aircraft for AC. Like opening up some more TATL service from YHZ.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: davs5032
Posted 2012-12-07 21:18:37 and read 13969 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
Not sure why the hate for the E190. Its a wonderful aircraft for AC, very flexible, long legs, equally happy on short hops and they got them for a very good price.

I agree. I'd always liked the EJets, but gained an even greater appreciation for it last year when, (in a lousy attempt to save some $$ of course), I booked a cheap red-eye from LAS-MKE on F9. Upon realizing I'd be stuck on a RJ for so long, my initial thought was "oh $hit, I'm going to regret this." However, it feels so spacious, (even more than a 737 when one's seated, IMO), that I actually enjoyed the ride...despite the intense LAS-hangover that I was suffering from. 
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
Compared to a 50 seater they are. The A319 is good for AC beacause of its range. Despite the poorer CASM, I think it would save more money to have the 319 as a common family with the 320 and 321 rather than introduce another fleet type and the associated costs at the present time. If one type (E190) went away, its a wash, but I do not think that will be happening for a while yet.

I hadn't thought about the range aspect of the equation. Does AC employ many A319's on trans-con routes for which the CS-300 couldn't be used? I know the C-series has fairly good range, but I believe it's slight less than trans-con capable. How about the E190's? Does AC have many thin routes which it wants/needs to use the E190 on, but can't? I've heard before on here that one short-coming of the E190 is that it's range isn't great.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
I think the A32Sneo has the clear edge over the MAX

1) Easy transition from existing fleet - reduced crew training costs
2) The 321neo surely has to be more attractive to AC vs the 739ER for the long transcons
3) Containerized cargo - HUGE deal for AC
4) Airbus will be very keen to retain the client and price accordingly, particularly after losing their widebody custom
5) WS operate the 737  

I think #1 is probably enough, unless Boeing were to offer a serious discount. But yeah, given all the other factors, it's as close to a "lock" as it gets in this industry.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: behramjee
Posted 2012-12-07 22:41:22 and read 13849 times.

In my personal opinion, Air Canada should give serious consideration to two aircraft in particular when making this decision i.e. the A321NEO and the Bombardier CS300.

The CS300 should be bought to replace its entire A319 fleet which currently numbers 37 as it offers nearly 20% better operating costs and is also a smaller capital investment versus buying A319NEO/A320NEO to replace the classic A319s.

The A321NEO has proven to be a popular aircraft since its sales inception began a year ago with big name airlines ordering this type. It can easily replace AC's entire current A321 fleet easily (numbering 10) as well replace all B 763ER operated domestic and trans-border flights easily. AC too can use this aircraft easily to operate nonstop from YVR to the U.S. East Coast plus look at the possibility to operate YHZ-LHR versus a more costlier B763ER.

The A320s should remain in AC's fleet and should be used as a bargaining tool by AC to induce Bombardier to seriously contemplate building the highly anticipated larger CS500 in hopes for a big order as currently AC has 46 A320s operating.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: liftsifter
Posted 2012-12-07 22:51:53 and read 13831 times.

I don't know why, but I see AC as a total 737MAX airline.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-08 07:32:48 and read 13419 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 31):
Except that the E-Jets effectively were A32S replacements.....or rather supplanted the growth of the A32S fleet. There's a good reason they're mainline.

They were DC-9, B737-200 and F-28 replacements. No A320 series aircraft left the fleet as a result of the E190 purchase.

When ordered, the A319 was to be a DC-9 replacement, but at roughly 45,000 lbs heavier, it is a lot of airplane. Yes, the A319 is an extremely capable aircraft, but unless one is using that capability, its a lot of extra airplane to haul around. The E190 is about the same weight as a DC-9 and about 10,000 lighter than the B737s it replaced.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 32):
I hadn't thought about the range aspect of the equation. Does AC employ many A319's on trans-con routes for which the CS-300 couldn't be used?

The A319 does do some pretty long flights with AC. Yes, the usual trans-cons, YYZ/YUL to YVR/YYJ/LAX/SFO/SAN, but also a lot of farther southern flying as well YYZ-BGI/UVF/CCS/PVR/ZIH/MEX/SJO/LIR, etc. Can the CS300 do these?

And that goes back to what I said above, when one has such a capable aircraft, it is expensive to haul around that capability when not used. I would be surprised therefore if the CS300/500 could fulfill such a mission.

So consider the two fleet issue .... either E190s and A320 series, or CSeries and A321s ... where does one draw the line separating the "light" from the "heavy" narrow-body. With the E190 / A320neo series combo there are no gaps, but with the CSeries/A321 combo, the long range 120 seat aircraft is missing, unless you went for A319/A320/A321neo then it is a straight swap .. the E190 for the Cseries, and that would be a tough sell.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: lostsound
Posted 2012-12-08 08:20:53 and read 13316 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
The A319 does do some pretty long flights with AC. Yes, the usual trans-cons, YUL to YVR/YYJ/LAX/SFO/SAN, but also a lot of farther southern flying as well BGI/UVF/CCS/PVR/ZIH/MEX/SJO/LIR, etc. Can the CS300 do these?

Don't forget YYT - LHR.

It's not a long or far flight but If Air Canada continues that route, the CSeries would have to get certified for ETOPS.

[Edited 2012-12-08 08:21:27]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-08 08:56:23 and read 13191 times.

Quoting lostsound (Reply 36):
It's not a long or far flight but If Air Canada continues that route, the CSeries would have to get certified for ETOPS.

They are already planning to certify it for ETOPS 120 by EIS and 180 within 6 months after.

http://www.rjet.ca/blog/2012/01/06/b...est-program-for-cseries-announced/

[Edited 2012-12-08 08:57:16]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-08 09:21:09 and read 13125 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 31):
I'd be surprised if AC doesn't get a few more 321s. It really offers tons of potential as a medium-haul aircraft for AC. Like opening up some more TATL service from YHZ.

You think AC is going to get more 321s?

For the Atlantic.

I'd love to hear where you have them flying to. Clearly you have crunched the numbers heavily. I guess the next thing for you to do is to whip up the thousands of people needed out-of-YHZ to start up these routes.

You seem to think the 321 is such a wonderful fit for AC. I guess the good thing about it on the Atlantic (lmao) is it could do DUB no problem. And they wouldn't have to use the tracks as the a/c will have to do the crossing at 280 because it doesnt have the wing to get into the tracks.

321 on the Atlantic. Fantasy world stuff.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-08 09:29:31 and read 13086 times.

Quoting lostsound (Reply 36):
It's not a long or far flight but If Air Canada continues that route, the CSeries would have to get certified for ETOPS.

It may not be a long flight but it is a challenging flight. Eastbound there is no problem.

Westbound is an entirely different story. And is the reason this route is only done seasonally. The aircraft doesnt have the legs. By this I mean for holding alternates. You likely know that part of the world is fairly desolate and alternate airports are rather sparse compared to basically anywhere else on the eastern seaboard.

When the weather turns uglier in the winter time the ability to have the legally required alternate close-in becomes a crapshoot. When there is nothing "legal" alternate wise on the island the route becomes very challenging. And the weather in winter on the rock has worse odds than a crapshoot.

The airplane just cant load enough gas.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-08 14:43:27 and read 12745 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
You think AC is going to get more 321s?

I don't know if they will. But yes, I think they should.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
For the Atlantic.

Not just the Atlantic. That was just one example. But I think the 321NEO would do quite well on other routes. YYZ-LAX for example. Or YVR-Hawaii (not just HNL). They could serve OGG, KOA or LIH. No need to send out a 763 daily. Or a whole bunch of Carribean and Central American routes.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
I'd love to hear where you have them flying to.

From YHZ? LHR, DUB, GLA or MAN.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
I guess the next thing for you to do is to whip up the thousands of people needed out-of-YHZ to start up these routes.

Well, AC seems to have no problem filling a 763 daily to LHR. I don't see why a downgrade to a 321 and more destinations would be problematic.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
You seem to think the 321 is such a wonderful fit for AC.

Not the 321. But the 321NEO. 15% lower fuel consumption. 500nm more range or another two tonnes of payload. Really, if AC is going to get the 320NEO, they might as well procure the 321 and add some seat capacity. The extra fuel burn is hardly substantial. Heck the 321NEO probably has lower trip costs than the current 320. CASM is definitely phenomenal. Only a widebody would do better.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
I guess the good thing about it on the Atlantic (lmao) is it could do DUB no problem.

And that's laughable because?

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
321 on the Atlantic. Fantasy world stuff.

Ummm, that's exactly how Airbus is marketing this aircraft. As a 757 replacement. But clearly you know more than their marketing staff.

Any idea how many 757s are used on US-Europe TATL service? You should look it up sometime.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
Can the CS300 do these?

The CS300 has a 2200nm range. None of those Carribean/LatAm routes are more than 2200nm. But the CS300ER with a 2950nm range can definitely all them and probably with a decent payload too.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
... where does one draw the line separating the "light" from the "heavy" narrow-body.

Why is a line necessary? Match the aircraft to demand on the route. The CSeries ER versions have the range to do any route in North and Central America.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
With the E190 / A320neo series combo there are no gaps, but with the CSeries/A321 combo, the long range 120 seat aircraft is missing, unless you went for A319/A320/A321neo then it is a straight swap

I don't get this argument. You are saying that an aircraft with more range and a capacity that overlaps with the 32S range will have more of a gap than the 190/32NEO? Explain.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
the E190 for the Cseries, and that would be a tough sell.

I can see for reasons of cost. And by that, I mean capital, retraining, etc. But are you suggesting AC wouldn't consider if they were given an offer that involved trading in/remarketing the E-Jets? Why not? I see such a deal as an amazing opportunity for AC. They get a more capable aircraft to replace the E-190 for nearly the same operating costs. And they get a substantially cheaper-to-operate aircraft at the middle range (A319 replacement). Added bonus: the CSeries offers substantially more passenger amenities (wider seats, larger windows, larger bins) than the NEO or the MAX. That would be good for AC's brand.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-08 15:16:43 and read 12680 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 39):
It may not be a long flight but it is a challenging flight. Eastbound there is no problem.

Westbound is an entirely different story. And is the reason this route is only done seasonally.

1) Nonsense. An aircraft with a max range-payload over 2200nm can't fly a great circle route of 2012nm with a limited payload (I doubt there's a ton of cargo to YYT)? It's seasonal because there's not enough demand for year-round service. It has nothing to do with the aircraft. With 500nm more range, the NEO will make it even easier.

2) Bombardier is certifying the aircraft for ETOPS because one of the buyers is interested in deploying the aircraft on the LCY-JFK route. And unlike BA with its 318s, the CSeries will be able to do that route without stopping in Shannon for gas.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-08 15:36:15 and read 12627 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 41):
1) Nonsense. An aircraft with a max range-payload over 2200nm can't fly a great circle route of 2012nm with a limited payload (I doubt there's a ton of cargo to YYT)? It's seasonal because there's not enough demand for year-round service. It has nothing to do with the aircraft. With 500nm more range, the NEO will make it even easier.

Nonsense. LOL. Was I talking about the NEO? No. I was talking about the operation as it is today.

How often does the rock get socked in in the winter? It's often. Standard alternate airports are YJT, YDF, YQX.

You start having to use something further away such as YYR and the operation for that day is in trouble. It happened several times this summer. Mid Atlantic they diverted to Goose as they didnt have the fuel to try anything in YYT and their alternate went t/u. Thats the summer.

The operation is a little more dynamic than looking up range numbers on wiki or airbus/boeing.com

The ETOPS certification isnt a big problem. It requires certain radios, upgraded fire suppression and money to pay for the certification. You do it off the hop it's no problem. AC spent I believe on the order a million bucks per airframe just for paperwork signoffs.

[Edited 2012-12-08 15:41:50]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: gingersnap
Posted 2012-12-08 15:47:59 and read 12572 times.

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 34):

I don't know why, but I see AC as a total 737MAX airline.

Each to their own but I don't see anything other than NEO for the bulk of the order.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-08 16:03:36 and read 12559 times.

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 43):
Each to their own but I don't see anything other than NEO for the bulk of the order.

I do too. But the conspiracy theorist in me sees the CSeries. Which I think will be the lemon of the bunch.

Canadian company, needs a big first order. Govt would likely guarantee the financing or the loans.

Air Canada is in the midst of protracted negotiations concerning pension funding relief for another unprecedented 10 years with $150m per year cap. I dont think the govt would just toss them that benefit for free. Think of all the jobs in Quebec, le drool.....

It would be just to easy I think. I sure hope you're right tho.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-08 16:10:43 and read 12533 times.

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 43):
Quoting liftsifter (Reply 34):

I don't know why, but I see AC as a total 737MAX airline.

Each to their own but I don't see anything other than NEO for the bulk of the order.

Agree. After a quarter century of A320 family experience and the investment in parts, training, maintenance equipment etc., I can't see AC reverting to the 737 which, despite all the upgrades, is still based on a 1960s design.

And with WS being a major 737 operator, AC has a competitive advantage with the A320's wider cabin and resulting option of wider seats or a wider aisle.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2012-12-08 16:39:13 and read 12467 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
Ummm, that's exactly how Airbus is marketing this aircraft. As a 757 replacement. But clearly you know more than their marketing staff.

Any idea how many 757s are used on US-Europe TATL service? You should look it up sometime.

And where do these 757's operate from? Large O&D / point-2-point markets like JFK, EWR, IAD and major airlines hubs. The equivalent for AC is YYZ. And they can fill widebodies no problem.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
But the CS300ER with a 2950nm range can definitely all them and probably with a decent payload too.

How about cargo?

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
The CSeries ER versions have the range to do any route in North and Central America.

How about cargo?

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
And they get a substantially cheaper-to-operate aircraft at the middle range (A319 replacement). Added bonus: the CSeries offers substantially more passenger amenities (wider seats, larger windows, larger bins) than the NEO or the MAX.

I dont know this for a fact, but I think it would be cheaper to operate the 319 as part of the 32S family instead of introduce yet another type. As Longhauler notes, there are some capabilities the 319 has which are beneficial for AC.

Quoting ytz (Reply 31):
I'd be surprised if AC doesn't get a few more 321s. It really offers tons of potential as a medium-haul aircraft for AC. Like opening up some more TATL service from YHZ.

I thought about it before posting. They only have 10 at the moment, so you will note I doubled that. There is going to be no transtlantic from YHZ. There is a thread on the subject at the moment, there is no population there and the LHR flight serves the purpose for most of the O&D traffic. If AC were to make YHZ a hub, it would be at the expense of YYZ and a lesser extend YUL. Why would they do that? So they wont.

Elsewhere in the network, as has been noted, the E190 does a lot of flying and out west has been used to offer frequency. When I first moved here there were more A32S flights YVR-YYC for example, but now it is mostly if not all E190 but there is a flight pretty much every hour, at least in summer. The downside is - and I keep mentioning it as I think its important - they can not carry hardly any cargo, it now has to go by road, which sort of defeats the purpose of air freight. For an O&G market like AB, there are some pretty chuncky pieces of cargo. Their loss and Cargojet's gain I guess, but I guess they deemed the frequency was more important than the cargo in these markets.

Long term I agree I can see the the CS replacing the E190, but not now. The A32S is at AC in large numbers for a reason and AFAIK those reasons have not - and will not in the future - change.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
Or YVR-Hawaii (not just HNL). They could serve OGG, KOA or LIH. No need to send out a 763 daily

WS use 737's to HI, so not outside the range for the current A32S fleet. Maybe, just maybe, AC use 767's because they have enough bums to fill the seats??

Quoting lostsound (Reply 36):
Don't forget YYT - LHR

A route that would go away if no 319 in the fleet IMO.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 33):
all B 763ER operated domestic and trans-border flights easily

But AC use all their widebodies on YYZ-YVR for example, yes they are tags or repositioning to longhaul flights for the most part, but again they are generally always full. And again - cargo. AC make a lot of money moving cargo between YVR & YYZ. Hence why the 767 and even more so the 77W can never be replaced by a 321 (even though it carrys smaller containers and is therefore much better than a 737 or CS or EJet),. That cargo then transits on to the South American and European flights.

I doubled my number of 321's as there will be some dilution of the markets when the LCC is operating with 767's and they are out of the network to do transcon tags, but the 321 can never repalce the 767, just like the CS or EJet can not replace the A32S.

As far as the fleet goes, I do think that is one area where AC have got it right for their network and vast size of the home market.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-08 17:03:58 and read 12405 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Quoting lostsound (Reply 36):
It's not a long or far flight but If Air Canada continues that route, the CSeries would have to get certified for ETOPS.

They are already planning to certify it for ETOPS 120 by EIS and 180 within 6 months after.

BBD have stated CS100 ETOPS 'out-of-the-box', so LCY-JFK could start up on delivery. I think this would be Privat Air.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-08 17:20:56 and read 12373 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
And with WS being a major 737 operator, AC has a competitive advantage with the A320's wider cabin and resulting option of wider seats or a wider aisle

Come on Viscount724 you can do better than drag this one out.  What is it, 2.8" at the shoulders divided over 6-seats. It is hardly measurable. I would suggest that there are a number of other seat characteristics that can make for a better or worse seating experience. For me it is whether the cushion still provides good support or whether it sinks away into a hard glob of whatever it is inside the cover.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-08 18:20:46 and read 12263 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 41):
2) Bombardier is certifying the aircraft for ETOPS because one of the buyers is interested in deploying the aircraft on the LCY-JFK route. And unlike BA with its 318s, the CSeries will be able to do that route without stopping in Shannon for gas.

Hmmm. And how is this going to happen? The A318 has better range than any C Series.

The problem with this route has to do with the runway limit weight leaving LCY. Are you telling me the CSeries's runway performance is that much better than the A318 that it can go non-stop westbound off a 4,900 foot runway?

BA goes to SHA because it cant takeoff from that small runway with the fuel required. SHA allows for US Customs pre clearance which makes the best out of a bad situation.

Bombardier is likely saying the route is possible with SIGNIFICANT ZFW restrictions out of City.

I know of no airliner that can perform at MTOW and achieve a balanced field off a 4,900 ft runway.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2012-12-08 18:52:06 and read 12217 times.

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 34):

As do I for some reason. I believe Boeing will try to capture both Air Canada and British when they issue their request.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):

And the A320, which is based on 1977-1982 technology, is soooo much better? Please, if you really think the 737MAX is anything close to the original 737, then you are just being a fanboy.

If anything, the A320 is the closer of the two to its original version as it has never had a major update since its introduction until now, but likely has had a few production updates, where as the 737 has had two major updates plus multiple production updates.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-08 20:28:58 and read 12058 times.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 50):

If anything, what gives the 320 the leg up is continuity. All things being equal, if there is no clear advantage in performance or price, there really isn't much reason to change. If, as some have mentioned, AC actually does use the containers for cargo, that give the Airbus a definite advantage.

I really doubt AC wants to foot the expense of changing all that in situ infrastructure.

As well, staying with the Airbii give AC a clearer differentiation from Westjet.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: lostsound
Posted 2012-12-08 21:33:18 and read 11881 times.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 50):
As do I for some reason. I believe Boeing will try to capture both Air Canada

They'll try and most likely fail.

I don't see the business case for AC to swap over to a completely different product when the product they currently operate can be purchased with major updates, but very minimal transitioning in maintenance, ground, and crew training along with the containerized cargo which was a selling point for AC way back when when choosing between the 737-400 and A320. Any spare parts AC has its hands on would stay of value which saves costs. Both the MAX and NEO are so neck in neck, the performance of the aircraft itself almost becomes less prominent in this decision in my person opinion.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: davs5032
Posted 2012-12-08 23:25:05 and read 11727 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 40):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
the E190 for the Cseries, and that would be a tough sell.

I can see for reasons of cost. And by that, I mean capital, retraining, etc. But are you suggesting AC wouldn't consider if they were given an offer that involved trading in/remarketing the E-Jets? Why not? I see such a deal as an amazing opportunity for AC. They get a more capable aircraft to replace the E-190 for nearly the same operating costs. And they get a substantially cheaper-to-operate aircraft at the middle range (A319 replacement). Added bonus: the CSeries offers substantially more passenger amenities (wider seats, larger windows, larger bins) than the NEO or the MAX. That would be good for AC's brand.

They're all valid points, and I agree. However, it's just hard for me to see AC, which has just recently put the E190 teething problems in the rear-view mirror, buy another brand new type that would force them to go through the process again...probably on an even-larger scale given how ground-breaking the Cseries is for BBD. Granted, BBD would be there to provide plenty of support, but I don't know if AC will do that unless they have to...which would probably come in the form of a heavy government "nudge".

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
And with WS being a major 737 operator, AC has a competitive advantage with the A320's wider cabin and resulting option of wider seats or a wider aisle.

It's nice for passengers, but let's be honest, it's not anywhere near enough of an advantage to sway an airline in making a decision between the two. Airlines know that 99% of passengers won't pay any more for an extra inch of Y seat, and most of those passengers wouldn't even know that one plane offers that extra inch or which airlines do/don't have that particular plane in their fleet for that matter. The 50/50 split in the market clearly establishes all of this.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
But the CS300ER with a 2950nm range can definitely all them and probably with a decent payload too.

How about cargo?

Is there really a need to transport so much cargo that it would hurt the range that much? I'd think not, but I don't have actual knowledge on that. You'd think the cargo needs would be present, but not overwhelming.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
I dont know this for a fact, but I think it would be cheaper to operate the 319 as part of the 32S family instead of introduce yet another type. As Longhauler notes, there are some capabilities the 319 has which are beneficial for AC.

Would depend on many things. Hypothetically, say AC brought in a bunch of CS-100's and 300's to replace both A319's and E190's...then you're talking about a large enough fleet where scope concerns diminish considerably. If the Cseries family is joining the fleet anyway to replace the Ejets, then it would be much easier to justify spreading their use upward. Also, if AC gets a low-ball deal from BBD and a government thank you of some sort  , then it looks a little different from their perspective. You know the BBD planes will cost more during the welcoming stage, but they should also save a considerable amount over the long term.

-Personally, I don't think this will happen, but for those reasons, it wouldn't shock me at all.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
Quoting lostsound (Reply 36):
Don't forget YYT - LHR

A route that would go away if no 319 in the fleet IMO.

Couldn't a CS-300ER do this? I'd think so, with a 2900 nm range....YYT-LHR must be significantly less than that.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 49):
Hmmm. And how is this going to happen? The A318 has better range than any C Series.

The problem with this route has to do with the runway limit weight leaving LCY. Are you telling me the CSeries's runway performance is that much better than the A318 that it can go non-stop westbound off a 4,900 foot runway?

BA goes to SHA because it cant takeoff from that small runway with the fuel required. SHA allows for US Customs pre clearance which makes the best out of a bad situation.

Bombardier is likely saying the route is possible with SIGNIFICANT ZFW restrictions out of City.

First of all, I highly doubt Privatair would have bought the CS100 to do that route and that route only if it weren't absolutely certain it could do the job (well enough to make a business case), and not based on BBD's promises, but by making sure of it themselves. A CS-100ER has only slightly less range, so that doesn't kill it's for the route. As for your runway concerns, have you considered that the CS-100 will be significantly lighter than A-318? That pretty much solves your problem right there; if the A318 can do it, the CS-100 should be able to do it as well...also it burns, and therefore needs to carry less fuel to fly the same distance, so it could get the same runway performance while being able to carry even more pax/cargo weight. That the CS-100's take-off run distance is listed as significantly less than the A318's is not surprising.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-08 23:49:38 and read 11694 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 42):
You start having to use something further away such as YYR and the operation for that day is in trouble. It happened several times this summer. Mid Atlantic they diverted to Goose as they didnt have the fuel to try anything in YYT and their alternate went t/u. Thats the summer.

Does that have to do with the aircraft being fuel limited or the fact that YYT and all the nearby alternates get hit by the same weather system frequently, making the alternate less viable?

In any event, I don't see how this one specific route is all that important to the topic being discussed...

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 44):
Which I think will be the lemon of the bunch.

So an aircraft that offers every pax more comfort that AC plans to offer on its widebodies going forward, the most cabin luggage capacity per pax, luggage bins that can fit oversize bags and bigger windows, is the "lemon of the bunch". I get that you have a hate on for Bombardier for some irrational reason. Lots of self-hating Canadians share your viewpoints. But I'd like to know what factual basis exists for slander like this?

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
And where do these 757's operate from? Large O&D / point-2-point markets like JFK, EWR, IAD and major airlines hubs.

And they also operate from smaller hubs like BOS, PHX, SFO, PHL, etc. A 321 is even smaller.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
How about cargo?

That's what the 321NEOs are for. I've consistently maintained that the AC short-haul fleet should be two types: CSeries and A321NEOs. The stations that have cargo demand will get 321 service. At least one 321 flight a day. Other cities get CSeries service or use CSeries service to add frequencies.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
I dont know this for a fact, but I think it would be cheaper to operate the 319 as part of the 32S family instead of introduce yet another type.

I'd argue that this assertion is weak. If you replace the E-Jets with the Cseries, AC will still be only operating 2 types of narrowbodies. I'd agree with your point, if the E-Jets stay. Then again, I have said repeatedly in this thread, that there's no business case for Bombardier without some kind of remarketing deal for the E-Jets.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
As Longhauler notes, there are some capabilities the 319 has which are beneficial for AC.

And there are some where the CSeries kicks its behind. Passenger comfort and fuel burn come to mind. Longhauler also got the range numbers wrong.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
There is going to be no transtlantic from YHZ.

There is TATL from YHZ today. Why would there be none going forward? If they can fill a 763 today, it stands to reason that AC might just be able to fragment that demand a little and serve several cities with smaller aircraft.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
Long term I agree I can see the the CS replacing the E190, but not now. T

If they are going to replace the E190s with the CSeries later, they might as well do the 319s now as well and get some kind of remarketing agreement for the 190s out of Bombardier. Or they get more 319s and refresh the 190s with probably more 190s down the road.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 46):
Maybe, just maybe, AC use 767's because they have enough bums to fill the seats??

As above, I'd say they can fragment the demand and serve other cities in Hawaii like OGG, LIH and KOA.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 49):
Hmmm. And how is this going to happen? The A318 has better range than any C Series.

Ask Bombardier:

"Bombardier has designated FTV5 as the cabin demonstrator, and the aircraft will be used for systems functionality and reliability (F&R) and extended operations (ETOPS) testing. Bombardier aims to deliver the aircraft certified for 120min at entry into service at the end of 2013 with its undisclosed launch customer, said Dewar. A further six-month ETOPS testing trial will extend the performance to 180min."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ries-flight-test-programme-366583/

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 49):
Bombardier is likely saying the route is possible with SIGNIFICANT ZFW restrictions out of City.

Sure enough. But this Odyssey will still be able to carry more pax directly to New York without the SNN fuel stop. And yes, field performance is supposed to be better than the A318. Look it up.

The A318 is a double shrink. Do you really expect it'll be competitve with an airframe optimized specifically for that size category?

Quoting lostsound (Reply 52):
They'll try and most likely fail.

I don't see the business case for AC to swap over to a completely different product

The business case for the sale is up to the OEMs. Not the airline. Boeing could make this work if they want it badly enough. One idea in their favour is AC going all Boeing for the widebody fleet. Could make for easier crew transitions, and working relationships with one OEM for most of their fleet. In any event, it would be up to Boeing to make the numbers work. And AC should be willing to consider Boeing's proposal. If they aren't, there's no incentive for Airbus to try hard.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 00:14:11 and read 11638 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 53):
Airlines know that 99% of passengers won't pay any more for an extra inch of Y seat, and most of those passengers wouldn't even know that one plane offers that extra inch or which airlines do/don't have that particular plane in their fleet for that matter.

Very true. However, I'd say that aircraft type does go towards branding. An extreme example would be what the A380 has done for EK. Or more broadly even the fact that EK has an all widebody fleet.

In this case, I'd say the CSeries might actually have something to offer AC in terms of branding. 80% of all seats in economy are window or aisle. That compares to 66% for six-abreast aircraft. Next, the luggage space. The CSeries bins can fit larger trolley bags. A bonus in this day and age of limited checked-luggage. Then there's the slightly wider seats and the larger windows. All in all, I'm willing to bet that the CSeries would leave a very positive impression on passengers. No such advantages from the NEO or MAX.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 53):
Couldn't a CS-300ER do this? I'd think so, with a 2900 nm range....YYT-LHR must be significantly less than that.

It definitely could. YYT-LHR is less than 2100nm. The CS300ER has a 2950nm range. Heck, it should be able to handle LHR-YHZ.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: GCT64
Posted 2012-12-09 04:42:30 and read 11400 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
Not sure why the hate for the E190. Its a wonderful aircraft for AC,

I agree, I can't see why AC would want to dump the E190s. In my experience (incl. the long YYZ-SEA leg) the AC E190s are, in Y, the most comfortable narrowbodies operating in North America today and I seek out opportunities to fly on them rather than other options.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-09 07:07:25 and read 11227 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 54):
Does that have to do with the aircraft being fuel limited or the fact that YYT and all the nearby alternates get hit by the same weather system frequently, making the alternate less viable?

Both. The limiting factor is the amount of gas the airplane can physically carry. One of the other challenges on this route is the fact that the ETOPS alternates are pretty much at the same place as the origin & destination. This presents problems in that the critical point calculation for the ETOPS part of the route requires the aircraft to descend to 10,000 feet at the critical point (posssibly on one engine depending on what is more limiting). Because of the proximity of the destination you have to BOARD more gas for this contingency.

I agree it's a lot of talk about a single route but remember you said my claim that this route was challenging was "Nonsense". I guess enlightening you to what really happens (not on paper or in wiki) is a bit too much to take for you.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 54):
Ask Bombardier:

"Bombardier has designated FTV5 as the cabin demonstrator, and the aircraft will be used for systems functionality and reliability (F&R) and extended operations (ETOPS) testing. Bombardier aims to deliver the aircraft certified for 120min at entry into service at the end of 2013 with its undisclosed launch customer, said Dewar. A further six-month ETOPS testing trial will extend the performance to 180min."

This entire statement has nothing to do with anything. I questioned the Cseries abilities due to it's shorter range than the 318 and you have me asking Bombardier a question I never asked. ETOPS ceritifcation is a non event or else the route is a non starter. People think that because an aircraft is ETOPS certified that it's wham-o an immediately viable option to fly the atlantic. It just allows it to fly the Atlantic. Big Deal.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 53):
That the CS-100's take-off run distance is listed as significantly less than the A318's is not surprising.

Take off run means nothing. It's accelerate stop distance is the one thats going to be the issue here. I would guess that since this route is at the far reaches of this aircrafts capabilities it would need to be pretty much full of fuel. At MTOW wiki lists it's take off run at 6,200 feet. So that would put this thing off the end of LCY by a couple thousand feet. 6,200 foot take off run doesnt mean much its the WAT limit weight for the given day, so it can reject a take off and not end up in Copenhagen. I would say is likely around a 25-40% reduction in ZFW to be able to A)carry the gas for the route B) make the takeoff legal.

I could care less really if this works or not, it's no skin off my back. But beware any time people start pushing aircraft to their limit. I'd say the ticket price on this flight is going to be massively high to be able to produce the yield required to offset the ability to fill the aircraft totally. If they make it work so be it. I doubt it. And yes this is an educated "I doubt it".

I doubt it about as much as all this trans atlantic traffic you have set for Air Canada flying A321's out of YHZ.

Now that. Is nonsense.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: davs5032
Posted 2012-12-09 07:46:48 and read 11162 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 57):
Take off run means nothing. It's accelerate stop distance is the one thats going to be the issue here. I would guess that since this route is at the far reaches of this aircrafts capabilities it would need to be pretty much full of fuel. At MTOW wiki lists it's take off run at 6,200 feet. So that would put this thing off the end of LCY by a couple thousand feet. 6,200 foot take off run doesnt mean much its the WAT limit weight for the given day, so it can reject a take off and not end up in Copenhagen. I would say is likely around a 25-40% reduction in ZFW to be able to A)carry the gas for the route B) make the takeoff legal.

You're looking @ the CS-300's take off run. The CS-100's, which is what Privatair has purchased for the route, is listed @ 4,951ft/1,509m, which just happens to be what around the length of LCY's runway, if the length posted above (I believe you might have posted it) is correct. The A318's take off run is listed @ 5,900. However significant (or even accurate) these numbers will end up being, I don't see how, given such a weight disparity between the two planes, the CS100 couldn't be able to handle LCY even better than the A318 does currently. Even if the CS100 can't make the LCY-JFK route straight w/o a fuel stop, it will still be doing the same thing the A318 does, while using much less fuel in the process.

Does the 4,950ft vs. 6,200ft take off roll correction change your thinking on this?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-09 08:14:58 and read 11083 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 58):
Does the 4,950ft vs. 6,200ft take off roll correction change your thinking on this?

Not really. For me the big thing is the viability of the route based on it being non stop. You mention earlier that it may need a fuel stop, in that case load the airplane up! Unfortunately you lose the premium price you charge for the route being non stop and everything changes. The Take Off Run data is only one half of the equation. The question is the length it's needed to accelerate and stop.

Air Canada for instance flew YYZ-DEL years ago with the 340-300. Eastbound no problem. Westbound was a disaster. But it came with a temporary silver lining*. They had to load restrict the westbound flight to be able to make YYZ. Imagine what a pain it is to have to turn away freight. In Delhi. Anyways, the J Class ticket was very high due to the fact that it was non stop. Even load restricting the flight wouldn't work at times so the aircraft would fly to Stockholm. During those days AC would fill the aircraft to the gunnels, freight and pax. They made a killing. Right up until those people paying huge money for J started to get a little upset with the stop which became more a norm than a rarity. Shortly after the route stopped and the 767 was put on via ZRH.

Point is Airbus would say you could do the route. You take a look at it and say "wow, lets do it." Then you start crunching numbers and realize you're pushing the aircraft too far and to make the most of it you realize non stop is not viable. You then immediately lose the high yield tickets and the entire route's feasibility changes drastically.

I guess at the end of the day is this company is going to have to limit it's ZFW substantially IMO. It's up to their marketing to figure out the ticket price required to offset the ability to put more bums/freight in the aircraft (that said it would be a near zero freigh flt anyways). I guess I'm a little skeptical of the aircraft being capable of performing the route regardless of ZFW restrictions. Anyways, thats my two nickels. Take care.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: davs5032
Posted 2012-12-09 08:55:15 and read 10987 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 59):

You make fair points. I think we're just looking at this from different angles. My thinking is that if the CS100 can allow Privatair the ability to do LHR->JFK on a "quick-stop," just as is done with the A318 now, that will still be a valuable option that provides a viable business case for Privatair. The J customers aren't going to grow irritated & abandon the quick-stop method because it's the best option available, and it's still *by far* the fastest/easiest commercial way for "Business Man" to get from downtown London to downtown NYC, and that provides value for him which justifies paying the premium fare. The significance in having the CS100, is that it could give Privatair a chance to undercut the competition on price charged, which in turn will benefit "Business Man," who will have two competitors forced to compete for his business. I don't know the amount of gas $$ that would be saved on this route by using a CS100 vs. an A318, but I do know that it would be significant....significant enough to allow for Privatair to compete on the route and achieve a healthy profit margin at the same time. So, I'm not looking at this with the view that the CS-100 must be "non-stop" or bust on LHR->JFK, b/c it would still be able to match the competitor's offering, with the flexibility of a potentially lower cost-structure.

-If the CS-100 *can* achieve a non-stop both ways, (and I'm intrigued by this possibility, b/c the much lighter weight of the CS100 relative to the A318 is a big factor in being able to get out of LCY with enough fuel for the journey), then it would be a significant achievement that could result in a windfall of profits for Privatair. Perhaps you could enlighten me, how many minutes does the total refueling procedure in Shannon delay the final arrival time in JFK? 30-45 minutes? I'm just curious how much total time is being spent by stopping. Thx.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 09:07:32 and read 10942 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 57):
Both.

Right. But earlier you presented one case.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 57):
I guess enlightening you to what really happens (not on paper or in wiki) is a bit too much to take for you.

Ditto for you I suppose. You have still avoided the question of what makes the CSeries a "lemon". Wider seats, bigger windows, more luggage room, higher chance to get an aisle or window seat, 20% lower fuel burn than the 319 and range just short of the 319 today. So why is it a lemon? Don't avoid the question this time.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 57):
I questioned the Cseries abilities due to it's shorter range than the 318 and you have me asking Bombardier a question I never asked.

The listed range is just 150nm shorter on the CS100ER. Of course, we'll have to see the range-payload diagram when it comes out. And you mostly certainly questioned whether BBD could achieve ETOPS for the CSeries.

In any event, you accuse me of only relying on wiki. Apparently, you aren't even capable of that kind of effort. Read:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...nalysis-a318-and-cseries-go-h.html

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 57):
People think that because an aircraft is ETOPS certified that it's wham-o an immediately viable option to fly the atlantic. It just allows it to fly the Atlantic. Big Deal.

Ummm. It is a big deal. How many 100 seaters you know have launched with ETOPS out of the box? And LCY steep approach capability?

In any event, topic at hand. I'd like you to answer directly why the CSeries should be considered a "lemon". What facts do you have to back it up? Or are you going to admit that you are just pulling such lines out of your rear? BBD took a chance on the GTF before Airbus did. And the CSeries will still have a lower fuel burn. And that's on top of passenger amenities that Airbus or Boeing can't touch. So please, enlighten us on why an aircraft that you don't know much about (you even confused TOFL between the 100ER and 300ER), have never flown in, or have any other experience with, is a lemon?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 09:44:18 and read 10864 times.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 56):
I agree, I can't see why AC would want to dump the E190s. In my experience (incl. the long SEA leg) the AC E190s are, in Y, the most comfortable narrowbodies operating in North America today and I seek out opportunities to fly on them rather than other options.

I don't get why anybody sees the possible replacement of E190s as a hate-on for the aircraft. I fully concur that the E190s are terrific aircraft. And more comfortable in many respects than the A32S.

But this is about what is good for AC going forward. I see two areas of concern: CASM and brand.

I don't see how you compete with WS by effectively offering the same product at higher cost. AC has to change the situation or the narrowbody recap will be a futile exercise.

This is exactly why I think the CS100ER/A321NEO combination offers them more.

The CS100ER offers them more seats at pretty much the same trip cost as the E190. And much higher comfort levels. Compared to the 319, it lets them serve virtually the same destinations as the 319 today with substantially higher comfort levels and substantially lower fuel burn. With the 319 replacement the debate would be CS100ER or CS300ER. I'd argue that they should go for the 100ER and make it a more than 1:1 replacement just so they can serve a few more places with direct runs or increase frequencies. But the CS300ER as a 1:1 replacement would still offer them substantial advantages. But honestly, if they are considering the CS300ER, I would think that AC should simply negotiate with BBD to launch the CS500ER. More seats than the A319. Lower trip costs. Broadly, the CSeries lets AC address lower demand routes without taking the substantial CASM hit that comes with using a smaller aircraft. CASM should be on par with a A320NEO/738MAX, without the trip costs of operating those larger aircraft.

The A321NEO lets them win on CASM. You have WS flying 73Gs and moving to 738s slowly. And WS will obviously move to the 738MAX in due course. They will consistently have lower CASM than AC unless AC goes with the 321NEO for most of its "trunk" routes so to speak. And not just WS. Many of AC's American competitors will be upsizing in the future as well. And they'll all be going to 738MAX or A320NEOs. AC has an opportunity to lower CASM and offer more seats. Capture a bit more market share. Also, room for more cargo in the belly.

Anyway, this is just a rough idea. Obviously, there's the impact of the LCC going forward which is bound to change aircraft buying strategies. There's also issues that we don't have insight into. For example, how much cargo does AC get on many of its 319 routes, so that containerized cargo is such a big deal that Bombardier would automatically be out of the running for the 319 replacement.

The E190 is a good airplane. Great for passengers. Good for AC's bottom line. The CSeries, could, with the right deal, be better than the E190 on both those fronts. That's the argument I'm making. I am under no illusions that Bombardier is anything but the under-dog in this deal. I still see the only path for the CSeries into AC's stables is through a E-190 remarketing deal. However, it is encouraging that AC is talking to them.

[Edited 2012-12-09 10:33:11]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-09 09:50:56 and read 10865 times.

ETOPS is not a big deal at all. Open your eyes and brain. Ask yourself this before asking the question you did ask.

"How many 100 seaters needed ETOPS certification prior to this?"

There was no market. So your point is moot. And the market for this is going to be ultra thin anyways. We've hammered this LCY-JFK topic into the ground but at the end of the day the amount of Cseries airplanes flying the ocean will be minimal compared to those not. It's an option like a gold plated toilet seat is.

My statement of it being a lemon was mostly tongue in cheek but compared to a Boeing or Airbus airframe it will be the also ran. I guess the sales numbers will tell that story. I'm winning that argument thus far aren't I?

I never said ETOPS would be a problem. It never is. Just pay the governing agency after installing the equipment required and youre off. I did not ever say ETOPS is a big deal.

I'd like you to pass along your thesis about this 321 fantasy you have flying the atlantic out of that superhub you've dreamt up. What was it called again? Halifax?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 10:00:41 and read 10792 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 60):
My thinking is that if the CS100 can allow Privatair the ability to do LHR->JFK on a "quick-stop," just as is done with the A318 now, that will still be a valuable option that provides a viable business case for Privatair.

I was under the impression that Privat Air bought the aircraft to operate from GVA. It's Odyssey that bought the aircraft to operate from LCY. Nobody knows who is behind Odyssey though. Some suspect it's an Air France front. We'll only know closer to the aircraft being delivered.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 60):
The significance in having the CS100, is that it could give Privatair a chance to undercut the competition on price charged, which in turn will benefit "Business Man," who will have two competitors forced to compete for his business. I don't know the amount of gas $$ that would be saved on this route by using a CS100 vs. an A318, but I do know that it would be significant....significant enough to allow for Privatair to compete on the route and achieve a healthy profit margin at the same time.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...nalysis-a318-and-cseries-go-h.html

Over 20% less block fuel. And the CSeries can carry more pax since the fuselage is longer (supposedly 40-44 seats in all J configuration). That should make for quite a competitive advantage. BA, of course, will be limited by how much it can cut J fares without hurting LHR-JFK J fares. But BA also gets to offer a solid FFP. And unless Odyssey is a front for major airline, they won't have that option. So they'll have to offer lower fares and a better loyalty offering specific to its TATL service

I suspect that BA will wait to see how long Odyssey lasts. And then it'll order its own CS100ERs or it'll wait for Odyssey to go under and buy the aircraft and the whole LCY setup in one shot.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-09 10:12:17 and read 10757 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 63):
I'm winning that argument thus far aren't I?

Actually, CSeries has more orders and options prior to FF than did the 737 (which actually was nearly cancelled).

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 10:19:43 and read 10738 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 63):
My statement of it being a lemon was mostly tongue in cheek but compared to a Boeing or Airbus airframe it will be the also ran.

It was hardly tongue in cheek. You're just backtracking now because you have no actual facts to back up the statement.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 63):
I guess the sales numbers will tell that story. I'm winning that argument thus far aren't I?

Keep moving the goalposts of your argument. It's obvious what you're doing. Can't argue about the performance, so you're moving to sales?

Already outsold the 318 and 736. And I'd argue they'll get a lot more sales once the aircraft enters service. What airline isn't weary about a new airplane after all the recent launch fiascos? Once the aircraft enters service and serial production, we'll see. I can see BBD doing really well once the CS100 EIS' in 2014 and they announce the CS500ER. The latter is really the perfect A319 replacement. More seats than the A319 (still less than the A320). Lower costs.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 63):
I'd like you to pass along your thesis about this 321 fantasy you have flying the atlantic out of that superhub you've dreamt up. What was it called again? Halifax?

Where did I say superhub? Please cite the exact quote. Otherwise you are putting words in my mouth. I do think they can offer service from YHZ to a few more destinations by fragmenting that LHR demand. That hardly qualifies as building a "superhub". At the very minimum, the A321NEO, lets AC seriously cut costs on the YHZ-LHR route.

In any event, that was simply one example of how the 321NEO can be employed. I think the 321 is much more substantial for adding capacity and cutting CASM on routes like YYZ-LAX and for serving the Carribean/Central America/Mexico. More cargo potential. More J pax. Etc. See my above posts. These are far bigger drivers than some Halifax hub. And I've maintained that position since the beginning. Being able to offer a couple more direct TATL flights from YHZ is an added bonus, not the raison-d'etre for buying the airplane.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-12-09 10:33:05 and read 10714 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 49):
And how is this going to happen? The A318 has better range than any C Series.

But worse shortfield and Bombardier has signed up to improve the CS100 shortfield performance as Embraer did too.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 49):
The problem with this route has to do with the runway limit weight leaving LCY. Are you telling me the CSeries's runway performance is that much better than the A318 that it can go non-stop westbound off a 4,900 foot runway?

There is a 5t difference in empty weight which is significant. Since the CS100 has a lighter empty weight than the A318, it will benefit more dropping to a low payload configuration. Per YTZ's link in post 61, 800ft shorter takeoff run! It should still be able to go Westbound in an all J configuration while the A318 requires a stop.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 55):
In this case, I'd say the CSeries might actually have something to offer AC in terms of branding.

That too. We can debate how much, but it does offer something for AC.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 61):
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...nalysis-a318-and-cseries-go-h.html

From your link: "The CS100ER is unlikely to have this restriction
as its TOFL does not exceed 4500 ft for a great majority
of statistically probable en-route headwinds."


The short field performance of the CS100 is designed to be far superior to the A318. We could debate on the value of the weight added to the CS100 to achieve that performance, but what matters is that it is designed to do the job. JFK, EWR, BOS, and IAD are all prime candidates from LCY with non-stop performance. With a one stop... only JFK and possibly EWR (with a *A carrier) are of interest.

Now what if the CS100 beats promise? My rumor mill is insisting Pratt is holding fuel burn in reserve as they cannot afford to look bad on the C-series.

I also suspect the MTOW of the CS100 has room to grow. While that isn't of benefit from LCY, it would enable other dedicated TATL service. (Or mid-east to Europe, e.g., for QR).

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 61):
And the CSeries will still have a lower fuel burn.

CFRP    I'm still trying to figure out why Boeing didn't do well with the 787's body weight, but CFRP in a wing allows for quite a weight reduction.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-09 10:40:15 and read 10690 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 65):
Actually, CSeries has more orders and options prior to FF than did the 737 (which actually was nearly cancelled).

Huh? I think there's a misunderstanding here. AC will obviously order the MAX or the NEO, or of course YTZs beloved CSeries.

Are you saying the Cseries is outselling either of those? Which 737 are you speaking of? I am talking MAX and NEO.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 10:46:38 and read 10656 times.

@lightsaber,

I have always wondered if the CSeries could do LHR-YHZ in a conventional J/Y configuration. Now that would be something!

And I too suspect that PW is holding off (you have sources...so do I   ). Not just the CSeries, of course. Those improvements will even sell on the NEO. Airbus knows that....since they did the flight testing for the engine.

I am also willing to venture that BBD will meet or exceed their obligations on the CSeries. If/when that happens, it should make for some even more interesting discussions.

I have always maintained that the CSeries won't really take off till they launch the CS500.

When it comes to AC, it's really a unique offering. Just like AC using E190s as mainline, while other carriers have gone regional with this aiframe, AC is also in a unique position to capitalize on the abilities of the CSeries.

From a passenger persepective, I don't know why somebody would not want to fly the CSeries. The amenities are quite substantial. And that's the reason, I'm rooting for it....even if the odds are rather long!

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-09 10:50:21 and read 10640 times.

Here ya go YTZ. I guess I'll get chastised for moving goal posts again.

Scott acknowledges that Bombardier had hoped to launch the CSeries programme with a firm order for 50- to 100-aircraft. "What changed our mind was Lufthansa - you can't get a better customer than Lufthansa. They did also sign up for 30 options and I have some confidence they will firm up those."

The Bombardier executive touts the CSeries' short-runway capability. "The CS100 will do London City. It can fly from there and fly 1,400nm." The CS300 will not do London City, however.

That's from Gary Scott quoted in Flight Global.

Of course you're LCY JFK route looks slightly longer than this so I would say to get to the 3,100 nm GC distance you'd be dropping massive amounts of ZFW. MASSIVE.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 10:53:56 and read 10616 times.

Quick question to anybody on here. How many FAs on the E-190 and A319? Could AC run with 3 FAs on the CS100/CS300? (1 for J, 2 for Y cabins). Or are there union rules preventing that?

Whatever they pick, I hope they do something with the IFE like VX's Red system. In-flight ordering. Awesome.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 10:55:15 and read 10624 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 70):
The CS300 will not do London City,

Pull out the exact line where i said the CS300 would be doing any route from LCY.

Exact quote, please. Go through my posts and pull it out. I will fully admit to being wrong in advance, if I have in any way alluded to the idea that the CS300 can/will operate from LCY. But I am confident, I have never said that.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 70):
Of course you're LCY JFK route looks slightly longer than this so I would say to get to the 3,100 nm GC distance you'd be dropping massive amounts of ZFW. MASSIVE.

Nobody here has argued LCY-JFK as anything more than an all J service. You seem to be reading opinions that aren't there.

The only future narrowbody that could go TATL in a conventional configuration would be one of the NEOs. I said that.

By the way, you are mixing up the CS100 and the CS100ER. LH/LX are buying the CS100 (2200nm range). Not the CS100ER (2950nm range). The latter is what Odyssey has signed up for.

[Edited 2012-12-09 11:01:53]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-09 10:59:27 and read 10598 times.

Did I say you did? A little jumpy bud. LOL.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

LMAO

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 11:04:03 and read 10570 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 73):
Did I say you did? A little jumpy bud. LOL.

Read you posts. I only got my hackles up because of the tone of your posts. They are unnecessarily arrogant and aggressive.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 73):
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

It'll be better if you leave the rest of us to have a civil discussion in this forum.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-09 11:35:48 and read 10506 times.

YTZ. I think you need to take a deep breath.

I got my "hackles" up when you called a statement I made about the LHR-YYT route being challenging; "nonsense". I found that completely arrogant and aggressive myself as I assumed correctly that you had absolutely ZERO clue as to what you were talking about when it came to the challenges facing a short range airliner on that specific route.

I would suggest a seasoned airliners.net veteran watch out calling certain posts nonsense. Noob or not someone likely will come along who mayknow substantially more than you on the subject matter. Number of posts rarely means anything but too much time on ones hands.

As for my post concerning the Cseries quoting Gary Scott. I was hoping his 1,400nm mission length would lend some credibility to my doubt of it being able to perform the route non-stop successfully. Seeing that number of 1,400nm I'd say theyd likely have to eliminate closer to 50% of potential ZFW. If there is a business case there they'd better hope people are willing to pay massively for it. They already are on the LCY-SHA-JFK route.

Anyway, two way street sir. I would think twice when chastising me about my tone when you quite quickly joined the fray.

Good day.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: miller22
Posted 2012-12-09 11:51:54 and read 10445 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 70):
The Bombardier executive touts the CSeries' short-runway capability. "The CS100 will do London City. It can fly from there and fly 1,400nm." The CS300 will not do London City, however.

Silly man. That's at type spec...110 seats to save you the trouble of Googling it. The 318 today only operates with 32.

I could take the time to explain how much the weight of 78 passengers will have on range, but I will let you Google that one.

Here is a fantastic flightglobal article that talks about why the CS100 will fly non-stop LCY-JFK, and why the 318 cannot.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...nalysis-a318-and-cseries-go-h.html

Now, can we put this range nonsense to rest?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 12:17:22 and read 10409 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 75):
I would suggest a seasoned airliners.net veteran watch out calling certain posts nonsense. Noob or not someone likely will come along who mayknow substantially more than you on the subject matter. Number of posts rarely means anything but too much time on ones hands.
Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 75):
Anyway, two way street sir.

Forget number of posts. The fact that I've been around for 2.5 years less than you have on a.net, yet have a 3x higher respect rating should tell you something about where the problem lies.

Anyway, I'm done with this. Enjoy your day.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 12:29:56 and read 10346 times.

@Miller22

Not just the fuel capacity to go direct. The longer (but less wide) cabin allows for 8 (25%) more J seats. 40 seats. Combine that with 22.5% lower block fuel burn.

That'll be something like 35% lower CASM. I imagine that the new operator will be able to undercut BA by quite a bit.

[Edited 2012-12-09 12:31:21]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: davs5032
Posted 2012-12-09 13:00:47 and read 10244 times.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 76):
Here is a fantastic flightglobal article that talks about why the CS100 will fly non-stop LCY-JFK, and why the 318 cannot.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl....html

Thanks for sharing that...I should searched for and utilized it rather than trying to making the argument by myself, but it backs me up at least.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-09 15:16:43 and read 10043 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 68):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 65):
Actually, CSeries has more orders and options prior to FF than did the 737 (which actually was nearly cancelled).

Huh? I think there's a misunderstanding here. AC will obviously order the MAX or the NEO, or of course YTZs beloved CSeries.

Are you saying the Cseries is outselling either of those? Which 737 are you speaking of? I am talking MAX and NEO.

Ah, grasshopper, there is much to learn. I see from your profile you are in the 36-45 category. I am older and remember.

The 737 as a project is 48. FF was April 1967, at that time there about 125 or so orders, primarily LH & UA. Summer/fall 1966 there was a vigorous debate in-house at Boeing regarding cancelling the whole program as many thought Boeing's financial exposure would be massive (for 1966) if there were few follow-on orders. Don't forget Boeing was a much smaller company then, not the behemoth it has become.

What I said was perfectly clear, had you taken the time to look it up.

No offense intended, hopefully none taken.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-09 15:28:33 and read 10014 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 69):
I have always wondered if the CSeries could do LHR-YHZ in a conventional J/Y configuration. Now that would be something!

Except there's not much of a market for that type of service. LCY-JFK is a very niche market that caters to those working in the financial industry because of the proximity of the London financial districts (the City and Canary Wharf areas) to LCY. Costs of operating at LCY are also high which requires a lot of high-yield traffic which doesn't exist LHR-YHZ.

For a route to YHZ, one of the smallest cities in North America with nonstop transatlantic service, you also need the connecting traffic that LHR provides.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-12-09 15:50:56 and read 9964 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 66):
Already outsold the 318 and 736. And I'd argue they'll get a lot more sales once the aircraft enters service. What airline isn't weary about a new airplane after all the recent launch fiascos?

   Not to mention Pratt miss after Pratt miss. My... rumor mill insists Pratt will beat target and I see conservatism in Bombardier's design.

On topic: AC will score a few political points if they buy from the home vendor. But it only makes sense if Bombardier delivers. For AC, a new lower cost per flight means to Europe is worth quite a bit. I keep hearing rumors of a MTOW increase on the CS100, but my friends 'in the know' won't violate their NDAs (other than optimistic comments, but *nothing* on MTOW for the CS100... The way they don't answer has me going hmmm....).

Quoting YTZ (Reply 69):
you have sources...so do I

Its an amazingly gossipy industry.  
Quoting YTZ (Reply 69):
I am also willing to venture that BBD will meet or exceed their obligations on the CSeries. If/when that happens, it should make for some even more interesting discussions.

I'm hearing by enough range to matter.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 69):
I have always maintained that the CSeries won't really take off till they launch the CS500.

I understand that is a huge market. I also think both of us realize if the CS500 had been proposed the 'allergic reaction' by A and B would have been huge. But that huge opportunity asside, I think the current products alone have much potential. However, a CS500 for U2 would be amazing...

Quoting YTZ (Reply 69):
AC is also in a unique position to capitalize on the abilities of the CSeries.

   With a little more range, that is. Range my rumor mill is optimistic on being delivered.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 70):
The CS300 will not do London City, however.

True. This is like the E170 at EIS, the initial one of that family to be optimized from LCY. But I wouldn't rule out the CS300 in the future.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 75):
I was hoping his 1,400nm mission length would lend some credibility to my doubt of it being able to perform the route non-stop successfully.

That was the minimum promised range to secure the order from LH. Bombardier was conservative. They worked hard to remove weight which means more fuel. Bombardier has already committed to a customer to TATL duty
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-signs-for-up-to-10-cs100s-367155/

"The aircraft will be certified for 180min extended operations (ETOPS) certification and will be capable of linking city centre airports such as London City with New York John F Kennedy non-stop in a premium configuration."

If you read the link in post #76, you will see the CS100 is far more capable than the minimum conceived.

The CS100 has been engineered to have far better short field performance than the time frame of your quote as noted in the far more recent quote I provided. You have to admit if Bombardier reaches their goals it opens up a number of markets. The engineers were given a tougher goal and my rumor mill insists that the analysis shows it will deliver.

But what if the rumors are conservatism are true... Recall how the 77W beat EIS promise... Well, what happens if the C-series beats promise? There is opportunity. In particular for the airline this thread is about: AC. Oh, also BA, LH, and others...

I personally see AC going with the 737-9MAX or A321NEO *and* the C-series.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 77):
The fact that I've been around for 2.5 years less than you have on a.net, yet have a 3x higher respect rating should tell you something about where the problem lies.

Welcome to my RU list.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 16:01:13 and read 9925 times.

@Viscount724

I get the purpose of the LCY-JFK link. But the reason I asked about YHZ-LHR was as a replacement for the existing 763 service. Like I said earlier, I wonder if AC can make more by fragmenting this route and serving more than one UK destination with narrowbodies instead. It's a stretch to be sure with the CSeries. I could see the 321NEO on this route just like many US carriers are using the 321NEO or 739MAX to replace the 752. 763 for this route might just be overkill for AC.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-09 16:24:24 and read 9866 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
No offense intended, hopefully none taken.

None at all. I just didn't make the connection between 737-100 and CSeries. I dont see the corollary except maybe you are saying that the sky is the limit. And indeed it is I just dont see it but thats just my opinion.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 81):
For a route to YHZ, one of the smallest cities in North America with nonstop transatlantic service, you also need the connecting traffic that LHR provides.

Could not agree more. YHZ is frankly lucky to have trans Atlantic service for the size of city. As is YYT but politics caused a massive outlay of capital for Air Canada to keep service up between that city and LHR, seasonally.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 83):
763 for this route might just be overkill for AC.

Says who? I've been on that flight many times and seen quite a bit of freight moving between the two cities. I don't know if they're making money or losing money. I do know that the A321 as it flies today would be a complete nightmare on the route. I have no idea about the NEO and don't see AC getting into a narrow body Oceanic service. Until they put a wing on that airplane that is appropriate then I think it's a great intra-europe high density/sector airplane. YYZ-YVR in the summer is pushing it for that dawg.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 17:22:28 and read 9758 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
Welcome to my RU list.

Finally, a favour returned!  
Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 84):
Could not agree more. YHZ is frankly lucky to have trans Atlantic service for the size of city. As is YYT but politics caused a massive outlay of capital for Air Canada to keep service up between that city and LHR, seasonally.

People, keep saying this. But I've yet to see evidence anywhere that AC is losing money on this route.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 84):
I do know that the A321 as it flies today would be a complete nightmare on the route.

Today, yes. But I've never argued that today's A321 could do it. The NEO though, is a whole different case. The extra 500nm adds just enough to the nose of the range-payload curve to make it a very feasible aircraft on YHZ-LHR. And could facilitate YHZ-MAN or YHZ-GLA or YHZ-DUB. I don't know if the market is there. I'm just suggesting that the aircraft could facilitate such routes without AC having to commit a widebody to such a market.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 84):
I have no idea about the NEO and don't see AC getting into a narrow body Oceanic service.

Really? Yet, they have a narrowbody on TATL today. AC would be foolish, as a business, if it's avoiding narrowbody oceanic service on principle. If the market is there, and they have the means to address it (with a narrowbody), they most certainly should.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 84):
YYZ-YVR in the summer is pushing it for that dawg.

And yet AC has no issues routinely deploying A32S aircraft on YYZ-YVR. Once the NEO comes around, AC won't be pushing anything using a 321NEO on this route. It'll be capable of max payload westbound on that run.

It really is time you started reading up on the NEO. It makes you look all the more lacking when you start commenting on what AC should get in the future when you freely admit to not knowing anything about these aircraft.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 17:39:18 and read 9692 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
I'm hearing by enough range to matter.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
With a little more range, that is. Range my rumor mill is optimistic on being delivered.

Interesting. I wonder what the figure is that matters to AC. What would they need on range-payload to make it work. I would guess TCON with a full payload. So YYZ-LAX for example.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
I understand that is a huge market. I also think both of us realize if the CS500 had been proposed the 'allergic reaction' by A and B would have been huge.

I'd say the launch of the NEO is validation enough of Bombardier's efforts. Airbus had the luxury of getting GTF test data without having to commit substantial resources or make commitments to the GTF program. Then they got to sweep in and toss the engine on a more mature airframe.

I think BBD made the right decision though, with not launching the CS500 right away. I agree witt you. It bought them time. Airbus might have committed immediately to the NEO and Boeing would have launched the MAX sooner.

But I guess, it's just a matter of time. The wing is clearly sized for a CS500. Doesn't even seem like the CS100 is the base aircraft. It seems like a shrink with the wing sized as it is right now.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
But that huge opportunity aside, I think the current products alone have much potential. However, a CS500 for U2 would be amazing...

And AC, LH, BA, etc. I know it's counter-intuitive to say this. But I think the CS500 might actually be really good for many mainline carriers. Most of them just don't need the range-payload of the A320. And the 738 is a little large in this category. While the 73G is too small.

For U2 though, I concur. Pretty much a tailor-made aircraft.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
I personally see AC going with the 737-9MAX or A321NEO *and* the C-series.

Crossed-fingers. I hope for this as a passenger.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 18:12:09 and read 9638 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):

I understand that is a huge market. I also think both of us realize if the CS500 had been proposed the 'allergic reaction' by A and B would have been huge.

I agree and it was smart of BBD to hit them where they ain't...at least at first. The CSeries was, to a significant degree, the impetus for the NEO and the MAX programs. If BBD had proposed a true 150 seater, Airbus and Boeing would have worked even harder to kill the program.

I don't think it will be long after first flight that BBD will start making noises about a CS500.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
True. This is like the E170 at EIS, the initial one of that family to be optimized from LCY. But I wouldn't rule out the CS300 in the future.

The CS300 could leave a lot of fuel at home and probably still reach most of Europe with a good load of passengers from LCY.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 82):
The CS100 has been engineered to have far better short field performance than the time frame of your quote as noted in the far more recent quote I provided.

I think it will find its niche as a superb short/high/hot field performer.

North America is chock full of potentially profitable long, thin routes. The same way that the 787 is intended to be a hub buster, the same might apply to the CSeries...just on a smaller scale.

All this is predicated on the CSeries performing on spec. If they can keep the delays down to the current first flight deadline, I predict a rosy future for the aircraft.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 18:52:55 and read 9563 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 87):
North America is chock full of potentially profitable long, thin routes.

And particularly for AC. Just look at the earlier example of YYZ-SEA. This is why I don't get the argument that the CSeries would not suit AC. The only question is whether AC and BBD can work a good deal to ditch the E-Jets. Otherwise, the E-Jets do the long, thin routes today. And the CSeries can do the same thing better. Few more pax. Even longer legs. Lower fuel burn.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 87):
The same way that the 787 is intended to be a hub buster, the same might apply to the CSeries...just on a smaller scale.

   I have always maintained that this would be the best use of the CSeries: as a regional equivalent of the 787. It's remarkable. The ability to take 100 pax, nearly 3000nm with seat-mile costs on par with a 738.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 87):
All this is predicated on the CSeries performing on spec. If they can keep the delays down to the current first flight deadline, I predict a rosy future for the aircraft.

   If they didn't have the Chinese production issues, they might have made first flight by the end of the year. I'm surprised the announced a 6-month delay. But I think they're being cautious. The airplane is nearly done being put together. They'll be ground testing in Jan. I say they'll have first flight in Feb-March. And barring any production issues, they might still make EIS on time.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-09 21:48:38 and read 9409 times.

I don't get how timing will work for AC. The A320 fleet ages out first. Then the A319 fleet. But I can't see Airbus or Boeing being able to offer next-gen aircraft till at least 2018 or even 2019. Unless AC is willing to take a mix of non-NEO/MAX birds. Alternatively, AC could be the launch customer for the CS500 with EIS in 2017. Replace the A320s temporarily till AC can get some 321NEOs or 739MAXs, and then use the CS500 to retire the A319 fleet. So maybe Bombardier has a shot because of timing? I wonder how willing Boeing and Airbus are to open slots for AC.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 23:54:52 and read 9274 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 88):
The only question is whether AC and BBD can work a good deal to ditch the E-Jets.

I'm sure there would be plenty of takers for a good used E-jets...though they are doing one heck of a job for AC.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 88):
If they didn't have the Chinese production issues, they might have made first flight by the end of the year. I'm surprised the announced a 6-month delay

The mutterings seem to indicate the major cause of the delay is the fly by wire system. That's not to say they don't have issues with the Chinese but the N.Irish are picking up the slack for at least the flight test aircraft.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-10 01:19:12 and read 9200 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 84):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
No offense intended, hopefully none taken.

None at all. I just didn't make the connection between 737-100 and CSeries. I dont see the corollary except maybe you are saying that the sky is the limit. And indeed it is I just dont see it but thats just my opinion.

Not sure the sky's the limit for the CSeries, it still has to prove itself. That said, if it can meet or slightly exceed spec, and I sort of expect this, then I don't see why BBD can't flog a couple of thousand units. But it will never threaten the 737, for sure.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 84):
I do know that the A321 as it flies today would be a complete nightmare on the route. I have no idea about the NEO and don't see AC getting into a narrow body Oceanic service. Until they put a wing on that airplane that is appropriate then I think it's a great intra-europe high density/sector airplane. YYZ-YVR in the summer is pushing it for that dawg.



Indeed, no way the current 321 would work on YHZ-LHR, but the NEO should be OK. But the 763 surely handles way more freight.

As for the current product in summer doing transcon, I am often on the 321 YOW-YVR and I've not seen freight and/or pax off-loaded, nor have we ever tech stopped at YYC. Lately, though, the flights have tended to be 320.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-10 08:31:27 and read 8949 times.

Anybody have any idea how many 319s are moving to the LCC?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-10 08:31:47 and read 8957 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 85):
And yet AC has no issues routinely deploying A32S aircraft on YVR. Once the NEO comes around, AC won't be pushing anything using a 321NEO on this route. It'll be capable of max payload westbound on that run.

Absolutely. The reason they have no problems with the other 320 family jets on these routes is they have the legs/performance. The 320 is a good performer, the 319 is a downright sportscar. The 321 is a downright pig. Same wing on all of them. I've always said the 321 is a great fit for Europe.

As for your comments concerning the 321 on the Atlantic and my lack of knowledge on the NEO. Well you are right, I dont have the numbers drilled off by memory. The NEO with the extra 500 mile range would take the aircraft from not being able to do the route to being able to do the route- maybe.

Where my so called lacking may include not knowing hard and fast numbers, I would warn you when touting an aircrafts capabilities across the Atlantic when it's right at the edge of the envelope. It's no problem transcon. Tons of places to stop short for a tech stop on those rare days when winds/wx require it. The Atlantic is a different beast altogether. For one the non-radar track environment means you may no get your altitudes, and once given a non optimal altitude climbing is rarely an option. Using todays 321 that is problematic as on a long leg it may start off at 280. Thats not even IN the tracks. Once you burn off fuel you climb to a more optimal altitude. This is something you'd have to do when on a route near the edge of your range envelope. Thats just one example of many in which the Atlantic means a different kettle of fish than say operating transcon.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 85):
Really? Yet, they have a narrowbody on TATL today. AC would be foolish, as a business, if it's avoiding narrowbody oceanic service on principle.

I would say there was a rather huge political case for AC to run that 319. Perhaps the route is even subsidized, maybe someone here knows of this I don;t. I can say this. The route is a galactic pain in the rear. We discussed the operational concerns with the aircrafts range, on top of that is a crewing problem. The crews need to be ETOPS qualified. There are about 800 pilots in in YYZ. You cant check them all out. They get around this by using only the small YWG base of pilots. This works, only with the one route. More than that and it's a total nightmare again. I would also say AC would rather use that slot for something else. Especially since the landing time became more palatable after the first season on the route.

Anyways, I hope AC goes for the NEO. I've said that earlier. Training, parts, etc etc. I wouldnt be disapointed in the MAX either. I guess what I'm saying is I may have little knowledge on raw numbers but my caustion to you is just saying an airplane has the numbers to do it, doesn't mean it can do so feasibly. Thats just scratching the surface. There's a myriad of other concerns operationally that dont show up on a range chart. You don't deploy an aircraft to it's limits without having all the answers. The sheer difference in an Atlantic operation when it comes to such concerns is night and say compared to flogging it across the country. I try to bring up these points but you don't appear to want to hear them or you are unable to grasp the concerns.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 91):
Indeed, no way the current 321 would work on YHZ-LHR, but the NEO should be OK. But the 763 surely handles way more freight.

The 767 is such an amazingly versatile aircraft. Load it up to the gunnels with pax and freight and you can draw a circle around it to wherever 55 metric tonnes of gas can take you. Pretty impressive. Wanna go further? Cant carry quite as much. I don't see the NEO going across the pond. For AC anyways. In todays low yield environment you are going to need a lot of bums in the seats. Which is why the 767 is headed to the LCC and could do very well on the European leisure routes. Same with a lot of the 319s. That airplane is not the greatest fit for AC. It does well on the higher yield operations but come winter time where it's flying to the sun destinations (especially outer carib), it's not making money. It will do a better job high capacity at the LCC on these routes. Not to say this is the case for all routes, but a lot of them. It just doesn't have the seats to make those lower yield routes profitable.

[Edited 2012-12-10 08:33:31]

[Edited 2012-12-10 08:35:29]

[Edited 2012-12-10 08:36:41]

[Edited 2012-12-10 08:46:21]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-10 08:42:19 and read 8917 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 92):
Anybody have any idea how many 319s are moving to the LCC?

Up to 30 A319s. Start up is 6.

Upto 20 767s. Start up is 4. After those initial 4 aircraft are deployed a 767 can only go over to LCC once it is replaced by a 787 or larger aircraft.

BTW. I tried to edit my previous post for spelling. Each time I did it got rid of chunks of the original message. This normal?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-10 09:03:11 and read 8869 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 93):
That airplane is not the greatest fit for AC. It does well on the higher yield operations but come winter time where it's flying to the sun destinations (especially outer carib), it's not making money.

?? One of the reasons for the 319, or so I thought, was the ability to do YHZ-YVR nonstop in the winter. Which is why it does not have the container system that the 320 does -- weight-saver. But it makes turn times longer. That said, I don't ever recall seeing a schedule where there was a YHZ-YVR nonstop. Over YYC yes.

As for sun destinations, it can do BOG I believe (CCS for sure), but the cargo backhaul on the 763 is outrageous. Having gone into BOG a couple of times, I understand there are limitations due to altitude. As for not making money on the Carib, not many J-class pax there, mostly full Y and everyone paying for their drinks. J on the Carib should be marketed as a "Comfort Class" - kind of like Y , not the full monty J.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-10 09:17:15 and read 8834 times.

You are correct. The 319 is great in the sense it has the range to do things the 320 and 321 cannot. It did do YHZ-YVR at one point not sure if it still does. Big legs.

Where you run into problems is with the Air Canada Vacations routes. The aircraft in it's present high yield layout does well on such routes where there is a strong business demand. The ACV routes are thin profit routes. Those people in J paid an extra $100 for the seat. Thats not gonna cut it. You throw all economy on those routes and you can keep them open and make a profit.

Where Air Canada is up against it is this. They want to be all things to all people. Thats very tough to do. They want a standardized cabin across the widebody and narrowbody fleets. Thats all fine but you cant operate those layouts profitably on the think routes. Hence the high density 767 FINS that do BCN, DUB, ATH in the summertime. Those routes have a good demand, but there is zero freight. with the 24 J 185 Y layout you cant get enough of the cheap bums in the airplane so you put 260 Y seats in it. Then of course you sub this on a route due to a mechanical and people go ape because they bought a pod and now they are on a cattle car. Like I said all things to all people. It's tough. LCC may help this, the result is yet to be seen. Heck I don't even know if it will launch on time.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 95):
As for sun destinations, it can do BOG I believe (CCS for sure), but the cargo backhaul on the 763 is outrageous.

It did do BOG for awhile but the 767 is making a killing on the very thing you speak of- frieght. Piles of it.

[Edited 2012-12-10 09:18:36]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-10 10:34:06 and read 8705 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 93):
As for your comments concerning the 321 on the Atlantic and my lack of knowledge on the NEO. Well you are right, I dont have the numbers drilled off by memory. The NEO with the extra 500 mile range would take the aircraft from not being able to do the route to being able to do the route- maybe.

I'd say it's more than a maybe. Many are touting the 321NEO as a 752 replacement. If that's true, I'd expect to see the aircraft deployed on BOS-LHR (albeit with little to no appreciable cargo load). That in mind, I'd say YHZ-LHR is less challenging. I'd say pretty close to full payload westbound. Maybe less on days when winds kick them up.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 93):
Thats just one example of many in which the Atlantic means a different kettle of fish than say operating transcon.

I acknowledge the challenges. Not in any way discounting them. But I am suggesting that the NEO brings just enough added range to the table to allow it to overcome these challenges in a very specific scenario.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 93):
Anyways, I hope AC goes for the NEO.


Concur. For several reasons. From a passenger perspective, the A32S is just a tad more comfortable than the 73G.

I am hoping for the CSeries as well though (CS/NEO split)...but that's entirely because I want more comfort as a passenger. Higher chance of getting an aisle or window seat. Load factors would have to be over 80% on any flight to end up with a middle seat...which would actually be wider. Then there's the oversized luggage bins and larger windows. That said, I think the operating costs will be phenomenal. If the E-190s are producing CASM on par with the A320, just imagine what the CSeries will be able to pull off for AC.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 93):
I guess what I'm saying is I may have little knowledge on raw numbers but my caustion to you is just saying an airplane has the numbers to do it, doesn't mean it can do so feasibly.

I agree. But likewise you should not be so quick to label an aircraft as a "lemon" and write it off as incapable of a certain mission. I sincerely hope AC is not as inflexible, or it'll be the end of their business.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 94):
Up to 30 A319s. Start up is 6.

I am curious to see how this impacts the buy. As noted about the 320s age out first:

http://www.airfleets.net/ageflotte/Air%20Canada.htm

And with the current order books, I really wonder how AC will get any NEOs or MAXs before 2019, or at least in any signficant numbers. At that point the A320 fleet will have an average age of over 25 years with the aircraft they got from Ansett pushing 30 years old then. The A319s will be 21 years old on average, with the oldest pushing 24 years old.

AC could buy the sharklet A320s without the NEO or regular 737NGs now. It does this and risks having higher costs than all its North American competitors for decades because the rest will be fielding NEOs and MAXs.

Or it comes up with a plan to lease lots of aircraft till 2019/2020 when it can get NEOs and MAXs. That should make for an interesting few years with the rental bill.

Or it becomes the launch customer on the CS500 and starts taking delivery in early 2017 and if everything goes well with Bombardier's CSeries development efforts, it might not have to least any aircraft. It can stand a small contraction in seat capacity till 2019 and get some 321NEOs/739MAX then.

It's really a rock and a hard place for AC. I was surprised that they didn't put in an order for the NEO or the MAX earlier, given the age of their fleet.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-10 10:55:39 and read 8679 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 97):
That in mind, I'd say YHZ-LHR is less challenging. I'd say pretty close to full payload westbound. Maybe less on days when winds kick them up.

You keep suggesting this, but for the life of me, I can't imagine why. It is a daily B767-300ER, I fly the route a fair amount, and trust me .... no A321 can cut it. Not only does it garner very high load factors, but I have also seen as much as 15,000 kgs of cargo! There is a reason why AC cut out the YYT stop, they can fill it with YHZ revenue.

Why would you suggest putting a smaller aircraft on the route turning away both passengers and cargo?

Quoting YTZ (Reply 97):
I am hoping for the CSeries as well though (CS/NEO split)

I think we all get that! LOL.

In my opinion, the Cseries, if it does what promised and there is no reason why it shouldn't, will be a tremendous aircraft. However, BBD will have to come up with a spectacular sales pitch as while it offers lower seat mile costs, you have to balance that against all the other issues resulting from exchanging a relatively young fleet.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 97):
It's really a rock and a hard place for AC. I was surprised that they didn't put in an order for the NEO or the MAX earlier, given the age of their fleet.

Again, its a balance. The A320s when replaced will be younger than the DC-9s when they left. If the ship is doing the job, there have to be some compelling reasons to replace it.

From an accountant's point of view, the only thing the CSeries offers is lower fuel costs ... but fuel is only a third of the pie! A lot of other operational costs would be higher than an E190. And another third of the pie is capital outlay. The deal AC got for the E190s is nothing short of astounding! About 30% of the list price of a CS300!

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-10 11:18:38 and read 8618 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 96):
Where you run into problems is with the Air Canada Vacations routes. The aircraft in it's present high yield layout does well on such routes where there is a strong business demand. The ACV routes are thin profit routes

Exactly why an LCC is appropriate for AC.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 96):
They want a standardized cabin across the widebody and narrowbody fleets.
Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 96):
Then of course you sub this on a route due to a mechanical and people go ape because they bought a pod and now they are on a cattle car.

People on here may not like it. But this is why a LCC makes sense for AC. And as long as the LCC is a separate operation from mainline, you won't have these substitutions in future. Less ticked off pax. And yes, it's absolutely right for pax to be ticked. In any other industry, such a move would be called, "Bait and switch."

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 96):
LCC may help this, the result is yet to be seen.

It definitely will. There are some destinations in Europe that are just pointless for mainline AC. You can't compete with AT using mainline full service AC. This also leads to relentless pressure to make AC Y class lower service, further diluting AC's brand. The only way to play in these markets should be with the LCC.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-10 11:40:57 and read 8582 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 98):
You keep suggesting this, but for the life of me, I can't imagine why. It is a daily B767-300ER, I fly the route a fair amount, and trust me .... no A321 can cut it. Not only does it garner very high load factors, but I have also seen as much as 15,000 kgs of cargo! There is a reason why AC cut out the YYT stop, they can fill it with YHZ revenue.

Why would you suggest putting a smaller aircraft on the route turning away both passengers and cargo?

Fair enough. I just wonder if this really is the best deployment of a widebody for AC. I have long thought that maybe a lot of the traffic that is LHR bound might be continuing onward. And if that's the case (I'm speculating), then AC might be able to get more revenue using smaller aircraft and serving more destinations in the UK. But that's speculation. If you say they are doing that well, so be it. The discussion in any event was focused on the ability of the NEO to fly this route.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 98):
In my opinion, the Cseries, if it does what promised and there is no reason why it shouldn't, will be a tremendous aircraft. However, BBD will have to come up with a spectacular sales pitch as while it offers lower seat mile costs, you have to balance that against all the other issues resulting from exchanging a relatively young fleet.

And I have always maintained that there's no way BBD wins this without some kind of trade in offer for the E-190s. And it will have to be deal on par with what AC got for the E190s. Long shot, yes? But I don't get why people rule it out off-hand. I remember similar talk prior to the E190s being announced.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 98):
The deal AC got for the E190s is nothing short of astounding! About 30% of the list price of a CS300!

I would expect that the E190s would be replaced with CS100s. Even the base CS100 (not the ER) is more capable. And there's analysis (laxdesi has done some good work) out there that shows several million a year in savings....enough to overcome that capital cost differential. See laxdesi's work:

C110 Versus E190 Economic Analysis (by LAXDESI Jul 19 2008 in Tech Ops)

Then again if AC doesn't have the capital....

But I really think the discount on the E190s (which will benefit them with remarketing) will also have to be taken in context: AC would have to pay a lot more for an A320NEO over a CS500ER. And that difference is likely to be far higher in absolute terms than the discount on the E190s.

Anyway, we'll know in due course how the math worked out and who won. Fun to speculate though.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-10 11:41:32 and read 8570 times.

-Double post. Apologies.

[Edited 2012-12-10 11:50:43]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-10 12:06:18 and read 8541 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 99):
In any other industry, such a move would be called, "Bait and switch."

If it happens all the time sure. If it's a rare occasion then its "we will get you to where you are going close to on time" instead of a day later. Besides they get their refund.

Like I said you can't be all things to all people when you have a standardized cabin arragement within your fleets. You either have to focus on the market you are covering, or rebrand if you want to expand.

The 319 deployed on the ACV routes number many airframes. And all of those routes are either breaking even or losing due to the cabin layout and paper thin yield.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 99):
There are some destinations in Europe that are just pointless for mainline AC.

FCO, BCN, ATH, DUB. These are people only flights, no freight whatsoever and the yield is low. So the LCC will eventually service these. My sources (LOL) say start up will be BCN and EDI. Start up initially with two airframes so the routes will obviously not be able to be serviced daily to start. Of course this is not written in stone.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2012-12-10 13:35:46 and read 8428 times.

The 717 would have been a perfect airplane for AC (and a lot of other airlines). Too bad the market didn't realize this in time. It's a very solidly built reliable airplane, as evidenced by the number of DC-9s still in service.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-10 13:44:06 and read 8388 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 103):
The 717 would have been a perfect airplane for AC (and a lot of other airlines). Too bad the market didn't realize this in time.

Could you explain why?

To me, the range seems rather low. And the CASM would be much higher than the alternatives. So what makes it the perfect plane for AC?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-10 14:09:46 and read 8321 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 104):
To me, the range seems rather low. And the CASM would be much higher than the alternatives. So what makes it the perfect plane for AC?

I think the E-jets are just about perfect planes in the 100 seat ballpark...especially considering the deal they supposedly got for them. Somebody is going to have to crunch some pretty impressive numbers to get them replaced with the CSeries or any other plane.

It all depends on what AC wants to do with their routes when BBD has slots available. I believe that CSeries slots are pretty much full for the first 3 years of production. That adds at least 3, (probably more like 4 or 5), years until they could get them in any significant numbers...which might change the E-jet economics if maintenance starts being an issue.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: cxh
Posted 2012-12-10 14:31:02 and read 8269 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 95):
That said, I don't ever recall seeing a schedule where there was a YHZ-YVR nonstop. Over YYC yes.

AC did fly YVR-YHZ nonstop (both ways) for about two summers, seasonal only. One daily flight each way on the A319. About 10 years ago. I flew both directions once (YVR-YHZ was an overnight flight, YHZ to YVR was a 2100~2200 departure approx, arriving in YVR just before midnight IIRC).

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-10 14:40:30 and read 8248 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 105):
I believe that CSeries slots are pretty much full for the first 3 years of production.

Right. That's why I said 2017at the earliest for BBD (I assumed no slots in 2014, 2015, 2016). That's still a lot earlier than Boeing or Airbus. BBD could deliver them their entire order before Boeing or Airbus might be able to deliver them their first aircraft.

I don't see what motivation Boeing or Airbus have to bend over backwards for AC. People seem to assume AC will get slots before 2018-2019 and huge discounts? Where's the profit in that for Boeing or Airbus?

Also, I would have thrown EMB in to the mix, if they would have been able to field a 150 seater to offer. But it looks like BBD will be the only new entrant in that pool.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 105):
I think the E-jets are just about perfect planes in the 100 seat ballpark...

I would think AC would have been happier with the 195. But I guess they needed the range more than the additional pax revenue.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 105):
Somebody is going to have to crunch some pretty impressive numbers to get them replaced with the CSeries or any other plane....especially considering the deal they supposedly got for them.

Agreed. Without a trade-in/remarketing deal, nobody will be able to touch the E-Jets. That said, perhaps the fact that AC got the fleet so cheap might well make the remarketing deal a lot easier. AC will be eating a lot less in depreciation than if they had paid a higher price.

And as I said above, the context has to be taken into consideration. Airbus and Boeing aren't likely to discount their products by a massive amount. The savings that BBD may offer up on CS500ER vs. the A320NEO or the 738MAX will have to be considered against the added expense of running 3 narrowbody types or replacing the E-Jets early.

Would love to be fly on the wall during that accounting discussion....

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2012-12-10 18:28:07 and read 8010 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 54):
And they also operate from smaller hubs like BOS, PHX, SFO, PHL,

OK, but we are talking about transatlanitc markets. YHZ does not even come close to any of these markets you mention anyway.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 54):
I'd say they can fragment the demand and serve other cities in Hawaii like OGG, LIH and KOA

They already do, both are served in winter with 767's.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 54):
If they are going to replace the E190s with the CSeries later, they might as well do the 319s now as well and get some kind of remarketing agreement for the 190s out of Bombardier

This is the proviso of your theory. I have nothing to back it up exactly, but I really dont think AC want to get rid of the E190's at this point. IMO a lot will depend on how successful the LCC is, how the CS turns out and if BBD offer a 500. Which is why I dont think the E190's are up for the chop yet.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 54):
There is TATL from YHZ today. Why would there be none going forward? If they can fill a 763 today, it stands to reason that AC might just be able to fragment that demand a little and serve several cities with smaller aircraft.

I explained it in the rest of the post you did not quote. YHZ has a single TATL LHR route which serves the needs of the market and setting up any hub system will dilute YYZ & YUL - why would AC do that?

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 53):
Is there really a need to transport so much cargo that it would hurt the range that much? I'd think not, but I don't have actual knowledge on that. You'd think the cargo needs would be present, but not overwhelming.

South America is cargo heavy. I honestly dont know what the container or cargo capabilities of the CS (sorry, I dont have time to check tonight either) but it can not be close to the A32S, so I am pretty sure the A32S will also be a far better option for this market.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 53):
Also, if AC gets a low-ball deal from BBD

No doubt. But they already got one from EMB and are still reaping the benefits. I dont know that AC has the spare cash to throw away on something they dont need right now.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 55):
It definitely could. YYT-LHR is less than 2100nm. The CS300ER has a 2950nm range. Heck, it should be able to handle LHR-YHZ.

I would like to think AC would not plan a long term fleet acquistion around one seasonal route. YHZ is also 767 for a reason according to Longhauler.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 62):
This is exactly why I think the CS100ER/A321NEO combination offers them more.

But there are clearly routes where the 321 would be too big and the CS too small.

Dont get me wrong, I love the concept of the CS and I wish it well and that it will become a valuable contributor to our economy. I just dont feel that AC will order it at this time and IMO this will be a 100% A32Sneo order.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-10 18:30:06 and read 8024 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 104):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 103):
The 717 would have been a perfect airplane for AC (and a lot of other airlines). Too bad the market didn't realize this in time.

Could you explain why?

To me, the range seems rather low.

Agree. The 717 had the same range problem as AC's large DC-9 fleet. CP's 737-200s, especially the later advanced models, were much more flexible due to their significantly longer range.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-10 18:53:42 and read 7975 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 108):
This is the proviso of your theory. I have nothing to back it up exactly, but I really dont think AC want to get rid of the E190's at this point. IMO a lot will depend on how successful the LCC is, how the CS turns out and if BBD offer a 500. Which is why I dont think the E190's are up for the chop yet.

As I've always maintained...a lot has to line up. Otherwise, I agree that it will probably be the NEO. I've only suggested that we shouldn't write off a possibility till we hear more about what's on the table. And that's where I take exception: to somebody dismissing a possibility out of hand with no information or firm rationale.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 108):
I explained it in the rest of the post you did not quote. YHZ has a single TATL LHR route which serves the needs of the market and setting up any hub system will dilute YUL - why would AC do that?

Potential to get more business. Especially after US and its Boston hub leave Star Alliance. In a lot of cases, many of those British Isles destinations are more easily accessed from BOS or EWR than from YHZ residents. But I'll concur that the market may not be lucrative. In any event, hardly a huge hub to serve DUB, MAN and/or GLA. But if the market isn't there, it isn't there. It was merely an example for me of what the 321NEO is capable of.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 108):
I honestly dont know what the container or cargo capabilities of the CS (sorry, I dont have time to check tonight either) but it can not be close to the A32S, so I am pretty sure the A32S will also be a far better option for this market.

I don't think it has containerized cargo. But then, neither does the A319, which is presumably what any CSeries replacement would target. I've always maintained that the A320 should be replaced by NEOs. Maybe upsized to 321NEOs to get some CASM benefits, get more cargo space, etc.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 108):
I would like to think AC would not plan a long term fleet acquistion around one seasonal route. YHZ is also 767 for a reason according to Longhauler.

Never said AC should plan around a single, seasonal route. I don't why people are getting that opinion from my posts.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 108):
I just dont feel that AC will order it at this time and IMO this will be a 100% A32Sneo order.

100% is pretty confident. I don't get why Boeing should be ruled out for example. Surely, moving forward, there is some benefit to being able to transition easily from the 737MAX to the 787. Operating costs will be very close too. So really, it depends what deal Boeing could cut.

More broadly, I would hope AC's execs don't have this much tunnel vision as some here. Because if I were an Airbus exec who was negotiating with a client that is very unlikely to consider switching to another OEM, I'd milk them for every penny they were worth.

"I have 100% chance of winning this order? Please sign here for list price."

Threats only work if you are actually willing to follow through with them. The famous FR case stands as an extreme example of the consequences of playing with half (or less) of a deck.

[Edited 2012-12-10 18:58:53]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2012-12-10 19:12:09 and read 7947 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 110):
100% is pretty confident. I don't get why Boeing should be ruled out for example

As I said, just IMO, but existing infrastructure and containerized cargo capability (a key for beating out the 737 in the first place) are two very strong reasons.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 110):
More broadly, I would hope AC's execs don't have this much tunnel vision as some here. Because if I were an Airbus exec who was negotiating with a client that is very unlikely to consider switching to another OEM, I'd milk them for every penny they were worth.

Im sure they dont, you can be sure they are playing A & B just like everyone else and Im also pretty sure A will be very careful not to make any such assumptions as B did with UA etc. I have outlined my reasoning in a previous post way upstream in case it is me you are referring to as having tunnel vision.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 110):
So really, it depends what deal Boeing could cut.

Some more free 77W's maybe  

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: columba
Posted 2012-12-10 19:29:55 and read 7923 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 103):
The 717 would have been a perfect airplane for AC (and a lot of other airlines). Too bad the market didn't realize this in time. It's a very solidly built reliable airplane, as evidenced by the number of DC-9s still in service.

A few years ago Lufthansa wanted a joint purchase from Star Alliance carriers for a 100 seater aircraft. Air Canada decided against the 717 favored by Lufthansa and went for the EJet which LH did not want back at the time. Lufthansa wanted the 717 but only if Boeing would have offered a 717-300, a stretch of the 717 so that LH could also replace their 737 fleet with the 717.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-10 19:44:18 and read 7885 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 111):
Some more free 77W's maybe

LOL. Not with 10 abreast Y.....now I'll have to try hard to avoid AC when flying international!

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-10 20:27:37 and read 7830 times.

I think what is being discussed here concerning the 319 being replaced by the CS is a bit of a stretch.

The range of the 319 is its plus it's density it's weakness hence it moving to the LCC. They think they can make it work all Y. The CS may have an economic case but where are the markets for these? Thats after a deep commitment in capital to buy them. You gonna fly them at the mainline? Or at LCC. I don't think there's market out there for upto 30 319s at LCC replaced by say 30 CS to go find work on new or similar routes under the mainline flag. You're sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul, the economics would have to be huge. Also pointed out earlier by someone else is the E190s relatively young age.

I have the same belief of the LCC. The company has the flex to fly up to 50 airframes there. Yet that is a massive amount of lift. How many airframes does AT and Sunwing have? Even if the LCC drove them to ruin (not going to happen), where are they going to find flying for this many airframes? That is tremendous penetration. Especially considering so many of those markets being seasonal.

You have say 20 767s doing the Atlantic. Where you gonna deploy those in the winter? Remembering this is Canada we are talking about. They will benefit from mainline feed but in my gut I don't see LCC getting above 25 airframes. And I don't think the CS economics are so astoundingly good that buying the airplane to replace even the 319 let alone the young EMBs would clear the bar. It may be too little too late for this a/c for AC.

Also. I would not rule out Boeing fellas. Nobody saw that wide body conversion happen. You never know. I think EADS would have the lead but Boeing would love that coup. You'd have thre types. 777, 787, 737. Not CCQ but there'd be quicker training courses down the road. Like I said don't count out Boeing.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2012-12-10 21:25:56 and read 7761 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 110):
100% is pretty confident. I don't get why Boeing should be ruled out for example

As I said, just IMO, but existing infrastructure and containerized cargo capability (a key for beating out the 737 in the first place) are two very strong reasons.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 110):
More broadly, I would hope AC's execs don't have this much tunnel vision as some here. Because if I were an Airbus exec who was negotiating with a client that is very unlikely to consider switching to another OEM, I'd milk them for every penny they were worth.

Im sure they dont, you can be sure they are playing A & B just like everyone else and Im also pretty sure A will be very careful not to make any such assumptions as B did with UA etc. I have outlined my reasoning in a previous post way upstream in case it is me you are referring to as having tunnel vision.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 110):
So really, it depends what deal Boeing could cut.

Some more free 77W's maybe  

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 06:20:40 and read 7536 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 114):
The CS may have an economic case but where are the markets for these?

The same markets that the A319 does. Seriously, you need to read up about the CSeries. The CS300 is only a tad short on range from the 319. And something like 4-5 pax short in a mixed config. It makes up for that by being something like 20% cheaper to operate. AC's planners would have to be a special kind of myopic to ignore savings like that. And if they do, you can bet some competitor will deploy the aircraft at some point and undercut AC.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 114):
Thats after a deep commitment in capital to buy them.

They'll have to be replaced at some point. And 319NEOs are a substantially larger captial commitment.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 114):
You gonna fly them at the mainline? Or at LCC.

Different horses for different courses. Depends on what you're replacing. CS300 or the eventual CS500 would work at mainline or LCC. The CS100 would work to replace the E190.

Keep in mind that AC is somewhat unique in how it deploys aircraft. It's one of the only legacy carriers that uses E190s in mainline as opposed to a regional carrier for most. I don't see why a slightly larger CS100 would not work at mainline.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 114):
I don't think there's market out there for upto 30 319s at LCC replaced by say 30 CS to go find work on new or similar routes under the mainline flag.

Well if AC truly wants upto 100 narrowbodies, as the article suggests, and none of them are replacing the 319s at some point, I'd love to know where exactly AC plans to grow with 30 airframes.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 114):
the economics would have to be huge.

They are. 20% lower fuel burn. Substantially lower acquisition costs (unless Boeing or Airbus wants to sell half of list to AC). And much lower maintenance. Lower landing fees from lower MTOW too.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 114):
Also. I would not rule out Boeing fellas.

Nor would I. I'd push that rough cockpit commonality all I could if I were Boeing.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 114):
How many airframes does AT and Sunwing have?

TS has nearly two dozen widebodies. WG has nearly two dozen narrowbodies.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 114):
I don't think the CS economics are so astoundingly good that buying the airplane to replace even the 319

Shows that you haven't read much about the airplane. And if the economics aren't feasible at all, why is AC even talking to BBD? I get that you have a hate-on for Bombardier. There is no amount of data or info that would convince you that a BBD airframe could work. Your bias is plenty apparent when you write them off as "lemons" while knowing anything about them. But, I'd like to know if BBD is so unviable, why is AC talking to them in the first place? Even as a foil to get the price down from A and B, this would be futile, unless BBD was actually in the running. A and B would have to be plenty of stupid to panic and discount just because AC was talking to BBD. And given that they've made more money than AC for decades, I'd say they're a little smarter than that.

I, seriously hope, for the sake of AC, that you are not indicative of the imagination of the average AC fleet planner. I've seen institutional bias in my air force career. But yours is quite an advanced form. And if others at AC are as inflexible as you are, the company is finished. On the other hand, longhauler leaves me with quite a positive impression of AC employees even if I don't agree with all his viewpoints.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 06:23:17 and read 7536 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 115):
As I said, just IMO, but existing infrastructure and containerized cargo capability (a key for beating out the 737 in the first place) are two very strong reasons.

People say this. Yet, they bougth 319s that don't use containerized cargo, if I'm not mistaken. If that's the case, that tells me that AC would be okay with a split fleet.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-11 07:49:07 and read 7464 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 117):
People say this. Yet, they bougth 319s that don't use containerized cargo, if I'm not mistaken. If that's the case, that tells me that AC would be okay with a split fleet.

I think containerized cargo is a red herring. When I flew the A320/A321, I don't recall it being any quicker to service with regard to baggage handling than the A319.

What I don't think a red herring though, is the infrastructure already in place to support both the E190 and the A320 series.

That is why I lean toward an A320NEO series order. For example, look at training. AC has 4 A320 simulators, 3 in YYZ and 1 in YVR. They have half a dozen Fixed Base Trainers, and all A320 classrooms and CBT are set up for just that, the A320. That cost millions over the years, and can not be cheaply replaced. That the type rating is the same, means pilot transfers are seamless, and as they enter the fleet the infrastructure is already set up to receive them.

Same thing with the E190. Huge support infrastructure. Again, look at training. Same set up for the E190/E175s. 2 simulators, many classrooms and four FBTs. All very expensive. And .... recently the one E170 simulator was converted to an E190 sim, so now they are both E190s.

Understand, this is from my (Flight Ops) point of view, I am sure every other department would have a similar story.

I remember talking with a Flight Ops Manager, (no one important, so this is not inside info!) but he raised a valid point. He said that when the A320 was introduced, it was hell! But after that 2 years of hell, the aircraft is now reliable and has been for 20 years. He said, after the 2 years of hell introducing the E175/190, they want their 20 years of reliability!

Why go through the same thing with the CSeries? Fuel burn is lower, that's it! BBD better have one spectacular sales pitch!

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 07:56:49 and read 7436 times.

Lomghauler obviously you haven't read enough about the CS  

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-11 08:05:54 and read 7428 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 119):
Lomghauler obviously you haven't read enough about the CS

I have read all that is available, being the airliner geek that I am!  

However, from a bottom line/accounting point of view, cause lets face it that's all that matters, what does the CSeries offer other than a lower fuel burn? (Not lower operating costs, just a lower fuel burn).

I look with a little scepticism at the lower maintenance costs, but since the first DHC-7 flew, BBD/De Havilland have been pretty accurate. So I will grant them that. But look at the cost pie, recurrent line maintenance is a very small slice.

But, I am also certain that had the CSeries been available when the E190 was purchased, that is where the decision would have ended.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 08:40:45 and read 7359 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 116):
I, seriously hope, for the sake of AC, that you are not indicative of the imagination of the average AC fleet planner. I've seen institutional bias in my air force career. But yours is quite an advanced form. And if others at AC are as inflexible as you are, the company is finished. On the other hand, longhauler leaves me with quite a positive impression of AC employees even if I don't agree with all his viewpoints.

Obviously I got your dander up with the lemon comment. You called me things like arrogant and continue to call me unimaginative and having tunnel vision. You go beyond that in hoping people like me don't bring the 75 year corp to it's knees. Since my lemon comment and your initial "lecture" to me I have changed my tune. I answered your question on LCC numbers immediately without telling making snide "go and look it up" or "I cant believe how short sighted you- I suggest you read up on it!" type comments.

I have changed my tune towards you trying to show you another side of your argument with your endless backing of the CS and things like 321's on the Atlantic. You have not. You continue to rip me for having opinion against the CS. Who is tunnel visioned here? And don't tell me about reading up numbers because thats all you have. You bring nothing beyond what is written in a sales brochure to the table. But that's your game. And thats okay. I'll bring another perspective.

Everything that you rip me for can be said about you as well except for the fact you continue to write nasty things about me simply because I disagree with you. I have walked away from my "lemons" comment which upset you and was made days ago yet you are still hanging onto it. I'd say thats a little tunnel visioned myself.

Another thing that I found laughable. You kinda spread your plume about having a better respect rating than me earlier in the thread. As if that would instantly make you an argument winner. Then a guy adds you and you say "thanks for returning the favour." I would say respect should be something more than a return of favour. But I guess we have different opinions on that too.

As for your comments about AC. I would say the Corp is being one of the more imaginative airlines in the world right now. It's a lot of change for us employees but it's hopefully going to bring a bright future. As for me? I have said the NEO or MAX would be great choices but I think the NEO makes the best sense. Because I disagree with you on the CS being the best fit you cant let go. Or because your comments on narrow bodies on the Atlantic were made with pretty much zero insight into what goes into such and operation beyond the sales pamphlet range arc.

I changed my tune. Let's see if you can.

Good day.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-11 08:54:24 and read 7309 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 118):
That is why I lean toward an A320NEO series order. For example, look at training. AC has 4 A320 simulators, 3 in YYZ and 1 in YVR. They have half a dozen Fixed Base Trainers, and all A320 classrooms and CBT are set up for just that, the A320. That cost millions over the years, and can not be cheaply replaced. That the type rating is the same, means pilot transfers are seamless, and as they enter the fleet the infrastructure is already set up to receive them.

Same thing with the E190. Huge support infrastructure. Again, look at training. Same set up for the E190/E175s. 2 simulators, many classrooms and four FBTs. All very expensive. And .... recently the one E170 simulator was converted to an E190 sim, so now they are both E190s.

Could all this be replicated for a new type for $50m plus untold upheaval during the change over against which it is difficult to ascribe costs . I don't know but I would expect B's final bid would have to be more than half a million less per aircraft than A's price or alternatively they would have to shoulder most of the transition costs.
Just creating teams to handle these matters would be very expensive. I would think there would be a need for additional pilots during the transition and so on and so forth.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 12:28:13 and read 7104 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 118):
Fuel burn is lower, that's it! BBD better have one spectacular sales pitch!

Of course! Does any OEM win a sales campaign with a mediocre pitch?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 120):
But, I am also certain that had the CSeries been available when the E190 was purchased, that is where the decision would have ended.

Agreed. Then again, there'd be no CSeries without the GTF. And really, that old BRJX or whatever they called it back then was weak sauce. The E190 was certainly the best choice for the time.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 121):
I would say the Corp is being one of the more imaginative airlines in the world right now.

Doesn't show in their profits or service levels that's for sure....

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 121):
I have changed my tune towards you trying to show you another side of your argument with your endless backing of the CS and things like 321's on the Atlantic. You have not.

I am quite willing to evolve given reasonable arguments. I have never said for example that AC should buy NEOs solely for TATL flying. I have merely maintained that this is one possible employment of that airframe among many (for example, I think 321NEOS would be great for POS, GEO, etc.). You on the other hand first refused to believe that a 321NEO was even capable of TATL flying, despite the fact that you have airlines like AA replacing 752s/762s with 321NEOs. Then you couldn't figure out how a CS100ER could do LCY-JFK with an all J load. Given what you do, this kind of "math" should be easy.

As for not seeing the other side, you still don't think a CS300ER can replace a 319 despite everybody here telling you that they have virtually the same range-payload and cabin space. You haven't once explained why that rationale doesn't work. Just that you don't think it'll work. And I'm the one who's not open to facts?

Like I said, I honestly hope there are sharper knives in the drawer at AC.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 118):
Same thing with the E190. Huge support infrastructure. Again, look at training. Same set up for the E190/E175s. 2 simulators, many classrooms and four FBTs. All very expensive. And .... recently the one E170 simulator was converted to an E190 sim, so now they are both E190s

How much of this is all sunk costs though? One would assume that if you are selling the fleet, you would sell the sims too and recover a good chunk of your capital costs.

Fleet changeovers are undoubtedly expensive. I don't question that. I have seen a sort of half fleet change (Herc fleet) in my CF career. So I know there's definitely challenges. And I know there's costs. Like I've said, any winning bid from BBD would obviously have to account for all that. The only reason I even ponder the CSeries chances is because to me, it seems like a great opportunity for BBD to be able to sell maybe 80 airplanes and get a major airline as launch customer for the CS500. For AC, great opportunity to make substantial cuts in long-term operating costs. I would think with those common interests, a deal could be had.

Of course as a typical Canadian who complains about AC but still flies them for the majority of my travel, I am a little biased and want something great for my own behind. But I honestly, would also like to see the opportunity for the fleet renewal to swing for the fences and work on renewing its brand and cutting costs. It's gotta suck for management to run a company that rarely has spectacular quarterly results to share. In any event, will not be dissatisfied with the NEO or MAX...unless they reduce Y seat pitch.....

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 122):
Could all this be replicated for a new type for $50m plus untold upheaval during the change over against which it is difficult to ascribe costs . I don't know but I would expect B's final bid would have to be more than half a million less per aircraft than A's price or alternatively they would have to shoulder most of the transition costs.

This. I would expect any potential bidder hoping to unseat an existing fleet at AC (or any other airline) to bear all costs of the transition. Or else, the other guy has a lock on your customers.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 12:38:49 and read 7074 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 121):
You kinda spread your plume about having a better respect rating than me earlier in the thread. As if that would instantly make you an argument winner

1) That was only said after you somehow claimed that I thought I had more credibility because I had more posts. I have never made that assertion at any time on a.net.

2) I don't know how often you come here, but the people that have added me to their list are not your run of the mill aviation enthusiast. And with an engineering degree and a decade of experience in uniform (good chunk on the flight line), neither am I. But I don't rely on those laurels to have spirited discussions in these parts. I do my best to make cogent arguments based on facts and am open to others doing the same. What I do dislike are words to the effect of, "I just know it won't work." Especially when those words are accompanied with scant evidence.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 121):
Then a guy adds you and you say "thanks for returning the favour." I would say respect should be something more than a return of favour.

Read lightsaber's post history. When you get an idea of what he does for a living, you'll understand why being added to his list is a positive to me. He's been on my RU list for years. So clearly it wasn't a favour traded but respect earned. I would suggest that he found my arguments a little more coherent and cogent than yours and decided that these deserved recognition.

And any reasonable user bases those additions on respect. I've disagreed with longhauler here many times. But he's been on my RU list for a long time too.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 121):
But I guess we have different opinions on that too.

Clearly we do. I value recognition from knowledgeable professionals.

[Edited 2012-12-11 12:51:48]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 12:49:00 and read 7064 times.

@longhauler

Any thoughts on how the LCC impacts the narrowbody recap?

The question I have is what the hundred airplane buy is for, if they are shunting 30 narrowbodies to the LCC? I would guess the buy takes into account the LCC's needs as well?

Also, how important will cargo be to the LCC?

And would AC ever consider different fleets for the LCC? For example, the 738 is favoured among many LCCs, but on the upper end, the 321 is usually favoured over the 739. Would AC entertain a split like that? A321/320s for mainline and 738s for the LCC, if the costs were to deem that best.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 13:26:36 and read 7012 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 123):
Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 121):
I would say the Corp is being one of the more imaginative airlines in the world right now.

Doesn't show in their profits or service levels that's for sure....

Really? Just some highlights. Perhaps you should look at the link I provided for some further reading. You know, you wouldn't want to make statements to show your "lacking". I'd say that with these awards and their venture into the LCC domain in trying to make the most of the Legacy model and a new way of doing business could certainly be construed as being imaginative.

2012 "Best International Airline to North America" for 3 Consecutive years according to SkyTrax who polled a mere 18 million travellers.

2012- "Best North American Airline For International Travel" 4 Consecutive years- Business Traveller magazine.

2012 Gold medal for 5 Consecutive Years for "Best Flight Experience to Canada" in Executive Travel magazines poll.

You can read the rest here. Sure we don't beat our chest about it and I'm sure there are plenty of moans and groans from people as there always will be. But if you don't think these are some pretty good accolades then you're a pretty tough crowd.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/facts/awards/index.html

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 13:32:34 and read 7044 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 123):
Fleet changeovers are undoubtedly expensive. I don't question that. I have seen a sort of half fleet change (Herc fleet) in my CF career.
Quoting YTZ (Reply 123):
Like I said, I honestly hope there are sharper knives in the drawer at AC.

I would say the requirement to replace the Legacy Herc had a bit more to do with absolute necessity than ACs situation with any of their fleet.

Reading the papers Id think the "knives" in the procurement shop up at NDHQ might require a bit of a stropping when it comes to something called the F-35. They make the "knives" at AC look like 6 foot razor honed Katanas.

But then again comparing a Tax funded situation to a public money situation is a bit of apples and oranges.

[Edited 2012-12-11 13:34:02]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-11 14:01:45 and read 6995 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 125):
Any thoughts on how the LCC impacts the narrowbody recap?

As you know, the LCC will draw its types from the current fleet. They are not necessarily coming from the fleet, (on start up 2 A319s are not coming from mailline fleet). But for now, they are sticking to the same mainline types. If one were to look at a cost saving measure, that would make sense as all support equipment already exists.

I think most LCCs seem to be split between A and B, so I don't see one any advantage over the other. That being the case, I would guess the LCC narrow-body would likely reflect the mainline fleet. That could make it dynamic, change from LCC to mainline and back with only a configuration change. I remember when a B737 Captain, I flew a mainline flight with a Zip aircraft. It was a lime green I hadn't seen since the Dodge Dart from the 1970s!

Quoting YTZ (Reply 125):
The question I have is what the hundred airplane buy is for, if they are shunting 30 narrow-bodies to the LCC? I would guess the buy takes into account the LCC's needs as well?

I would be very surprised if we ever saw 30 narrow-bodies at the LCC, but, you are right, future narrow-body plans include the LCC.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 125):
And would AC ever consider different fleets for the LCC? For example, the 738 is favoured among many LCCs, but on the upper end, the 321 is usually favoured over the 739. Would AC entertain a split like that? A321/320s for mainline and 738s for the LCC, if the costs were to deem that best.

Who knows? I would think it comes down to whether say a B737-8MAX is better suited than an A321 NEO for the LCC but not the mainline. It would have to be a tremendous cost advantage to justify a split fleet.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 125):
Also, how important will cargo be to the LCC?

That's a tough one. Right now we do carry cargo to "low passenger yield" destinations. But, as technically the LCC will be a separate company, Air Canada Cargo would have to set up an arrangement.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: saloman
Posted 2012-12-11 14:03:30 and read 6994 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 121):
You bring nothing beyond what is written in a sales brochure to the table. But that's your game. And thats okay. I'll bring another perspective.
Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 126):
You can read the rest here. Sure we don't beat our chest about it and I'm sure there are plenty of moans and groans from people as there always will be. But if you don't think these are some pretty good accolades then you're a pretty tough crowd.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/me....html

 

You're gonna have to do a lot better than Skytrax to back up an argument on a-net. Use the search functions to find some of their credibility issues.

For what it's worth, I find ACs service inconsistent at best, sometimes providing me with a fantastic flying experience, other times not so much. I would also say that imagination at some point needs to produce profits - something AC has a troubled history of.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 127):
I would say the requirement to replace the Legacy Herc had a bit more to do with absolute necessity than ACs situation with any of their fleet.

The circumstance might be different, but we're talking about the costs of replacing dedicated fleet infrastructure which makes the Herc point completely relevant.

So I'm gonna repeat what successive posters have said: the sunk infrastructure costs give the edge to A, but that doesn't preclude B or BBD from coming in with an offer than covers these transition costs while providing gains somewhere else, be it fuel burn, aircraft price, or better performance on whatever model AC may use to calculate performance in their network.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 14:11:17 and read 6975 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 128):
That's a tough one. Right now we do carry cargo to "low passenger yield" destinations. But, as technically the LCC will be a separate company, Air Canada Cargo would have to set up an arrangement.

I agree, but I think that would be a pretty easy loophole to close and capitalize on don't you?. To the question of how important cargo will be? I'd say one of the things that make an LCC route is the fact theres no business class market or freight to increase the yield on the thin route.

I'm sure you've done FCO and sitting on the ramp with no need for a cabin breakdown (full) and you get the LDPs and the zero fuel is next to nothing. Talking to the Yankee guys at Gios bar its the same thing for them. Zero freight. People and their bags otherwise nothing in the belly. You'd better have a pile of seats on those types of flights.

I'd say if the freight is there they'll find a way to haul it but the mere fact it's a LCC route would likely mean theres pretty much no market for it in the first place therefore cargo won't be a very large priority.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: northstardc4m
Posted 2012-12-11 14:17:07 and read 6955 times.

I'll refresh one point here:
Sunk costs can be mitigated by the seller to make a deal. Yes sims are expensive but if Boeing was to sell the MAX bad enough, they will write it into their deal to offset the replacement costs.

Also, BBD could end up replacing the LCC A319s, and 73GMAX/319neo replace the few mainline ones... it would be a logical move as well as the 2 fleets would never get crossed in such a situation.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 14:20:48 and read 6955 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 126):
2012 "Best International Airline to North America" for 3 Consecutive years according to SkyTrax who polled a mere 18 million travellers.

2012- "Best North American Airline For International Travel" 4 Consecutive years- Business Traveller magazine.

2012 Gold medal for 5 Consecutive Years for "Best Flight Experience to Canada" in Executive Travel magazines poll.

Winning any award in North America is a consolation prize at best. Compared to UA, AA or DL, with their ancient fleets, yes, AC is great. But for anybody that ever actually leaves this continent, AC is nothing to write home about.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 127):
I would say the requirement to replace the Legacy Herc had a bit more to do with absolute necessity than ACs situation with any of their fleet.

Umm. We were talking about the complexity of fleet changeovers. And yes, they are complex, especially when executed while you still have a supply route running to a shooting war.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 127):
Reading the papers Id think the "knives" in the procurement shop up at NDHQ might require a bit of a stropping when it comes to something called the F-35. They make the "knives" at AC look like 6 foot razor honed Katanas.

You mean the office that has consistently provided good analysis to the government that has decided to play politics with them? Don't mistake bureaucracts and their professional work for what the government does with that information. I'd be happy to discuss this further if you want to try and throw daggers my way. There's a whole thread in the military section on this issue.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-11 14:25:17 and read 6961 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 123):
How much of this is all sunk costs though? One would assume that if you are selling the fleet, you would sell the sims too and recover a good chunk of your capital costs.

I guess that all depends on the terms of the sale. At AC, the sims seems to linger a lot longer than the aircraft, and contract training was performed. But I was thinking more about replacement costs, and re-equipping the training department for the new aircraft type.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 123):
The only reason I even ponder the CSeries chances is because to me, it seems like a great opportunity for BBD to be able to sell maybe 80 airplanes and get a major airline as launch customer for the CS500. For AC, great opportunity to make substantial cuts in long-term operating costs. I would think with those common interests, a deal could be had.

I agree with this. A CS100/300/500 combined with the B737MAX or A320NEO series would be a tremendous fleet. But only if it is cost effective. Yes, I keep returning to the bottom line, it is in my nature. I don't like to see change just for the sake of change, and hope that AC's engineering department agrees.

When they announced a fleet of 100 narrow-bodies, it made me think only the A320 series is up for renewal, as yes, that would include the LCC. Had they said 140 (or so) aircraft, it would make me think the E190 was being considered for replacement as well.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 14:26:44 and read 6950 times.

Quoting saloman (Reply 129):
The circumstance might be different, but we're talking about the costs of replacing dedicated fleet infrastructure which makes the Herc point completely relevant.

I respectfully disagree. We are talking about AC making a NB jet order. To a fleet that is beginning to see some age, sure at some point they will need to be replaced but the capital expenditure is going to be massive and by no means is there a gun to their heads to make such a purchase.

The CC-130 situation was totally different. The E models they were flying were purchased around the '68-'70 timeframe. They replaced A and Bs. This J model purchase was done due to absolute necessity. The E models were living on borrowed time. Thats nowhere near the case with anything AC is facing.

A procurement cost is a procurement cost whether civvie or military sure. But theres a huge difference in HAVING to get new metal and "should we get new metal?"

Those 40 year old hercs flew their tired bags off. Helluva an airplane!! The Four Fans of Freedom.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 14:38:21 and read 6926 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 132):
Winning any award in North America is a consolation prize at best. Compared to UA, AA or DL, with their ancient fleets, yes, AC is great. But for anybody that ever actually leaves this continent, AC is nothing to write home about.

I am well aware of this. AC used to run up against Singapore and Swissair for best airline in the world. Times have changed. Why dilute an accolade showing you to be better than those that market conditions have made your competitors?

Thats like thinking in a vacuum. Sure theyre better than DAL, UA, AA etc but Emirates is better. WTF?

Market conditions have them competing against those airlines and AC is doing well. Are their better? Sure! Is there a market out there for them to reinvent themselves into a 5 star airline?

Nope. Thats the stuff of wishes. Like me wanting a puppy for Christmas.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: saloman
Posted 2012-12-11 14:39:38 and read 6919 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 134):

Ah, okay I see where I'm misunderstanding you. You're saying that as it stands AC doesn't have to change the infrastructure built for the Airbus because either a) they don't absolutely have to buy new aircraft, or b) they can still buy NEOs. Obviously there's little dispute around that.

But what I (and I believe some others) are saying is that given AC has apparently made the decision to make the purchase some 100 NBs, the costs associated with changing from Airbus to Boeing or BBD could potentially be overcome.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 134):
The Four Fans of Freedom

That's great
  

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 14:46:26 and read 6883 times.

Saloman

Thats exactly what I meant.

And I agree with you that if they move to a different type from what they have now, the deal would have to be such that the infrastructure costs associated would be covered by the economics of the deal itself.

I still think the NEO would make the most sense. But I would not be surprised in the least if Boeing wins the day. It is of my opinion, that the BBD case is fixed in that the Govt will make a deal that involves more than just airplane procurement. But thats my opinion.

Cheers!!

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-11 14:49:59 and read 6903 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 135):
Sure theyre better than DAL, UA, AA etc but Emirates is better.

Many would disagree that EK is better. AC doesn't subject its 777 passengers to cramped 10-abreast seating in Y class, or their A330 J class passengers to 7-abreast (2-3-2) seating which must be virtually unique to EK A330s. AC's herringbone flat-bed A330 layout is 1-1-1.

I know many Europeans who consider AC service generally better than most major European carriers. And in Y class there's very little difference between most carriers these days.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 14:55:35 and read 6884 times.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 131):
I'll refresh one point here:
Sunk costs can be mitigated by the seller to make a deal. Yes sims are expensive but if Boeing was to sell the MAX bad enough, they will write it into their deal to offset the replacement costs.

This is what I was getting at earlier. Of course, for this to be true, the challenging OEM has to see significant enough potential down the road that they are willing to eat these costs in the current order.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 131):
Also, BBD could end up replacing the LCC A319s, and 73GMAX/319neo replace the few mainline ones... it would be a logical move as well as the 2 fleets would never get crossed in such a situation

An interesting idea. I have wondered the same. Now the 738 is popular over the A320 with LCCs because the high density layout gets them closer to 200. But of course, for a mainline, the smaller aircraft sometimes ends up "right-sizing" so to speak. I wonder if the split fleet is worth the maximization of both business models.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 133):
When they announced a fleet of 100 narrow-bodies, it made me think only the A320 series is up for renewal, as yes, that would include the LCC.

I think of it like a corollary condition. It's a 100 aircraft replacement. But if given the right deal, it could become a 140 aircraft replacement. Just look at how many airplanes AA ordered for their fleet renewal. Sure they needed more than one OEM could offer independently. But they went above and beyond because they managed to bargain down both OEMs substantially. I would hope that if AC got an offer like that from BBD, they wouldn't turn it down just because change is a pain in the tailcone.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 133):
I don't like to see change just for the sake of change, and hope that AC's engineering department agrees.

I also agree with this. And I would only support AC switching types if it really helped their bottom line. I hope though, that honest analysis is being done. And that institutional bias is monitored. I have no doubts in mind that it does creep in. For example, ask any aspiring narrowbody pilot at AC to assess whether a 321NEO can do YHZ-LHR or YYZ-BOG. There's no doubt in my mind that they'll be conflicted about doing such a study, knowing that they'll be reducing their career opportunities going forward. You should see the looks that pilots shoot at us engineer types when we start suggesting the things UAVs can do (for example...replacing the entire CP140 Aurora fleet for maritime patrol). We'll get all kinds of excuses of things that pilots could do. But then they admit that none of that "potential" was used at any point in their career, resulting in effectively excess capability that the taxpayer paid for. Hopefully, AC is not resistant to institutional change. But only you can judge that!

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 15:07:42 and read 6857 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 138):
Many would disagree that EK is better. AC doesn't subject its 777 passengers to cramped 10-abreast seating in Y class, or their A330 J class passengers to 7-abreast (2-3-2) seating which must be virtually unique to EK A330s. AC's herringbone flat-bed A330 layout is 1-1-1.

An important caveat: EK doesn't send 777s to Canada. So in that sense AC and its *A partners are competing against an EK that sends A380s to YYZ with 18" seats in Y.

But yes, having flown EK from LHR to DXB on a 10-abreast 777, I'd agree. AC is better in that regards. However, these days, the vast majority of EK's Canadian customers are flying an A380 to Dubai and then a more cramped A330 or 777 to South Asia. The latter trip would probably be a narrowbody elsewhere.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 138):
I know many Europeans who consider AC service generally better than most major European carriers.

Intra-Europe. Sure.

Internationally? I'd say BA or VS for example are better than AC.

And once AC goes 10-abreast on the 777s and 9-abreast on the 787s, I don't see what claim to great service they'll have.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-11 15:34:07 and read 6811 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 140):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 138):
Many would disagree that EK is better. AC doesn't subject its 777 passengers to cramped 10-abreast seating in Y class, or their A330 J class passengers to 7-abreast (2-3-2) seating which must be virtually unique to EK A330s. AC's herringbone flat-bed A330 layout is 1-1-1.

An important caveat: EK doesn't send 777s to Canada. So in that sense AC and its *A partners are competing against an EK that sends A380s to YYZ with 18" seats in Y.

Yes, but the vast majority of EK passengers to/from Canada are connecting beyond DXB, and with EK's huge 777 fleet, there's a good chance they'll encounter a 10-abreast EK 777 on at least part of their trip..

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 15:54:37 and read 6773 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 135):
Sure theyre better than DAL, UA, AA etc but Emirates is better.

That was just a tongue in cheek example fellas.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 16:24:05 and read 6758 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 132):
You mean the office that has consistently provided good analysis to the government that has decided to play politics with them?

If the office of procurement have provided the govt with excellent analysis I'd say the govt doesn't listen to them very well.

In recent history the CF has done well when purchasing off the shelf aircraft. The -130J, C-17, and I'm sure the Chinook will do well.

They go into pre-EIS aircraft and their record has been nothing short of disastrous and embarrassing. The CH-146 is a joke. One of the most ineffective pieces of crap ever flown into a war zone. They should have gone off the shelf with the H-60. You get Blackhawks you get Seahawks and SAR could have their variant. Those poor bastards flying those Ch-124 Sea Kings wouldn't be waiting for the Cyclone and our SAR boys and girls would have a Jayhawk to fly instead of waiting for parts to be milled for the Cormorant. I mean we should have been shaving with the Sea King 15 years ago that thing is serious razor blades. They should have gone with the Super Hornet vice the F-35. The Cormorant another disaster. Almost every attempt to purchase a pre manufactured aircraft has wound up in scandal, way over budget, delayed beyond comprehension and a national embarrassment.

Whether the blame for these projects falls on bureaucracy or inept military advice I do not know. But if NDHQ offered anything resembling support towards the Cormorant, Griffon, Cyclone, F-35 then they are wearing egg. And if they argued against those programs then they certainly didn't speak loudly enough for the idiots on the hill to listen or at least the people in the press to hear and report on.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: zbbylw
Posted 2012-12-11 16:37:04 and read 6744 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 140):

And once AC goes 10-abreast on the 777s and 9-abreast on the 787s, I don't see what claim to great service they'll have.

I see everyone spouting off about the 10-abreast 777s can you or anyone else offer a link to a press release from AC? I am not doubting this could happen but many seem to be deeming it fact! What I could see instead is a 77W without the second cabin of J class seats. The second cabin has 18 J class seats, perhaps make them Y+ and have 9 abreast with an extra couple of inches of leg room. There are some destinations that AC serves with a 77W that having 42 J class seats in may be too much. Perhaps 24 and then say 40 Y+ and then your typical 307 or so economy seats. Don't forget a lot of AC's flights have so much cargo on board (thinking of places such as HKG, FRA, PVG etc..) that having more baggage for down stairs would create problems with bulking some of the cargo out.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-11 16:43:51 and read 6746 times.

Quoting zbbylw (Reply 144):
I see everyone spouting off about the 10-abreast 777s can you or anyone else offer a link to a press release from AC?

They have not given any details about the cabin configuration for the two new B77Ws arriving this year. All that has been announced is that they will be a higher density and may introduce a new product. I too am hoping for a reduced J cabin, Premium Economy and Economy at 9 abreast giving a "higher density". But they tell us they will be used on mainland China, which is a very price conscious market so I keep thinking ... 10 abreast.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 17:55:02 and read 6637 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 141):
Yes, but the vast majority of EK passengers to/from Canada are connecting beyond DXB, and with EK's huge 777 fleet, there's a good chance they'll encounter a 10-abreast EK 777 on at least part of their trip..

3 hrs on a 10-abreast 777 is tolerable. The alternative in most places for that stage lenght would be a narrowbody with equivalent seat width.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 143):
But if NDHQ offered anything resembling support towards the Cormorant, Griffon, Cyclone, F-35 then they are wearing egg.

Lots and lots of internal memos about all those platforms. Keep in mind that:

1) Not everything you hear in the media is true.
2) Defence procurement can involve something like 30 other stakeholders, who all get a vote on what you buy, unless its deemed a matter of national security by the government...exceptionally rare.
3) Government is not obligated to take our advice.

With the ones you are citing. There was no real alternative to the Cormorant. But we should have bought the airframe to military standards. The government decided saving money on acquisition was more important. The Griffon was a directed buy by the government of the day. DND had been interested in getting 40 utility tactical transport helicopters (Blackhawks most likely). The government directed a buy of 100 Bell 412EPs sole-source. Heck, the air force was surprised to hear the announcement. The Cyclone was a result of pressure from the government of the day to drop the three-engine requirement and allow for developmental helicopters. The military opposed the latter change. But there'd be no competition without those changes. And so the government forced the change.

On the F-35. It's too long to discuss here...

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 143):
And if they argued against those programs then they certainly didn't speak loudly enough for the idiots on the hill to listen or at least the people in the press to hear and report on.

It is against protocol to criticize the government in public (or rather more open forums than say a.net) for any public servant. I fully agree with this principle. Criticism of a government can bring into question the independence of the public service.

There are official forums like parliamentary hearings or AG audits to voice appropriate criticisms.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2012-12-11 18:28:04 and read 6583 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 118):
I think containerized cargo is a red herring. When I flew the A320/A321, I don't recall it being any quicker to service with regard to baggage handling than the A319

Im sure you are right, but its quicker behind the scenes, you can just transfer a container from one aircraft to another - or its still quicker to transfer cargo to a bigger container if necessary by placing them side by side.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 117):
Yet, they bougth 319s that don't use containerized cargo

In the context we were speaking of, I meant it would be cheaper to operate the 319 as part of the 32S family (and take advantage of its performance while they are about it) rather than introduce another type (CS) assuming the E190's are staying for the time being.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 110):

100% is pretty confident

I should clarify I dont mean I am 100% confident the order will go to A (though it is my opinion and where I would put my cash if I were a betting man), I am just sure the order will be 100% A32S size, not split with the CS.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 133):
When they announced a fleet of 100 narrow-bodies, it made me think only the A320 series is up for renewal, as yes, that would include the LCC. Had they said 140 (or so) aircraft, it would make me think the E190 was being considered for replacement as well.

  

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 138):
AC doesn't subject its 777 passengers to cramped 10-abreast seating in Y class

Yet  

The CS is an interesting one. I do feel it will happen at AC, but it is just the wrong time at the moment and I think the order book shows it is generally the case, not only with AC. I have no doubt it will be a very successful aircraft in a few years as airlines start to replace E190/195's and A319's/73G's. For AC, I really think it will come down to how well the LCC does and what routes they take over. Meanwhile, they will get their pound of flesh out of the E190's and maintain the status quo. If the LCC does well, 319's could transfer over there - this of course a few years into the future.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 128):
Air Canada Cargo would have to set up an arrangement.

The leisure carriers (TS, WG etc) do carry cargo to the sunspots. It depends how true an LCC this is. WS are an LCC but carry cargo and so do WN. The beancounters would have to crunch the numbers and determine if the revenue would be worthwhile and if it will fit into their business model for turn around times etc, and if so Im pretty sure AC Cargo would set up a contract with them just like AC mainline and Jazz / Regional. Chances are if they are serving previous mainline destinations the (admittedly little) infrastructure would already be in place, if not they would hire whichever GSA & ground handler which makes the best bid like the other carriers do.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 19:02:38 and read 6538 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 147):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 128):
Air Canada Cargo would have to set up an arrangement.

I dont think they would. It's already established that they will carry mainline code and standard interline agreement. That sure as heck would involve cargo as well.

Like I said earlier, if theres cargo to haul they'll haul it. The routes are such that I doubt it would be anything substantial.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-11 19:59:21 and read 6491 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 147):
WS are an LCC but carry cargo and so do WN.

I wouldn't count WS orWN as LCC. WS has IFE. They offer air miles. They are going to be offering Y+. And their seat pitch is hardly LCC standards. They are an LCC compared to AC. And that's really only because WS doesn't really focus on business traffic or rather the business traffic that flies J.

This leaves AC room for a real LCC.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-11 20:18:37 and read 6474 times.

ACs LCC will have the same IFE as mainline. The high density 767s that do not have setback IFEs now will be upgraded before launch I am told. On that note the 319s will need modding as well- interior wise.

I have zero clue what the seat pitch is going to be on the 319 but I'd imagine it'll be a reduction from mainline pitch.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YXD172
Posted 2012-12-11 22:30:48 and read 6350 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 150):

I have zero clue what the seat pitch is going to be on the 319 but I'd imagine it'll be a reduction from mainline pitch.

I wonder if it will be the same as the current 'Caribbean' configured A319: 31" pitch giving 132Y in 22 rows. See layout 2 here: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/a319-100xm.html

They can't go much smaller, TS has 31" and even FR has 30"

Which makes me wonder if these two A319 are tagged for the LCC (although they have no PTVs). The list of destinations the all-Y A319s go to is probably a hint for the LCC as well:
KIN, MBJ, AZS, PUJ, SJO, SNU, VRA

[Edited 2012-12-11 22:32:34]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-12 06:26:26 and read 6289 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 150):
ACs LCC will have the same IFE as mainline.

That's just a result of legacy fleet choice. I imagine they don't want to spend money ripping out the kit.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 150):
The high density 767s that do not have setback IFEs now will be upgraded before launch I am told.

I find this surprising. They don't need it. You don't get seatback IFE on TS or WG. So why bother? They should be competing on price. Or if necessary, don't use touchscreens. Use repeater screens. Same content for everyone. That should remove the need for IFE boxes. Far easier to simply broadcast to each TV.

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 151):
I wonder if it will be the same as the current 'Caribbean' configured A319: 31" pitch giving 132Y in 22 rows.

I wonder why AC is so light on density. Easyjet achieves 156Y at 29" pitch.

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/eas...s/easyJet_Airlines_Airbus_A319.php

Look at the seat maps, it's clear that the washrooms at the back eat into the seating area. But I guess there's no desire to reconfigure these aircraft.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-12 06:36:05 and read 6267 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 152):
I find this surprising. They don't need it. You don't get seatback IFE on TS or WG. So why bother?

Yes, indications I am reading also suggest that AVOD IFE will be installed/retained at the LCC. Perhaps for purchase unlike mainline where it is complimentary. TS is in the process of installing seatback IFE on its A330s, I am not sure about their A310s.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 152):
Look at the seat maps, it's clear that the washrooms at the back eat into the seating area. But I guess there's no desire to reconfigure these aircraft.

Two lavs for 156 passengers looks rough, but the real problem might be if one lav became u/s then the aircraft is grounded, (by Canadian Law) whereas with three, the ship can continue if one lav is inop.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 152):

That's just a result of legacy fleet choice. I imagine they don't want to spend money ripping out the kit.

The first B767s to go to the LCC do not presently have AVOD IFE, it will be installed.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-12 06:50:05 and read 6243 times.

Honestly, one reason I hope AC gets 321NEOs or 739MAXs is so that they can offer a better hard product.

Look at VX's J product. AC might be able to pull off something closer to that with a bigger aircraft. Then there's the lack of Y+ on domestic flights.

That's the reason, I'd like to see them get 321NEOs to replace the 320s. Hopefully they'd offer something like 20J/72Y+/78Y (rough guide based on E-exits as cabin dividers on the 321). Y+ could offer 34-36" pitch. Y would be 32" pitch. 3 washrooms (1 at the front, two at the back). That would yield about 170 seats. Little bit less than what AC 321s do now.

This kind of layout would have something to offer every pax. The trip cost on a 321NEO configured as above might actually be on par or lower than todays 320s while offering more revenue opportunity.

I guess I like what AA is doing with their 321 TCONs due to arrive next year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20zshmYxhLw

AC doesn't need domestic First. But the rest of AA's 321TCON product looks phenonmenal. I'd love to see AC offer something like that throughout North America.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: SixtySeven
Posted 2012-12-12 07:00:27 and read 6203 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 152):
That's just a result of legacy fleet choice. I imagine they don't want to spend money ripping out the kit.

Could be. Then again they might just want to provide a nice product. Remember when they rip out J on the 319 they'd have to put IFE into the fwd cabin or youd have the front rows without it.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 152):
I wonder why AC is so light on density. Easyjet achieves 156Y at 29" pitch.

Good point. I would think they'll get somewhere north of 132 in the LCC fins. Not sure by how many.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 153):
TS is in the process of installing seatback IFE on its A330s, I am not sure about their A310s.

Yup. My brother just flew on one of their 330's and it had seatback IFE. I believe the quote was "the seat in front of you is so close that you go cross-eyed looking at the screen as it seems only about an inch in front of your face!"

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 151):
The list of destinations the all-Y A319s go to is probably a hint for the LCC as well:
KIN, MBJ, AZS, PUJ, SJO, SNU, VRA

I think you'd be able to add even more to the list. Any ACV hotspots will likely draw the attention of the LCC planners IMO.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: lostsound
Posted 2012-12-12 07:40:23 and read 6158 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 152):
I wonder why AC is so light on density. Easyjet achieves 156Y at 29" pitch.

The AC A319s cannot have more than 149 seats or else they will need to add an extra emergency exit over each wing. I'd imagine they have no desire in doing this as it's extra cost and the A319s won't be able to be reintegrated smoothly into AC's fleet as before if all fails or they need more A319s in mainline.

[Edited 2012-12-12 07:53:15]

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-12 07:42:48 and read 6148 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 153):
TS is in the process of installing seatback IFE on its A330s,

Didn't know that. Honestly, never flown TS. Their reputation precedes them and I'd rather fly AC if that's the alternative. But if AC starts going down the rabbit hole with cramping up Y (while not offering a reasonably priced Y+), TS might come on my radar. In any event, this is certainly a positive development for cattle class.

I still maintain that if IFE is being done, airlines should take note of what VX is doing with onboard ordering. That system is phenomenal....at least for mainline. Might cut down on cabin crew workload too.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 153):
Two lavs for 156 passengers looks rough, but the real problem might be if one lav became u/s then the aircraft is grounded, (by Canadian Law) whereas with three, the ship can continue if one lav is inop.

Good point. Would they not be able to do 3 lavs (2 in back, one in front) and a single galley (at the front)? Or just a small galley at the back lose only a 3-seat set)?

In any event, might be too much to reconfigure for a lav or galley. AC is just better off holding that cash for the fleet replacement.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-12 14:16:38 and read 5914 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 146):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 141):
Yes, but the vast majority of EK passengers to/from Canada are connecting beyond DXB, and with EK's huge 777 fleet, there's a good chance they'll encounter a 10-abreast EK 777 on at least part of their trip..

3 hrs on a 10-abreast 777 is tolerable. The alternative in most places for that stage length would be a narrowbody with equivalent seat width.

The alternative would also often be a much nicer 2-4-2 A330/340. And on a 3-hour sector, I would always choose a 737 or especially A320 over a 10-abreast 777. Much more pleasant, especially the wider Airbus cabin and usually wider seats (or wider aisle if they choose that option). And even if the seat cushions may be about the same width, the gap between the seats and the armrests and aisles are also narrower on the 777. The narrowbodies give you the impression of more room, even if the difference is small, compared to seeing 10 people across on a 777. Also a lower probability of a middle seat (33% vs. 40%).

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: YTZ
Posted 2012-12-12 15:03:58 and read 5872 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 158):
The alternative would also often be a much nicer 2-4-2 A330/340. And on a 3-hour sector, I would always choose a 737 or especially A320 over a 10-abreast 777. Much more pleasant, especially the wider Airbus cabin and usually wider seats (or wider aisle if they choose that option). And even if the seat cushions may be about the same width, the gap between the seats and the armrests and aisles are also narrower on the 777. The narrowbodies give you the impression of more room, even if the difference is small, compared to seeing 10 people across on a 777. Also a lower probability of a middle seat (33% vs. 40%).

True. But, when you're looking at a flight to India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka, what you often end up getting is AC to FRA or MUC and then from there you get an old LH 744 (until recently some still didn't have PTVs) or you get a 333/343 with 17.5" seats for another 8-9 hours.

And yet people wonder why EK is so popular out of YYZ.

AC is the good part of the trip to South Asia. But if they go 10-abreast on the 777s, there will absolutely be no value in taking the Star Alliance combo to South Asia.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: odwyerpw
Posted 2012-12-13 17:02:30 and read 5436 times.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 63):
ETOPS is not a big deal at all. Open your eyes and brain. Ask yourself this before asking the question you did ask.

Dude, you are entitled to strong opinions. I or no one else will deny you those. But, could you be a little nicer to folks. It really isn't necessary to degrade people in that way.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2012-12-14 05:41:34 and read 5230 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 32):
Does AC have many thin routes which it wants/needs to use the E190 on, but can't? I've heard before on here that one short-coming of the E190 is that it's range isn't great.

I think they use it on the YYZ-YYJ route wihich is 2100 mi.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 118):
the one E170 simulator was converted to an E190 sim, so now they are both E190s.

I didn't know those cockpits were that different?

Anybody know if the NEO cockpit will be really different?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: zbbylw
Posted 2012-12-14 06:07:29 and read 5183 times.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 161):
I think they use it on the YYZ-YYJ route wihich is 2100 mi.

While I am sure it has flown that route, it's usually either an 319 or 320. With that being said SEA and when it is operating PDX has been in the E90.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-14 07:39:20 and read 5145 times.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 161):
I think they use it on the YYZ-YYJ route wihich is 2100 mi.

The longest route on which AC flew the E190 with passengers was YYZ-SNA, at 2158 sm, or 1875 nm. As stated, the longest current route is YYZ-SEA 2060 sm, 1791 nm.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 161):
I didn't know those cockpits were that different?

The cockpits are virtually identical, but that's the easy part.

The simulator has to be reprogrammed to fly like an E190 instead of an E170, weights, speeds, etc. Then when it is complete, Transport Canada has to "test fly" it to re-certify it for training, and testing.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: boeingorbust
Posted 2012-12-23 23:48:21 and read 4448 times.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 5):
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 4):
Would they consider the 737 for fleet commonality?

That's not fleet commonality, that's manufacturer commonality. As there is no common type rating between Boeing (or Airbus for that matter) narrow and widebody aircraft, there would be no apparent benefit for AC to select a sole manufacturer; they would still require separate training and maintenance programs, whatever the new type.

I was only referring to the fact that they are transitioning their wide body fleet to Boeing. Is there no commonality between the 777, 787 and 737? Would it not make upgrading and possibly maintenance any easier or less expensive?

I was also referring to the fact that they mentioned talks with Boeing... If it wasn't a viable option, why would they consider Boeing as a provider?

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-12-24 00:37:28 and read 4351 times.

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 164):
I was also referring to the fact that they mentioned talks with Boeing... If it wasn't a viable option, why would they consider Boeing as a provider?

In a duopoly why would you only consider one manufacturer?   

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: boeingorbust
Posted 2012-12-24 00:38:44 and read 4355 times.

It would save time and money if your current operations only economically allowed for one manufacturer as others have been telling me in this forum.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-24 02:22:41 and read 4284 times.

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 166):
It would save time and money if your current operations only economically allowed for one manufacturer as others have been telling me in this forum.

It all depends on the size of your fleets. Recently, a Lufthansa higher up said that it takes around 20 - 25 of a certain model to make it worthwhile having a mixed fleet...as long as you have the most efficient aircraft for the job.

The Boeing and Airbus narrow body products have similar enough performance that it wouldn't really make much sense for them to switch over to an all Boeing narrow body fleet. They'll keep on with the 320/321's and if they do decide they want maximum efficiency, they can swap out the 319's for CS300's...if they buy enough to overcome the advantages of commonality...and the efficiency is there.

Putting all of your eggs in one manufacturers basket can reduce your bargaining power. It never hurts to be able to play manufacturers against each other.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-12-24 14:26:07 and read 3837 times.

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 166):
It would save time and money if your current operations only economically allowed for one manufacturer as others have been telling me in this forum.

While that may be a factor for a smaller fleet, the numbers that AC are talking about they'd be foolish not to consider both OEMs.

Topic: RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies
Username: boeingorbust
Posted 2012-12-24 21:22:46 and read 3510 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 167):

Putting all of your eggs in one manufacturers basket can reduce your bargaining power. It never hurts to be able to play manufacturers against each other.

Good point. I think this is pretty much what WS did with their recent Q400 order for Encore.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/