BigD From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 89 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4049 times:
Does anyone have a good idea as to what aircraft the airline will be eliminating as a result of its restructuring? Moreover, how many aircraft will be removed overall?
I assume that 737-200s will be removed as well as the 767-200s and BAE-146s. Is there any hope of the airline taking delivery of the 340-500 and 340-600s?
AC_B777 From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 784 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4000 times:
I thought most of the older non ER 767's had been parked, but I think they have re-entered service for the summer months.
We have had fin's 601, 602, 603, 604, 605 and a couple of others visit YYT on our afternoon and late night YYZ-YYT-YYZ flights.
I don't know for sure if these had been parked, but if they had, it's good to see them in the air again. Especially 601, our first 767 and 604, the Gimli Glider.
Hope to see them stay around for a while.
AC_B777
In life, some days you are the bug..... some days you are the windshield!
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3909 times:
The 146 and 732 fleets will not survive much longer. The 744 fleet was to be eliminated but now it looks as though the 74E's will remain. The current 5 345/346 that were on order will not be taken by AC.
AC is looking at the CRJ-700/900, EMB-17/9x, 318, and 717.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Teahan From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 5264 posts, RR: 64 Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3852 times:
Regarding the A340-500s, it was still mentioned some days ago that they hoped to take two of them in January 2004. Can anyone confirm that that will not be the case?
Jeremiah
Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
SAA-SAL From Belgium, joined Nov 2000, 356 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3474 times:
Air Canada filed for bankruptcy but is not "technically" bankrupt and will probably survive. Does this mean they had to pay to cancel those A345/A346 orders? I think it will only be fair if they did have to , and alot.
It is not conceivable that an airline is allowed to cancel orders because of bankruptcy protection and then after that consider buying other new aircraft (ie. Embraer..Boeing 717...etc)
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3408 times:
It is not conceivable that an airline is allowed to cancel orders because of bankruptcy protection and then after that consider buying other new aircraft (ie. Embraer..Boeing 717...etc)
Of course it's conceivable! It's fairly common.
Look at US Airways....they cancelled a number of Airbus orders, and placed new orders for Canadair & Embraer aircraft upon exiting from Chap 11.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Behramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4439 posts, RR: 43 Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3354 times:
Is it true that AC choose the Airbus family of 320s, 330s and 340s over Boeing 737NGs and 777s because of some kickbacks AIRBUS was giving their Prime Minister in the early 90s?
AC would probably been better off standardizing its entire fleet with Boeing 737-700s and Boeing 737-800s for regional routes and Boeing 777-200ERs and 773s for the long haul Asian and European routes (which have high demand-LHR, FRA and CDG mainly).
Isnt the A 340-300 and -500 more expensive and less efficient to operate than the B 777s due to the latter having 2 less engines plus other benefits.
They are starting nonstop DELHI services from OCT using A 343s nonstop from YYZ. The flight timings of the route reflect that this new DEL flight has replaced the daily YYZ-TOKYO A 343 nonstop flight.
Caribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1627 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3352 times:
I tend to agree with some of the posters above that Air Canada really has little need for a fleet of A340-500s and perhaps not even the -600s.. I think their short term future is going to be heavily weighed down by trying to become more efficient and concetrate on making their existing network profitable. The number of long haul routes that can support this aircraft from Toronto (or even Vancouver or Montreal) are so few that I would question the need for them. Starting up such flights in amongst their efforts to become a more stable airline will only make it all the more difficult.
Lymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1133 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3291 times:
"Is it true that AC choose the Airbus family of 320s, 330s and 340s over Boeing 737NGs and 777s because of some kickbacks AIRBUS was giving their Prime Minister in the early 90s?"
This was disproven in court (although who really knows);Brian Mulroney, the PM in question, is taking legal action against the RCMP for acusing him in the first place. I don't know what the status is now.
"AC would probably been better off standardizing its entire fleet with Boeing 737-700s and Boeing 737-800s for regional routes and Boeing 777-200ERs and 773s for the long haul Asian and European routes (which have high demand-LHR, FRA and CDG mainly)."
I disagree. AC started accepting deliveries of the A320 in 1989; had they waited until the 737NGs were being delivered in 1997 or so, that would equate to an extra 8 years of using inefficient 727s and larger number of DC-9s. Even then, the A320/A319 is better suited for many of AC's longer, medium density routes. Regarding the 777 vs the A340, I'm not sure how that played out at AC as they both offer similar benefits.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3223 times:
AC started accepting deliveries of the A320 in 1989
1990 actually.
had they waited until the 737NGs were being delivered in 1997 or so, that would equate to an extra 8 years of using inefficient 727s
Actually, the AC 722 fleet was quite young. Many were retired after only 10 years in service and long before US majors began replacing there's. They were not inefficient per se since all their competitors also operated the aircraft. Arguably the 722 fleet was not retained long enough and were replaced too early.
Even then, the A320/A319 is better suited for many of AC's longer, medium density routes.
Not true. There is very little to distinguish the 32x from the NG. Their capabilities are similar. The 73G/8 could easily fit the current AC 319/320 routes.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2751 posts, RR: 18 Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3163 times:
Arguably the 722 fleet was not retained long enough and were replaced too early.
Wasn't this because of a deal made with Federal Express? Since the whole 722 fleet was bought by them as they could not get any newly-built ones anymore.
Isn't the A 340-300 and -500 more expensive and less efficient to operate than the B 777s due to the latter having 2 less engines plus other benefits.
Maybe the A340 is more expensive to maintain the engines but besides that the four vs. two engines is not really worth being talked about...
It does not so much matter what a/c is used rather than how that certain plane is operated. Neither Airbus nor Boeing can risk selling planes that have no operational value. Or does the success of Airbus just mean that governments all around the world are spending millions and millions so that their privately owned airlines order [less efficient] Airbus planes. I guess not.
By the way a 777 is the most expensive plane you can get, so it will for sure take longer until one brings in real profit to an airline...
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3145 times:
Wasn't this because of a deal made with Federal Express? Since the whole 722 fleet was bought by them as they could not get any newly-built ones anymore.
No, the Fedex deal was made after the 320 order. While Fedex did buy 33 of the 39 AC 722's, late model 722's were still in relatively high demand in the early 1990's so AC did not need the Fedex deal to "spice up" the justification for the 320 order.
When new aircraft are turned over quickly (say, in under 10 years as with some of the AC 722's), the ROI is much lower than a fleet retired after 15 or 20 years, is is usually not covered by lower operating costs of the new aircraft.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Lymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1133 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3072 times:
While one could go on extolling the virtues of the 737NG VS the A32X series and vice versa, the point is when AC went shopping for a 727 replacement in the mid-late 80s (perhaps too soon, as written above) the Airbus was miles ahead of the 737MG (middle generation 300/400/500) from a technological and efficiency point of view. Additionally, Airbus gave AC a very good deal on the early A320s, which of course is typical of how Airbus does business.
Something I neglected to mention earlier as a possible reason for AC going for Airbus 32X and 330/340 is of course the much-touted cockpit commonality. Whether this was part of a overall master plan or just pure coincidence, I don't know. When did AC commit to the A330/340?
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3025 times:
the point is when AC went shopping for a 727 replacement in the mid-late 80s (perhaps too soon, as written above) the Airbus was miles ahead of the 737MG (middle generation 300/400/500) from a technological and efficiency point of view.
I agree totally Lymanm. Boeing made a counter offer incidently with the 733/734 but AC was not interested.
.....the much-touted cockpit commonality. Whether this was part of a overall master plan or just pure coincidence, I don't know. When did AC commit to the A330/340?
AC committed to the 340 in 1993 or so.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Samurai 777 From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 2451 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2940 times:
Apparently, the non-ER 762s are still flying around to meet travel demand during this summer and even reduced demand. They might also be subbing for A330/340 and 763 flights on transcon routes. Why? I flew on AC149 back on July 14th from YYZ to YVR. That normally would have been an A330 if it had not been for SARS and maybe even AC's financial woes. The equipment was changed to a 763, but then either very recently or at the last minute, was changed to a 762! BTW, it was fin #603 (C-GAUH) that I flew on for that route. It wasn't nearly as bad inside as I thought it would be - in fact, the cabin was pretty clean and the seats seemed to be in fine shape.
The Gimli Glider (C-GAUN fin #604) is still in service, probably even as we speak. I saw that plane on July 7, pulling out of a gate at the C Pier at YVR for a flight to YYZ right while I was watching from the Maple Leaf Lounge there.
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2751 posts, RR: 18 Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2858 times:
As already mentioned the 767-200ER does really make sense for AC. They can serve longhaul destinations that do not fill an A330/A340 or a 763 and still make lots of money on them. But I doubt that AC is now willing to open up new markets directly but rather works together with partners such as Lufthansa and other Star members.
The last 762 of AC I saw was back in May at MAN.
Did for example MAN get larger aircraft from YYZ before SARS?
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2751 posts, RR: 18 Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2697 times:
MAN has been exclusively 762 for years, except for the odd 763 sub.
Thanks for that information. I had always thought that there was a point (2000 or 2001) where AC did not operate any 762's on trans-atlantics, good to know that I was wrong.
Max
25 Slawko: The MAN and GLA routes are the only overseas routes that the 762 does...all other overseas 767 flying is done with the -300 which are cheaper to opera
26 Sims747: We have had fin's 601, 602, 603, 604, 605 and a couple of others visit YYT on our afternoon and late night YYZ-YYT-YYZ flights. Are you sure you have
27 Ssides: Given the length of this string, I haven't looked at every posting so this may have already been answered: Has AC gotten rid of all their 747s? Just c
28 Yyz717: Has AC gotten rid of all their 747s? No. The 3 YYZ-based 74E's are still flying and rumour suggests that this will continue. Also, 2 (or 3?) of the 4
29 Sims747: Given the length of this string, I haven't looked at every posting so this may have already been answered: Has AC gotten rid of all their 747s? Just c
30 Polaris: I'd like to add some comments to three items noted above: The first: There were no kickbacks to any Prime Minister regarding the A320 purchase. Boeing
31 Yyz717: This opened the door for Air Canada to purchase new-technology A320s. Umm, no. It was the other way around. I worked for Fedex at the time....AC place
32 CanadaEH: I assume that 737-200s will be removed There seems to be a cloud of uncertainty over the 737-200's. If they were to be removed, what would become of Z
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 89 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 5264 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1449 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2751 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Mar 2001, 335 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
