Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Future Of AC's Fleet.  
User currently offlineBoeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4519 times:

So I was thinking today. Air Canada seems to be getting a lot more pro Boeing. A good thing, yet... Why do they not choose any Boeings for their narrow body fleet. Jazz consists of RJ's as well as DH-8's, and the AC narrow body fleet is Embraer as well as A319-A321. So why no Boeings for narrow body? Also when the time comes for them to start replacing the narrow body fleets as well as RJ's, then will they then look to Boeing? As far as I've been told, Boeing aircraft, 737's to be more precise are more efficient to operate than an A319 or A320. Will they stay airbus and order replacements? Or change to the new 737 replacement?

Any opinions or knowledge that can be shed on the subject?

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePictues From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4468 times:

we are probably talking like 10 years from now so who knows, right now the E175/190 (the latter mainly) is replaceing some of the A319's and A320's.

User currently offlineMilan320 From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 872 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4440 times:

Quoting Boeingluvr (Thread starter):
As far as I've been told, Boeing aircraft, 737's to be more precise are more efficient to operate than an A319 or A320.

You realize that you're going to open up a Pandora's Box with that comment.

Could you please elaborate how the 737's are more precise?!?!?!?!???

/Milan320

[Edited 2007-09-19 11:38:02]


I accept bribes ... :-)
User currently offlineBeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 731 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

In a word, cargo.

The A320 series offers more underbelly cargo capacity than the 737. We'll see what happens when the A319/320/321 is due for replacement at AC. It will depend what Boeing and Airbus have on offer at that time.

For the moment the A320 series is serving Air Canada very well. They use it nationally, trans-border, and even intercontinental (with flights to the northern part of South America and last summer, trans-atlantic). It has the right range, passenger capacity and cargo capacity for the job on stage lengths up to about 6 hours.

Beech


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4291 times:

Quoting Boeingluvr (Thread starter):
So I was thinking today. Air Canada seems to be getting a lot more pro Boeing. A good thing, yet... Why do they not choose any Boeings for their narrow body fleet. Jazz consists of RJ's as well as DH-8's, and the AC narrow body fleet is Embraer as well as A319-A321. So why no Boeings for narrow body? Also when the time comes for them to start replacing the narrow body fleets as well as RJ's, then will they then look to Boeing? As far as I've been told, Boeing aircraft, 737's to be more precise are more efficient to operate than an A319 or A320. Will they stay airbus and order replacements? Or change to the new 737 replacement?

I have been asked a similar question yesterday in an other AC thread. I was wondering if AC will order additional A32x before they will order the next generation 737/A320 replacement. So far as I have heard some leases will expire and some Emb 190 have already replaced some A319s.
Regarding your other question the 737NG and A320 are very much the same in economics.
Maybe they will order the 737RSS at some point to have fleet commonality with their 787s and 777s but I can also think that they don´t want to be dependant on one manufacturer and stay with Airbus on narrowbodies.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3077 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4261 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

AC will pull down some of the A32x family in favor of the E-Series, but as a whole, i wouldn't count on a replacement before 2015ish. And i wouldn't look for brand loyalty either... AC is famous for not being loyal to one manufacturer, just ask Airbus  irked 


Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineAccargo From Canada, joined Sep 2004, 610 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4255 times:

So many variables. What will be available when the time comes to replace the Airbus narrowbodies? Will Boeing keep updating the 737 model or come out with something incorporating newer technologies (or a bit of both)? The same applies to Airbus. Who will offer AC the best deal? The pressure will surely be on both manufacturers to get the order.

(note to luvr- please scan for grammatical errors)  razz 


User currently offlineAeroMexico777 From Mexico, joined Oct 2005, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4166 times:

Quoting Milan320 (Reply 2):
Quoting Boeingluvr (Thread starter):
As far as I've been told, Boeing aircraft, 737's to be more precise are more efficient to operate than an A319 or A320.

You realize that you're going to open up a Pandora's Box with that comment.

NO! Please NO! ... I see another A vs B war...  sigh 

Regards, AeroMexico777



"When the hope of dying becomes the only reason to live..." Die Laughing (Gothic), Safe little world.
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7817 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4096 times:

Boeingluvr

Without dwelling on your ID, do you think that AC bought the A319/A320 if the B737 was more suitable for their purposes.

Is this going to be another Airbus gives planes away thread.

If they do have some free planes ....


User currently offlineBoeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4051 times:

Quoting Accargo (Reply 6):
(note to luvr- please scan for grammatical errors)

Looks good this time haha. How's my spelling?

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 8):
Without dwelling on your ID, do you think that AC bought the A319/A320 if the B737 was more suitable for their purposes.

Well from what I remember it was a very much political purchase. Some even call it a government scandal at the time the purchase was made.

Quoting AeroMexico777 (Reply 7):
NO! Please NO! ... I see another A vs B war...

I didn't mean for it to come across as one sorry peeps!


User currently offlineBeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 731 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3996 times:

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 9):
Well from what I remember it was a very much political purchase. Some even call it a government scandal at the time the purchase was made.

Let's dispel that myth once and for all. When the A320 purchase decision was made, AC had been privatized. Secondly the competition at the time was the 737-400 and the MD-88.

Neither were capable of carrying a full payload non-stop from YUL to YVR against winter headwinds, and neither offered the cargo capacity, or ability to use underbelly containers, that the A320 does. Moreover, the 737-400 cruises at M 0.74, the Airbus, at M 0.78. At the time AC was seeking a B727 replacement (which itself was pretty marginal on east-to-west non-stop transcons). The 757 was too big, the 737 and MD88 not capable enough, and the A320 just right.

The 737NG leveled the playing field considerably in terms of economics. However it was not available when the purchase was made.

AC purchased the A320 on commercial merit only. Some politicians may give the appearance of trying to get greased in the process (and nothing has been proven in court), but regardless, AC would have chosen the same product at the end of the day.

Oddly enough, back when AC was a crown corporation, Francophone Canadians accused AC of buying the DC-9 on political grounds as well; same old tired argument. The Francophones thought AC should have purchased the Caravelle. How many Caravelles are flying today? How many DC-9s? I thought so. So AC made the right decision then too.

AC has a well-earned reputation for purchasing aircraft purely on technical and commercial grounds, which is why the recent Boeing purchase meant so much to Boeing.

Of course many Boeing lovers (and I am a Boeing lover) just can't get there heads around the fact that in 1989, Airbus offered a superior narrowbody product. Boeing followed on closely with the 737NG. It's called competition and it makes the commercial world go round.

Beech.


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2188 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3970 times:

Excellent post Beech.


The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineBriboy From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 10):
Let's dispel that myth once and for all. When the A320 purchase decision was made, AC had been privatized. Secondly the competition at the time was the 737-400 and the MD-88.

Wrong.

The purchase was decided before the airline was sold, and was in fact part of the *tart-ing up* of the then crown-corporation that was getting ready for sale.

NY Times article

I will not comment on the rest of the article, lest the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney PC feels litigious today...



next up: YYC, SFO, SYD, AKL, WLG, CMB, BKK, SIN, FRA, VCE, JFK
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2296 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3812 times:

There isn't any proof of political interference yet it still continues to circulate. Kinda like who shot JFK it may never go away  Big grin.

The 320/319 had the right stuff at the right time. Simple as that. It was a better product until the 737NG came along. The underbelly cargo was a major factor. One of Air Canada's best cargo customers is Canada Post. The Airbus product was better suited to that. You will see some additional 319/320 returned to leassors, or sold when they get too old. However, AC is enjoying leasing out its aircraft that are owned at very favourable rates so we may see more of that too.

The E aircraft are taking a lot of the heat off the 32x family. And becoming quite popular.

By the time AC is ready to buy the replacements for the 32x family the 737 replacement will be on the scene and it could very well be that if they beat Airbus to the marketplace with it, that is where the order will go.

AC over the years has been the launch customer for quite a few aircraft. HMMMM hehe.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 10):
Let's dispel that myth once and for all. When the A320 purchase decision was made, AC had been privatized.

That's not correct. AC ordered their first 34 A320s in July 1987. If memory correct, the first phase of their privatization didn't happen until October 1988 when they sold 43% of the company in a public offering. The government was still the majority shareholder until 1989.


User currently offlineBeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 731 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3752 times:

Quoting Briboy (Reply 12):
Wrong.

The purchase was decided before the airline was sold, and was in fact part of the *tart-ing up* of the then crown-corporation that was getting ready for sale.

NY Times article

I will not comment on the rest of the article, lest the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney PC feels litigious today...

The question then to ask, is what would AC have bought without the *alleged* political interference.

Please provide payload range figures, cruise speed, cargo capacity (in cu. ft) and cargo container capability for the following:

A320
MD88
B737-400

Which one combines a range of over 2287 statute miles westbound (CYUL-CYVR) in winter with full payload, largest underbelly capacity, speed of M0.78 and ability to handle containers.?

I thought so. The A320. Toss in competitive seat-mile costs against the competition, and you have all the reason AC needed to chose it.

In short, it kind of goes like this: which one can match the minimum mission profile we expect of it, and, if more than one can, which one is cheapest to buy, finance and operate?

Oh, there was possibly one other choice: the 757, a very capable airliner, one of my favourites, I would have loved to have seen these on AC. Only one problem: too big.

A few politicians with sticky hands would not have changed that decision.

Beech


User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2296 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Air Canada has always bought from a variety of airplane manufactures and likely will continue in that vein. Lockheed, Canadair, Vickers, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Bombardier, Airbus, and now Embraer. Did they fly anything from Bristol? I may have missed one or two but I think the trend will continue. The A330 will likely stay around as long as it makes sense to have 8 aircraft of one type economically. They have been very good aircraft and I for one would love to see then around for a while. I also think we will see some more orders for 787 (perhaps of a different model) and possibly for the 777 family given how well they have been received into the fleet.

User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

Agreed. Boeing needed two aircraft and Airbus only one to meet AC's mission specifications.

AC bought the 320s because at the time, Boeing simply lacked a suitable product. Boeing was overly concerned building 737 derivatives that suited a U.S. customer base that was either doing Southwest hop and skip or Legacy hub runs. The concept of coast to coast nonstops was largely in abeyance, save for a relatively small number of high-density routes that could support 767s, 757s, DC-10s, etc. The Canadian market had only one or two routes that could support 200-seat aircraft whereas AC had a dozen routes or more (like YYZ-SFO, YYZ-LAX, YUL-YVR, etc.)where it needed a 130-seat aircraft with the payload range offered only by the 200-seat 757.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3671 times:

Quoting Sebring (Reply 17):
AC bought the 320s because at the time, Boeing simply lacked a suitable product.

Don't forget that CP, which was a major 737-200 operator, also swtiched to the A320. They ordered 17 (plus 17 options) in July 1988, exactly a year after AC's initial A320 order. The A320 also had the advantage of a wider fuselage apart from other technical/pricing considerations.

CP Air had planned to switch from the 737-200 to the 737-300 and had ordered and taken delivery of 5 -300s in 1985/86. When PWA bought CP Air the following year (to create Canadian Airlines), which added PW's large 737-200 fleet to CP's, they decided not to proceed with further 737-300 purchases and sold the 5 that had already been delivered. A year later they ordered the A320.


User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4138 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 5):
AC will pull down some of the A32x family in favor of the E-Series, but as a whole, i wouldn't count on a replacement before 2015ish. And i wouldn't look for brand loyalty either... AC is famous for not being loyal to one manufacturer, just ask Airbus  irked 

 checkmark  It all depends on the domestic or trans-border route AC seeks to operate. They will use E-series on a run such as DEN-YUL. But for the most part the A32X series has done well for them over the last two decades. As for being loyal to one manufacturer you couldn't say it better. In no way has AC been in bed with say MDD as DL was until the early 1980s for example. Keep in mind that the Canadian domestic market is similar in size for population as California, yet covering a land-mass larger than the continental US+Alaska combined. Hence hte reason the 752 was just too big for this.

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 16):
The A330 will likely stay around as long as it makes sense to have 8 aircraft of one type economically.

Those will be the last Airbus wide-bodies to leave the AC fleet. I'll even venture to say they will still be around when AC retires their last 762/763ERs.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 15):
A few politicians with sticky hands would not have changed that decision.

I think if Jack Layton and the NDP ever gained a majority, you would very quickly see AC as a federal crown corporation once again.

Quoting Briboy (Reply 12):
I will not comment on the rest of the article, lest the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney PC feels litigious today...

My wife will remind you (as she likes to me all too frequently!  laughing  ) that Canadians don't have the "litigation disease" that Americans have! "Too many f*%$ing lawyers south of the 49th advertising on day-time TV!"  irked 



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineBa777-236 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 674 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3515 times:

Okay, back on topic here guys.. Is there any chance that AC will order some of the new EMB-195's? Increased capacity, but I guess smaller range and cargo capacity.. Still, commonality with the rest of the EMB's may make sense?

Personally I don't see a full replacement until the next gen planes are ready..



I like British Airways! I'm not sure why, but I do! ;-)
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16371 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 10):
When the A320 purchase decision was made, AC had been privatized.

No. AC was only partially privatized at the time. The Fed Govt still had significant influence on AC.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 10):
AC purchased the A320 on commercial merit only. Some politicians may give the appearance of trying to get greased in the process (and nothing has been proven in court), but regardless, AC would have chosen the same product at the end of the day.

There remains continuing controversy over Mulroney's involvement and influence in the initial AC 320 order, including alleged kickbacks from lobbyists.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 10):
AC has a well-earned reputation for purchasing aircraft purely on technical and commercial grounds, which is why the recent Boeing purchase meant so much to Boeing.

Well, you can say that about any airline. It's a meaningless statement. Actually, AC had a loyalty to Vickers (Viscount, Vanguard) and to RR engines (DC-8-40, L10) that was shared by no other North American airlines to this degree which suggested a pro-British aircraft purchasing philosophy at least in the '60's, perhaps transcending purely technical or commercial considerations.

AC did not need the 320 when they ordered it and their initial 320 order was seen as premature by many industry insiders. AC's 722 fleet was still relatively young at the time of the 320 order, and much younger than the 722 fleets of other North American carriers. Their 722 could have remained in service until the late 90's to maximize the ROI.

Anyway, in the mid 2010's, no doubt AC will be looking to replace its 32x fleet. The choice is almost certainly down to the 737 and A320 replacements by B & A that emerge at that time. In the meantime, I could see AC adding a few more 321's, but not likely any more 319/320.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3454 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 21):
Well, you can say that about any airline. It's a meaningless statement. Actually, AC had a loyalty to Vickers (Viscount, Vanguard) and to RR engines (DC-8-40, L10) that was shared by no other North American airlines to this degree which suggested a pro-British aircraft purchasing philosophy at least in the '60's, perhaps transcending purely technical or commercial considerations.

But when it came time to replace their large Viscount fleet, they came very close to buying the BAC-111 and it's R-R Speys, but finally decided on the DC-9. That decision also had political implications as Douglas built a large factory in YYZ where all wings for the DC-9, MD-80, DC-10 and MD-11 were built. I expect AC's decision to buy the DC-9 was somehow linked to the Douglas decision to build the wings in Canada.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3433 times:

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 16):
Air Canada has always bought from a variety of airplane manufactures and likely will continue in that vein. Lockheed, Canadair, Vickers, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Bombardier, Airbus, and now Embraer. Did they fly anything from Bristol? I

AC ( as Trans-Canada Air Lines) operated 3 Bristol 170 Freighters (Mk I) in the 1950s in a short-lived all-cargo operation.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3430 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 21):
AC did not need the 320 when they ordered it and their initial 320 order was seen as premature by many industry insiders. AC's 722 fleet was still relatively young at the time of the 320 order, and much younger than the 722 fleets of other North American carriers. Their 722 could have remained in service until the late 90's to maximize the ROI.

The 320 though can carry a lot more belly cargo than the 727, has better range and lower DOC. By transitioning from the 727 to the A320 AC also avoided any Stage-III related costs that the 727 might have incurred. Finally, AC got a good price from FedEX for the bulk of their 727 fleet, so over-all it was a pretty smart move.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 BeechNut : The 727 fleet may have been relatively young at the time, but it was also extremely inefficient. Notwithstanding the belly cargo issue, the 727 has c
26 Yyz717 : Efficiency is relative. Given that the most common North American airliner in the 80's was the 722, the AC fleet was as efficient as any airline, mor
27 BeechNut : Sorry, efficiency is not relative to the other airlines, it is relative to profitability and shareholder return. AC also got a great deal on the 727s
28 Columba : As much as I love the 727 -it is my favorite airliner- I have to say your argument is not convincing. Even if the 727 were young and the most common
29 Post contains images NorthStarDC4M : you mean BOUGHT a large mostly empty factory for a knock down price so they could build DC-9 wings in Canada and get the policital requirements of th
30 LongHauler : C-FCPG April 12/85 - April 28/86 Empress of Ontario C-FCPI April 26/85 - July 3/86 Empress of Nova Scotia C-FCPJ May 7/85 - April 15/86 Empress of Al
31 BeechNut : I never could figure out CP's fleet decisions. They also had a couple of 727-100s, and 727-200s, that they only kept for a very short period of time.
32 Rampart : For a potentially flame-prone beginning, this has evolved into one of the most educational, fair, and interesting debates I've seen on A.net recently.
33 Bmacleod : The 722s were first delivered in 1974 and continued until around 1981. The youngest 722 was 7 or 8 years in 1989 but the fuel consumption along with
34 LongHauler : A lot of it is a result of politcs of the time. The B737s came first, the first were basics, with -9 engines, and were for the "BC District" flying r
35 Post contains images NorthStarDC4M : -tosses out CPAir fleet list...
36 Viscount724 : That first batch of 7 CP 737-200s were also used extensively on the "transcon" route between YVR and YUL with stops at one or more of YYC/YEG/YWG/YYZ
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DL And The Future Of Its Fleet (Other Airlines Too) posted Sat Oct 1 2005 17:03:20 by DeltaGuy767
The Future Of The Airline Fleet posted Thu Oct 26 2000 05:38:12 by Boeing747-400
Question About The Future Of Avianca... posted Sun Sep 9 2007 15:21:46 by Adicool
The Future Of Landing Fees? posted Mon Aug 27 2007 08:31:25 by WingedMigrator
Global Oil Reserves And The Future Of Aviation posted Thu Aug 23 2007 00:14:13 by Airbuster
The Future Of EU Flying - True Or False posted Tue Aug 21 2007 21:34:37 by Woodentom
The Future Of The New "Midwest" posted Fri Aug 17 2007 11:25:40 by N917ME
The Future Of Lufthansa´s A300s posted Sat Aug 11 2007 13:39:12 by Columba
The Future Of SJC posted Mon Jul 30 2007 00:24:23 by Osprey88
The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN... posted Tue Jul 3 2007 02:03:55 by AirRyan