As there’s no proper business class on the MAX, if you book “premium economy” do you get lounge access?

So 20% less seats... how much less fuel does it use?

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

WildcatYXU wrote:

And no cargo capability. They now have an once daily YUL-YHZ-YUL A333 turn to get the lobster across the pond via YUL. An aircraft that can't take the fish (or in this case shellfish) is a bad choice.

No cargo capability? The eastbound flight is 5.5 hours, which is well within the range of the 737-8 including allowing for cargo. If the 737 can’t take any cargo like fish, someone better tell Alaska Airlines

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/cargo/ship-seafood

Alaska has a section about shipping seafood because it's so complicated to do it in a B737. Look at all those weight and size limitations. Palletised A330s eliminate this problem.

Yes shrinking from widebodies to narrowbodies reduces cargo volume and weight. It doesnt mean a 737 has no cargo capability

Arion640 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

What myth? There's an abundance of NB at LHR.

Yes, but Arion640 was specifically talking about TATL flights with narrowbody planes and there are very few of those. In fact, AC might be the only airline doing it to LHR today.

The daytime United IAD-LHR flight is 757 operated.

Delta's PHL-LHR is also on a 757, although it's ending soon.

[/quote]IIRC, wasn't YYT-LHR seasonal anyway? I don't ever recall seeing AC A319s at LHR during the winter.[/quote]

[/quote]As Dominion pointed out the A319 doesn't operate during the winter, the 763 that operates YHZ-LHR stops in YYT 2x week then continues on to LHR in the winter.[/quote]

AC has operated the A319's on the YYT-LHR route since 2006-07. These flights have operated daily in the summer and three times a week in the winter. This past winter, AC used the 763 on the route instead of the A319, but this has been the first time since 2006 that the 763 has been scheduled for the route. We have not seen anything else but the A319 on this route since 2006-07, unless the 763 was used for an upgauge or equipment sub.
The A319 is currently back doing this route 3X per week until the end of April when the MAX 8 is supposed to come online and start daily, however, talking with some pilots, this might be delayed for a little while until more crews are trained.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

No cargo capability? The eastbound flight is 5.5 hours, which is well within the range of the 737-8 including allowing for cargo. If the 737 can’t take any cargo like fish, someone better tell Alaska Airlines

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/cargo/ship-seafood

Alaska has a section about shipping seafood because it's so complicated to do it in a B737. Look at all those weight and size limitations. Palletised A330s eliminate this problem.

Yes shrinking from widebodies to narrowbodies reduces cargo volume and weight. It doesnt mean a 737 has no cargo capability

Alaska has a section about shipping seafood because it moves something like 30 million pounds of of seafood alone out of the state. I also think that they're the only U.S. passenger airline that still has a dedicated freighter fleet? There's a reason they have a plane painted as the "Salmon-Thirty-Salmon."

Newbiepilot wrote:

Yes shrinking from widebodies to narrowbodies reduces cargo volume and weight. It doesnt mean a 737 has no cargo capability

From your irritated replies I can see I have violated your favourite aircraft. I apologize for that and correct my statement: Replacing a 763 with a 7M8 leads to significant reduction of available cargo space. BTW, how much cargo volume and available weight will remain once the bags for 169 passengers are loaded?
Anyway, a daily A333 on YUL-YYZ-YUL route from July 1 is a fact. Why would they do that on a route that is flown mostly by DH8's?

WildcatYXU wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Yes shrinking from widebodies to narrowbodies reduces cargo volume and weight. It doesnt mean a 737 has no cargo capability

From your irritated replies I can see I have violated your favourite aircraft. I apologize for that and correct my statement: Replacing a 763 with a 7M8 leads to significant reduction of available cargo space. BTW, how much cargo volume and available weight will remain once the bags for 169 passengers are loaded?
Anyway, a daily A333 on YUL-YYZ-YUL route from July 1 is a fact. Why would they do that on a route that is flown mostly by DH8's?

Sounds perfect. Right-size YHZ-LHR and make use of an otherwise idle A330.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

The prices charged on YHZ-LHR are astronomical for a transatlantic flight of that length!
We only ever saw two A319s, C-GITP/R at LHR, as I believe they are fitted with the necessary rafts for long overwater flying, will the whole MAX fleet be so equipped or it will be a subfleet?

As to narrow body North America flying out of LHR, well United (and until this month Delta) are till flying the B757.

Most likely a decent subfleet (if not all) will be ETOPS 180 certified. They will deploy them to Hawaii as well, as most of the west coast-Hawaii flights will be on the MAX 8 as of this winter. Not to mention some YUL/YYZ- Ireland flights as well. They will definately need more than just a few frames with ETOPS certification.

My guess is for simplicity all the 7M8s will have ETOPS. AC driver longhauler in another thread said more 'exciting' (i.e. transatlantic) MAX routes are in the pipeline.

peterinlisbon wrote:

So 20% less seats... how much less fuel does it use?

About 15% less than a 737-800, according to Boeing’s numbers, and almost certainly less than a 767-300. I can’t speak for Air Canada, but at American their 737 MAX routinely requires several thousand pounds less fuel than a 737-800, and on the same route as a 767-300 it’ll only need about 50-60% of the fuel.

A remarkable low profile new aircraft introduction.
Feels like a try out.. Any LHR AC 737-8 pictures yet?

OB1504 wrote:

peterinlisbon wrote:

So 20% less seats... how much less fuel does it use?

About 15% less than a 737-800, according to Boeing’s numbers, and almost certainly less than a 767-300. I can’t speak for Air Canada, but at American their 737 MAX routinely requires several thousand pounds less fuel than a 737-800, and on the same route as a 767-300 it’ll only need about 50-60% of the fuel.

Wow, that's pretty interesting. I guess that replacing widebody aircraft with the new narrowbodies on long routes will eventually really bring down prices if they can save that much fuel. It's already kind of happened with medium haul.

All this talk of fish and where is Icelandair in this story?

keesje wrote:

A remarkable low profile new aircraft introduction.
Feels like a try out.. Any LHR AC 737-8 pictures yet?

The 737MAX has already been in operation for 5 months with Air Canada. What were you expecting?

dtw2hyd wrote:

Glad to see NBs taking over TATL routes. This also debunks the myth only large wide-bodies should serve congested hubs.

Why would you actually be happy to see a NB taking over for a larger, far more comfortable wide body?

In no way could this be considered an improvement .. or anything for AC to be proud of. A 763 down to a cramped 737 (I don't care how new it is) is a HUGE downgrade.

FedEx747 wrote:

Does anyone have a list of all NB jets that can cross the Atlantic? (I have been once told that the 757 was the only one, but evidently, that's wrong)

Thank you

Presumably you're asking about NarrowBody twin jets e.g. contemporary airliners (vs VC-10s, 707s, DC-8s, etc) I also suspect you're asking which aircraft can do it while carrying a load of pax/freight. All kinds of twin jets can cross the Atlantic with nothing but fuel onboard.

I don't have a list but what comes to mind: BA used A318s on the LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY service; Norwegian's 737s, these Air Canada 737s and the A319s and probably others.

aeromoe wrote:

FedEx747 wrote:

Does anyone have a list of all NB jets that can cross the Atlantic? (I have been once told that the 757 was the only one, but evidently, that's wrong)

Thank you

Presumably you're asking about NarrowBody twin jets e.g. contemporary airliners (vs VC-10s, 707s, DC-8s, etc) I also suspect you're asking which aircraft can do it while carrying a load of pax/freight. All kinds of twin jets can cross the Atlantic with nothing but fuel onboard.

I don't have a list but what comes to mind: BA used A318s on the LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY service; Norwegian's 737s, these Air Canada 737s and the A319s and probably others.

But, BA's A318 fleet of two (now, one) were fitted with 32 J seats; it's an apples to oranges to compare those 318s with an AC 38M or 319.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

FedEx747 wrote:

Does anyone have a list of all NB jets that can cross the Atlantic? (I have been once told that the 757 was the only one, but evidently, that's wrong)

Thank you

Presumably you're asking about NarrowBody twin jets e.g. contemporary airliners (vs VC-10s, 707s, DC-8s, etc) I also suspect you're asking which aircraft can do it while carrying a load of pax/freight. All kinds of twin jets can cross the Atlantic with nothing but fuel onboard.

I don't have a list but what comes to mind: BA used A318s on the LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY service; Norwegian's 737s, these Air Canada 737s and the A319s and probably others.

But, BA's A318 fleet of two (now, one) were fitted with 32 J seats; it's an apples to oranges to compare those 318s with an AC 38M or 319.

I was simply responding to FedEx747's question of NB jets that can cross the Atlantic. Those A318s, regardless of how they were configured, did so daily.

CRJ900 wrote:

According to FR24, the aircraft flies YYZ-YHZ-LHR-YHZ-YYZ before starting over again - so far, at least. Does the crew work YYZ-YHZ-LHR, then layover before working LHR-YHZ-YYZ?

Cabin crew should be in limits with 2hr stopover, Pilots could be over the limits westbound in winter.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

WildcatYXU wrote:

And no cargo capability. They now have an once daily YUL-YHZ-YUL A333 turn to get the lobster across the pond via YUL. An aircraft that can't take the fish (or in this case shellfish) is a bad choice.

No cargo capability? The eastbound flight is 5.5 hours, which is well within the range of the 737-8 including allowing for cargo. If the 737 can’t take any cargo like fish, someone better tell Alaska Airlines

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/cargo/ship-seafood

Alaska has a section about shipping seafood because it's so complicated to do it in a B737. Look at all those weight and size limitations. Palletised A330s eliminate this problem.

For sure the 737 is going to have more limitations on cargo than a widebody making shipping large commercial quantities a challenge. However, I've seen Westjet flights loaded with plenty of lobster going the other way West but they are stacking-up individual boxes one-by-one, didn't count how many.

FedEx747 wrote:

Does anyone have a list of all NB jets that can cross the Atlantic? (I have been once told that the 757 was the only one, but evidently, that's wrong)

Thank you

Well before the 757 the 707 & DC-8 flew across the atlantic. the 707 was the same 3x3 fuselage used in the 727, 737 & 757. DC-8 had different width.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

FedEx747 wrote:

Does anyone have a list of all NB jets that can cross the Atlantic? (I have been once told that the 757 was the only one, but evidently, that's wrong)

Thank you

Presumably you're asking about NarrowBody twin jets e.g. contemporary airliners (vs VC-10s, 707s, DC-8s, etc) I also suspect you're asking which aircraft can do it while carrying a load of pax/freight. All kinds of twin jets can cross the Atlantic with nothing but fuel onboard.

I don't have a list but what comes to mind: BA used A318s on the LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY service; Norwegian's 737s, these Air Canada 737s and the A319s and probably others.

But, BA's A318 fleet of two (now, one) were fitted with 32 J seats; it's an apples to oranges to compare those 318s with an AC 38M or 319.

OK then how can you compare any airframe based on that logic every Model/Type from every airline must have the same seat capacity. Otherwise it's apples to oranges! not the best idea you ave there.

WildcatYXU wrote:

BTW, how much cargo volume and available weight will remain once the bags for 169 passengers are loaded?

In my experience with 168 and 174-seat 738's, there's an absolute truckton of cargo room even at full pax load. The holds are gigantic on the 738. I don't know how much cargo the 763 was running on LHR-YYZ but a 7M8 would be leaving a ton of fuel room open anyway so I'd suspect there's enough weight to carry what they need.

I've seen enough 738's jet out of here with 20 tonnes of gas (and 73G's with 20 tonnes climbing straight to 370) to not underestimate the performance of these newer frames... and obviously 7M8 performs even better.

WildcatYXU wrote:

runway23 wrote:

Eirules wrote:

Significant downgrade for business passengers with no flat bed

In fact there's no more business class, the flight is sold as Y and Y+

And no cargo capability. They now have an once daily YUL-YHZ-YUL A333 turn to get the lobster across the pond via YUL. An aircraft that can't take the fish (or in this case shellfish) is a bad choice.

I guess shellfish revenues must have been off the charts then. Perhaps one day AC will order the A380F and route it from the east coast to London. Maybe a combi. All J lie flats and freight.

When they cancel it, the three business customers that used it will pound their fists on here. And some flight tracker enthusiast will make a YouTube video with sad music in the background and we will all cry.

Eirules wrote:

As there’s no proper business class on the MAX, if you book “premium economy” do you get lounge access?

No, you'll have to pay extra. When I made a dummy booking, I was offered lounge access for 28.75 + 25.00 CAD (YHZ/LHR respectively).

Disappointing

mhkansan wrote:

All this talk of fish and where is Icelandair in this story?

Icelandair also flies out of Halifax

Are there any payload restrictions on the 737 MAX, especially on the westbound flights?

Philippine747 wrote:

Are there any payload restrictions on the 737 MAX, especially on the westbound flights?

No. The only possibility would be if weather was very poor over the Maritimes and a long alternate was requried ... even then, I'd be surprised.

Looking at today's Operational Flight Plan, I see the aircraft left LHR with about 9,000 kgs open weight!

Flying time was 6:05. It carried 8W and 86Y passengers and 4200Kgs of cargo on top of passenger baggage. YQM was the alternate. A full load of passengers/baggage would add another 6700Kg of payload leaving about 2000Kgs of open weight. Granted, this is anecdotal, but even with YUL or BOS as an alternate, I can't imagine a need for a load restriction.

longhauler wrote:

Philippine747 wrote:

Are there any payload restrictions on the 737 MAX, especially on the westbound flights?

No. The only possibility would be if weather was very poor over the Maritimes and a long alternate was requried ... even then, I'd be surprised.

Looking at today's Operational Flight Plan, I see the aircraft left LHR with about 9,000 kgs open weight!

Flying time was 6:05. It carried 8W and 86Y passengers and 4200Kgs of cargo on top of passenger baggage. YQM was the alternate. A full load of passengers/baggage would add another 6700Kg of payload leaving about 2000Kgs of open weight. Granted, this is anecdotal, but even with YUL or BOS as an alternate, I can't imagine a need for a load restriction.

Impressive! How many minutes is their ETOPS certification?

rbavfan wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

According to FR24, the aircraft flies YYZ-YHZ-LHR-YHZ-YYZ before starting over again - so far, at least. Does the crew work YYZ-YHZ-LHR, then layover before working LHR-YHZ-YYZ?

Cabin crew should be in limits with 2hr stopover, Pilots could be over the limits westbound in winter.

I’d be curious to know how this works, I’ve always assumed one crew worked YYZ-YHZ-LHR and then laid over in London given that crews are likely Toronto based? Maybe when it’s less than daily though something changes?

The 737 crews that are ETOPS qualified (At least initially) are YUL based. The second ETOPS base will be YVR.

Philippine747 wrote:

Impressive! How many minutes is their ETOPS certification?

Right now, it is 120 minutes. 180 minutes should be granted by the summer.

Topguncanada wrote:

The 737 crews that are ETOPS qualified (At least initially) are YUL based. The second ETOPS base will be YVR.

All crews are ETOPS qualified for the time being. The innaugurals were with YYZ crews. Currently, there are no YVR 737 crews.

The original plan was for as you state, YUL being an ETOPS base, like YWG was for the A319. But with the very aggressive plans for overseas flying for the 737, I am assuming those plans have changed.

F27500 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Glad to see NBs taking over TATL routes. This also debunks the myth only large wide-bodies should serve congested hubs.

Why would you actually be happy to see a NB taking over for a larger, far more comfortable wide body?

In no way could this be considered an improvement .. or anything for AC to be proud of. A 763 down to a cramped 737 (I don't care how new it is) is a HUGE downgrade.

Individual passenger comfort is measured in terms of seat width, pitch, pax: cabin crew ratio, pax: lav ratio, pax: galley cart ratio, cruise altitude ...

The percentage of passengers close to a window is higher on an NB than WB.

I just don't understand this whole idea about widebodies being inherently more comfortable that seems to constantly pop up. If I could fly an AC Ejet across the Atlantic, I'd love to. Guaranteed window or aisle seat, more legroom than the 787s (in Y), smaller chance of screaming baby/disruptive passenger because of lower passenger count, etc. I quite honestly don't understand the widebody preference. What are the arguments?

Obviously if the widebody had a nicer seat or something like that, I could understand the advantage. But at least with AC, that isn't usually the case in Y.

I’ve no major issue flying transatlantic in either a widebody or a narrow. My issue is however seat & price. This summer AC will fly A330 from YYZ, 737MAX from YUL & Rouge 767 from YVR to DUB. The “business” class pricing from Dublin to LAS, LAX, SFO etc is almost the exact same if I choose the YYZ connection on a flat bed (which actually connects to another flat bed on 787 to LAX) or the “premium economy” on rouge or the MAX. I know the connection to avoid as would everyone on here, but it doesn’t mean everyone would. And I think AC have a neck charging the same price for a different / subpar product

Still the end of wide-body AC service to YHZ is a disappointment.

No more 'J' seats just economy and premium economy - YHZ joins YWG as only major Canadian cities not to have business class seats on flights.

Just goes to show Halifax economy/business profile standing needs major improvement.

bmacleod wrote:

Still the end of wide-body AC service to YHZ is a disappointment.

No more 'J' seats just economy and premium economy - YHZ joins YWG as only major Canadian cities not to have business class seats on flights.

Just goes to show Halifax economy/business profile standing needs major improvement.

Both YHZ and YWG have domestic J on a plethora of CR9, A32x and E90 flights and YHZ will have international J daily to YUL this summer. Actually are you referring to just transatlantic? Even there, both Condor and Icelandair have J (equivalent to domestic J) out of YHZ and for WS' YWG-LGW the 'Plus' on the 763s is essentially domestic J.

Also keep in mind Halifax + Winnipeg have a combined population that's smaller than Ottawa, Edmonton or Calgary and YHZ is a leisure-heavy destination with huge traffic swings between summer and winter...as evidenced by YHZ's summer vs winter transatlantic offerings.

bmacleod wrote:

Just goes to show Halifax economy/business profile standing needs major improvement.

In the end Halifax is a pretty small market. The metro population is just a hair over 400,000 and the entire province is under a million. By comparison, the metropolitan area surrounding Portland, Maine has a bit over 600,000 population and no transatlantic service (although, of course, there is plenty of traffic using BOS instead). It's pretty remarkable that two airlines believe that YHZ can support daily service to LON.

Also, J class seats on a 5.5 hour eastbound flight at typical transatlantic J price levels are going to be a tough sell. Optimistically you can get maybe 4 hours of sleep if the crew keeps announcements to a minimum and they don't choose to set the cabin lighting to full daylight to serve breakfast. Westbound there's no point at all.

In the past two weeks I have had seven flights on the AC MAX out of YYC, YYZ and YUL. I was seated all over the aircraft including the best seat 1D and the worst seat 37C. Seat 1D was business and the only thing I noticed there was the lack of wardrobe and flight attendants no longer able to hang the customers coats. Other than that it was very well appointed and the new screens and entertainment system were very impressive. Seat 37C is bothersome once passengers start lining up for the washrooms. A lot of shoulder bumping and a little precarious while trying to have a meal. That row is normally reserved for cabin crew but we were full house on that flight and I was grateful for the seat. Overall I give the aircraft 9 out of 10 with my only real complaint being the tiny washrooms with doors that open outward. For an adult trying to take care of a baby in there it is just way too small. On one occasion I was unable to exit and I thought the door was jammed. The door was in fact hitting the trolley that the flight attendant was trying to manoeuvre. The flight attendants that I talked too told me that reduced size galley is very difficult to work with and the washrooms are a nightmare for them.
As for trans Atlantic operations the big difference from the B-767 will be single aisle versus double aisle and the challenges created when the trolley is in the aisle and people looking to get to the washrooms. Other than that It is a fabulous aircraft in my opinion and it should do well in Air Canada service.

ScottB wrote:

In the end Halifax is a pretty small market. The metro population is just a hair over 400,000 and the entire province is under a million. By comparison, the metropolitan area surrounding Portland, Maine has a bit over 600,000 population and no transatlantic service (although, of course, there is plenty of traffic using BOS instead). It's pretty remarkable that two airlines believe that YHZ can support daily service to LON.

Completely agree, though it is worth noting that a lot of the YHZ-LON traffic is British/European vacationers travelling to the Maritimes. People tend to discount that when talking about Canadian flights. The same is true for the YYC flights to Asia. It's not just Calgary business traffic--those planes are being filled up with Asian tourists visiting the Rockies. That's part of why these seemingly smaller markets can support overseas flying.

YYZLGA wrote:

ScottB wrote:

In the end Halifax is a pretty small market. The metro population is just a hair over 400,000 and the entire province is under a million. By comparison, the metropolitan area surrounding Portland, Maine has a bit over 600,000 population and no transatlantic service (although, of course, there is plenty of traffic using BOS instead). It's pretty remarkable that two airlines believe that YHZ can support daily service to LON.

Completely agree, though it is worth noting that a lot of the YHZ-LON traffic is British/European vacationers travelling to the Maritimes. People tend to discount that when talking about Canadian flights......

YHZ has always had a LHR flight since the new airport at Kelly Lake opened in summer 1960 replacing Shearwater…beginning with a Super Constellation which continued on to Dusseldorf. (TCA/Air Canada’s original destination in Germany…not FRA)

http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages ... c60-07.jpg

In winter 1961 the new DC-8s took over and operated via Prestwick.

http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages ... c61-06.jpg

Eventually it became a stretched DC-8…..then L-1011 and a B-767 beginning around 1990. At various time the route has operated via Gander, St. John’s, Prestwick and Glasgow.

And now the MAX 8 !

Considering there is no J class and that it is such a short flight, it's unfortunate that the flight doesn't operate as a day flight. Instead of leaving at 11:45 and arriving at 9:35 the following morning, if they left at 7:45 in the morning, they'd arrive at 5:35 pm. Grab dinner and go to bed.

I have to assume the landing slots at Heathrow lock them in on arrival time? It also would tie up the aircraft during the day when it could be used elsewhere.

drgmobile wrote:

Considering there is no J class and that it is such a short flight, it's unfortunate that the flight doesn't operate as a day flight..........

The first year Air Canada operated the A-319 between YYT and LHR they did it as a day flight. But with the 3 ½ hr time difference….it arrived in London too late and missed a lot of connections and the same in return: arriving back in St. John’s around midnight and again…too late for connecting flights to elsewhere in Newfoundland and Labrador.

drgmobile wrote:

Considering there is no J class and that it is such a short flight, it's unfortunate that the flight doesn't operate as a day flight. Instead of leaving at 11:45 and arriving at 9:35 the following morning, if they left at 7:45 in the morning, they'd arrive at 5:35 pm. Grab dinner and go to bed.

I have to assume the landing slots at Heathrow lock them in on arrival time? It also would tie up the aircraft during the day when it could be used elsewhere.

Day flights are usually unpopular eastbound because they essentially waste a full day. Business travelers don't get anything done in London and leisure travelers are on the hook for another expensive hotel night. It's not quite as bad going west since you can get a full day in London but you get to North America with no time or energy to do anything other than going to a hotel. A morning departure westbound gives about half the day in Canada or the States.

It's also not as good for utilization since you end up with an aircraft on the ground overnight instead of flying.

The slots do fix the arrival/departure time (although AC could certainly shuffle things around within their portfolio). I have to imagine that the slots currently used for the morning arrival from/departure to YHZ could be swapped at a nice profit for less attractive slots, though.

ghYHZ wrote:

YHZ has always had a LHR flight since the new airport at Kelly Lake opened in summer 1960 replacing Shearwater

Sure, but BGR used to see a lot more transatlantic flights. Clearly the market supports the flight (and soon flights) to LON, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's quite remarkable that a market as small as Halifax actually has those flights. Halifax is already punching well above its weight so the idea that there needs to be some "major improvement" in the city's standing is somewhat silly.

While I'm disappointed in the change, AC is not a charity and has to to what it needs to do to make money. Living here, I'm more than pleased with the number of options I have, and the services here are appropriate for the time of year.

I'm impressed about what they used to replace the 767's with. It is like replacing the big comfortable bus with a minivan. But I also figure they must know what they are doing.

ghYHZ wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

ScottB wrote:

In the end Halifax is a pretty small market. The metro population is just a hair over 400,000 and the entire province is under a million. By comparison, the metropolitan area surrounding Portland, Maine has a bit over 600,000 population and no transatlantic service (although, of course, there is plenty of traffic using BOS instead). It's pretty remarkable that two airlines believe that YHZ can support daily service to LON.

Completely agree, though it is worth noting that a lot of the YHZ-LON traffic is British/European vacationers travelling to the Maritimes. People tend to discount that when talking about Canadian flights......

YHZ has always had a LHR flight since the new airport at Kelly Lake opened in summer 1960 replacing Shearwater…beginning with a Super Constellation which continued on to Dusseldorf. (TCA/Air Canada’s original destination in Germany…not FRA)

http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages ... c60-07.jpg

In winter 1961 the new DC-8s took over and operated via Prestwick.

http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages ... c61-06.jpg

Eventually it became a stretched DC-8…..then L-1011 and a B-767 beginning around 1990. At various time the route has operated via Gander, St. John’s, Prestwick and Glasgow.

And now the MAX 8 !

Any links/information on old pictures of AC L-1011s/ DC-8s at YHZ? Thanks!!!

Air Canada A319s at LHR are now history, the MAX has now taken over YYT-LHR. https://fr24.com/ACA822/1138e2dd