Guest

AC L1011s

Thu Mar 30, 2000 3:10 am

Twice I have heard that Air Canada may bring back 2 L1011s from storage. I find this to be extremely unlikely but am curious non the less.
What I do know: Of the 12 L1011s (excluding -500s) we had, only 2 are left for possible use. I saw them yesterday at Montreal's Dorval airport. One is in Chile Inter colours and one is all white. The others are scrapped and some have been leased to Air Transat.
Does anybody know anything else? If Air Canada is short of capacity again for this summer, then wouldn't it make more sense to use CP's DC-10s?
 
Guest

RE: AC L1011s

Thu Mar 30, 2000 4:04 am

A quick check of the current storage log at Marana shows C-FTND as being in the "scrapping zone".
 
DeltaAir
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 4:41 am

RE: AC L1011s

Thu Mar 30, 2000 4:11 am

This does seem a little odd, but if they were in Montreal then it might be possible. It doesn't surprise me that Air Canada is a little short on planes. Delta bought a lot of -500s from AC.
 
Guest

RE: AC L1011s

Thu Mar 30, 2000 4:28 am

Also at Marana as of 11/99 was C-FTNB in Air Transat colors. I'm don't know if that is one of theirs or not.
 
ATL Traveller
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 2:30 pm

RE: AC L1011s

Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:04 am

Delta flys a bunch of the former AC L1011s. I was in one a few weeks ago. The "No Smoking", "Exit" and Fasten Seat Belt" signs are still in French as well as English. They never changed them.
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

Are You Sure They Are Looking At The 1011?

Thu Mar 30, 2000 8:08 am

I know that AC is looking at bringing back a few 747-200's and making them all Cargo, for the Air Canada Cargo division. Also from what I know All the AC L1011's are spoken for. The ones that Transat has, are now theirs, they bought them not leased. And the others are scrapped, or sold to other airlines. But the 747-200's are a BIG possibility, and I think that AC will bring them back, because the A340 is a worthless when it comes to transporting cargo (among other things, but that is for a different topic) And the 747-400's both CP's and AC's can only carry so much.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
AC183
Posts: 1496
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Are You Sure They Are Looking At The 1011?

Thu Mar 30, 2000 11:18 am

I miss those AC 1011's, they were beautiful birds, but they've already had their second chance when they were regenerated a few years ago and have been retired for a second time in about '96. Also, the Canadian aircraft register doesn't show AC as having any 1011's on it (it shows cancelled certificates as well, and the 742's are on there, so...).

However, how about this as possible: Royal airlines has some 1011's parked somewhere, so if CP were to have some aircraft taken away by lessors or creditors, maybe AC would look at taking those back from Royal for extra capacity?

Or alternatively it may be strictly for capacity growth, I heard that AC has been given the OK by Ottawa to start daily YYZ-AMS flights starting July 3, pending Dutch approval. Maybe they will be short of aircraft...

One more thing, Slawko don't slander those Airbus machines. I have heard from many people at AC that they are very good, which is not to take away from Boeing's wonderful airplanes but both manufacturers build great jets. I don't know what axe you have to grind with Airbus, but all I have heard is that they are very capable and that AC is quite happy with them. We really don't need bashing of either manufacturer, and both are very high calibre.
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

AC183

Thu Mar 30, 2000 11:40 am

I was simply saying that the airbus 340 does not have the cargo capacity that the 742's would have. Also, The YYZ-AMS flight will be operated by an AC 767-200 it starts on July 3rd. And Cp will stop service to Mexico city for a few months to deal with the Aircraft shortages. The YYZnews is an interesting e-mail put out by a YYZ employee and it look like AC is seriously looking at bringing back the 742 in an all cargo config. So that once again Air Canada Cargo will have it's own fleet of aircraft."Air Canada is evaluating the feasibility of bringing back the three stored 747-200s at Marana and converting them into full freighter configuations. This would give Air Canada Cargo their own fleet of aircraft once again. This is just a proposal at the moment and certainly not definite. "
YYZnews March 20th/00


Also other airlines in Canada who fly airbuses seem to be very unhappy with thir products. Canada 300 has grounded one of it's 330-200's because of engine damage that occured in the air, apparently this is an airbus defect and will therefore be paid for by Airbus. Both Air transat and Canada 3000 have had in air engine shut downs more then once on teh 330, and Air Transat is looking at getting rid of all of the 330's and replacing them with 767's. So although the aibus may be economical it is not the best product out there. Other airlines such as Turkish, have dropped their entire airbus fleet and replaced them with Boeing.

Just a though....
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
WG YQT
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 7:24 am

Slawko

Thu Mar 30, 2000 1:35 pm

Where did you get the idea that C3 and TransAt want to get rid of their 330's? Because C3 had a cowling come off in flight (no engine damage, albeit the fuselage was punctured) which they have attributed to a maintenance fault (cowl lock pin not installed) there are no grounds to get rid of them. TransAt is extremely happy with their 330's, fleet commonality with their 757's would be the only reason why they would want to get rid of them, even though they don't. What's this about other airlines in Canada being unhappy with Airbus? Royal is dropping the 757's in favour of more A310's; Canadian was extremly happy with the economics of the A320 and would have ordered more if money had come available; AC loves the airbus; Skyservice has had great operating revenues from their 330's and 320's.......
I'll leave it at that.
Don't say most airlines in Canada are unhappy with Airbus because they aren't! A few technical problems with a new aircraft (Aircraft are considered new were I work for four years, until major checks come due) are teathing problems, just like when you buy a new car.

WG YQT
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Slawko

Thu Mar 30, 2000 2:32 pm

According to Boeing Airplane Trading, all three 747-200M from Air Canada are still up for sale. Source: http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/airtrade/availact.pdf

What type of airplanes is AC short of? It would make sense to hold on to the DC-10s if they need extra capacity on Eurpoean/Pacific routes.
 
Guest

RE: AC L1011s Only

Fri Mar 31, 2000 6:34 am

No Airbus vs Boeing!
With the comments MR. Milton just made reguarding AC's fleet requirements, and the huge shortage, I predict not only will the CP D10s be kept but possibly the L1011s will return for a third round of service. The reason the 2 remaining L10s are not listed under AC is because they were sold or leased to Royal, which then leased them to Chile Inter. They are currently registered CC-CZF and CC-CZR. They were C-FTNI and C-FTNK with Royal and AC. They are parked in Montreal at the Royal Airlines hangar.
 
AC183
Posts: 1496
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Slawko

Fri Mar 31, 2000 7:38 am

Slawko, I believe Airbus and Boeing are both very competitive and very good aircraft. I don't think it's correct to imply that Airbus is far inferior. I won't get into details, but I can assure you that problems are encountered with both brands, it's just natural that machines have problems sometimes. But as to proving Airbus to be good and reliable aircraft, well, I have been told that some of AC's 320's now have as many hours on them as the 727's did when they were sold, and given their current good reliability and condition that's a pretty good indication of how good an airplane they are.
 
Guest

CP DC-10's Condition

Sat Apr 01, 2000 4:34 am

What condition are the CP D10's in? Does anybody know if these aircraft have served their useful life already?
 
AC183
Posts: 1496
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 10:52 am

RE: CP DC-10's Condition

Sat Apr 01, 2000 4:54 am

I can't comment on the conditions of the DC-10's, but I think they have fairly high fuel consumption, are potentially a problem in debt restructuring, and I think AC in general is trying to shed CP's image of old aircraft, getting rid of the 10's being a key part of that at least for appearances to customers of fleet renewal. Not that they won't decide to use the capacity, but I think they'd rather just use 767's if they can lease more of them.
 
Guest

RE: AC183

Sat Apr 01, 2000 4:56 am

>>Slawko, I believe Airbus and Boeing are both very competitive and very good aircraft<<

Except that one manufacturer actually competes in the marketplace while the other looks down condescendingly from its socialist workers paradise and needn't bother with such a vile thing as competition (Why compete when you don't have to right?) So much for free-market economics.
 
CX747
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

In Slawko's Corner.

Sat Apr 01, 2000 7:40 am

While I don't know whether or not airlines in Canada are happy with their Airbus products, I can back up Slawko's statements on the A340 and cargo. The A340 is a horrible cargo carrier when compared to a 747-200. When AC retired their 747 "Classics" their cargo capacity was decreased significantly and as we all know cargo is where the money is.

Airbus likes customers to look at operating costs not the "potential profit" from a flight. More than just "operating costs" need to be looked at. AC is finding out now that although the 747-100/200s were more expensive to operate than the A340-300 (Obviously because they are 20 years its senior) they bring in a larger amount of cash due to the cargo capacity and extra seats. That is why AC wants to bring back their 747-200s albeit in 747-200F form. There current cargo constraints is why the 747-400Ms continue to be driven hard and the purchase of up to 10 747-400Fs are being looked into. Bringing the 747-200s back into the fleet as 747-200Fs would be a great idea. It gives the cargo portion of the company time to adjust to operatinng their own aircraft and getting the "ship" in order, then when things are running smootly and business is good the 747-400Fs arrive.

As for A320s having as many hours as the 727-200s when they were retired, I find that very hard to believe. While I am sure that they work very hard, they have a long way to go until they can boast to have served as long as the three holers.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
AC183
Posts: 1496
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 10:52 am

RE: In Slawko's Corner.

Sat Apr 01, 2000 9:06 am

AC's 727's were about 20 years old when they were retired. Honestly, it was an AC pilot I was told by that they've put that much flying on their 320's in the last few years, and they have drastically increased their fleet utilization. Their schedule redesign in the early '90's gave them the equivalent additional capacity of 7 extra A320's, that's how much their utilization went up.

As far as the 340's carrying less cargo than a 747- of course they would. AC operated 747-200combis, so a 300 seater A340 should carry less freight than a 500 seater 747 with half the seats replaced by freight, it's not hard to figure that out.

I really hope that AC sees fit to operate 747-200F's, but I'm sure there's others that feel that AC sold out its cargo department as anything but a means to sell underfloor freight when they got rid of the DC-8's. I guess times have changed now that they're looking to get back into it.
 
Guest

RE: Cargo

Sat Apr 01, 2000 10:07 am

We are discussing the 747F as a possibility for AC. Since Lockheed offered an L-1011F conversion a few years back, what do you all think about using AC's last 2 L10s as freighters? Is there any economical viability in this option? They are just sitting at Dorval gathering dust!
 
DeltaAir
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 4:41 am

RE: Cargo

Sat Apr 01, 2000 11:21 am

Delta is doing it to 13 of their L-1011s, but I am not sure if they are keeping them.
 
flygirl
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:06 am

RE: CP DC-10's Condition

Sat Apr 01, 2000 12:03 pm

Bingo!! All the reasons you listed AC183 are right on the money. As far as being in operational condition? A definite yes for those DC10s. But, IMO, I doubt they will be resurrected for the short term they could be used.

Another poster mentioned the suspension of MEX flights. Correct but not for months nor will the route be totally abandoned. It will be from Apr. 1 until May 15 at which time the Cdn. A 320 will recommence operating it.

Aviation News - Mar 30, 1st article.

http://www.interlog.com/~rollers/pianews.html
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: DeltaAir

Sat Apr 01, 2000 2:00 pm

Hey DeltaAir:

I posted a question a couple of nights back regarding a number of Delta L-1011's at a desert airport in Southern California (outside Victorville). Are those among the 13 being retrofitted?

Tom in NO (at MSY)
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
DeltaAir
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 4:41 am

RE: DeltaAir

Sat Apr 01, 2000 2:21 pm

To be quite honest I'm not sure. I know that 1-4 are at the modification center right now. One is near completition and should hopefully be ready soon.
 
Guest

RE: AC L1011s

Sat Apr 01, 2000 2:31 pm

Why does not Air Canada purchase brand-new B767-400er or B777-200 ? These will certainly compliment Air Canada's new capacity ...
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

Delta Flyer

Sat Apr 01, 2000 2:44 pm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

I wish. AC is too CHEAP to buy a good product, they would rather listen to the accountants who tell them that the buses ar good airplanes because they are cheap. Well thats what you get when you get socialists running a continent, cheap and garbage airplanes. Simply, the boeings would stick like a thorn in the side of AC. It is cheaper to use 742's or 767-200's (A new idea announced by Milton a few days ago) Because they already have them and they have pilots that could quickly be re-certified on the 742's. Where as the 777's and 764's would require new training, more mechanics and more crews, this would cost too much money for a recently cash strapped AC.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
DeltaAir
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 4:41 am

RE: AC L1011s

Sat Apr 01, 2000 2:44 pm

Air Canada is trying hard to reduce cost by becoming all Airbus. In all reality, going to one maker is a move that is risky in the long run, espically if you need a product from another company. Like a lot of people have said, the 717 would be perfect for US Airways & Air Canada, but its not Airbus.
 
WG YQT
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 7:24 am

RE: AC L1011s

Sun Apr 02, 2000 2:08 am

Slawko has a definite 'thing' for Boeing. Do you have a family member that works at Boeing? How can you say AC is cash strapped? Putting bids out for $7billion worth of airplanes is hardly something an airline would do if it had no money, Creditors wouldn't allow it.
Don't get me wrong, Boeing makes a fine aircraft, but Airbus is better suited to Air Canada.

WG YQT
 
Guest

RE: AC L1011s

Sun Apr 02, 2000 3:57 am

Let's discuss the possibility of a shortage in capacity for Air Canada in the summer. What are the options? For the most part,the shortage will be on new int'l routes. I believe some widebodies will have to be leased but the fact that some older L10s and D10s are sitting around seems to me a better option in the short term.
 
Guest

RE: AC L1011s

Sun Apr 02, 2000 4:37 am

Slawko, you seem to have problems with reality.
 
ramprat
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2000 11:38 am

RE: AC L1011s

Sun Apr 02, 2000 4:52 am

Air Canada is currently looking at both Airbus and Boeing products. They have not comitted to using just one manufacturer over another but we are currently looking at both. As for bringing the CP DC-10's this is not an option for us. We are currently working on leases for more boeing 767's to replace the capacity lost from the DC 10's. What you have to remember is that CP and AC were flying the same routes at the same time with both planes only half full. Now because of the retooling of the routes and redeployment of aircraft only one plane between the two is leaving at a time at almost full capacity which gives more aircraft to redeploy to other routes. Air Canada will not be bringing back L10's or DC 10's anytime soon.
 
CX747
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

How About.

Sun Apr 02, 2000 5:08 am

Instead of returning the DC-10s or L1011s to service, why doesn't AC return its 747-200Ms to service? They would provide the extra capacity the carrier is looking for during the summer months and when the summer is over they can one at a time be converted to full fledge freighters. That way you keep your crews current along with the aircraft in flyable condition?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
mickey
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:14 am

RE: Are You Sure They Are Looking At The 1011?

Sun Apr 02, 2000 11:12 am

There is absolutley no chance AC will take Royal's old Tristars sitting in Dorval. Both aircraft were deemed unairworthy by Transport Canada when they were returned from their lease to Chile. The aircraft are being stripped down for parts by Royal and sold to Air Transat. Personally I doubt very much that AC will try to bring any Tristars back in service, as they have no current line pilots for the L1011 and retraining the pilots and obtaining parts would be too expensive. One strong rumour floating around is that AC is looking to pick op serveral A340-300s from Boeing, which aquired them from Singapore Airlines in a deal for new B777's for Singapore. This would make much more sense financially for AC, as the crews, simulators, and spare parts are available. It is likely that this will be the course AC will take. I would love to see them get some new 777's or 767-400's, because I hate Airbus! But I doubt that will happen!
 
Navion
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

AC 747-400F's

Sun Apr 02, 2000 11:13 am

The Canadian Aviation News website has a quote from Mr. Milton (the CEO of Air Canada) saying he sees a need for 4-10 744F's in the future. Anyone else notice that quote?
 
CX747
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: AC 747-400F's

Sun Apr 02, 2000 12:08 pm

I also noticed that quote. I would expect them to order 5 with 5 options. Are there any regularly scheduled Toronto-HKG cargo flights? An employee who works for AC also stated that the 747-400F would also help with inter-company freight that they move. Who knows, maybe one would have the opportunity to walk to delivery flight line at Everett and actually see new Boeing aircraft in AC colors!!!!!
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
mikeyyz
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:31 pm

RE: AC 747-400F's

Sun Apr 02, 2000 12:14 pm


I don't think there are any Cargo flights to HKG. CX used to have Cargo flights into YYZ but switched them over to ORD. We get KE Cargo once or twice a week.

MIKEYYZ
 
CX747
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: AC L1011s

Sun Apr 02, 2000 12:16 pm

I also saw the mention of 747-400F. I would expect them to order 5 with 5 options. The freight industry is a real money maker. Sure would be nice to see some new Boeings for Air Canada.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Guest

RE: 747F

Mon Apr 03, 2000 1:47 am

If AC does purchase this many freighters (5-10), could they draw from CP's market share? It is one company now. I presume AC would just consolidate the 2 airlines cargo ops.
 
flygirl
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:06 am

RE: AC Cargo

Mon Apr 03, 2000 2:49 am

You're right C-FTOD, the cargo operations are being combined. The bulk of the mail contract is with CP but AC are now moving it (for eg.) A commuting employee, based in YYZ, bunks in at my place when on shift at cargo and has stated often in the past couple of weeks that they can't keep up with the volume of cargo that is coming in. Some of it is days behind in shipment. There is definitely a need for cargo aircraft.
 
Guest

RE: AC Cargo

Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:08 am

That's very interesting flygirl. What do you see as potential aircraft types? Are 747Fs warranted?
Does anybody know what YUL is like for cargo?
 
AC183
Posts: 1496
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 10:52 am

RE: AC Cargo

Mon Apr 03, 2000 10:04 am

Part of the problem with bringing back 747-200combis is that while flying mixed pax operations works well on some routes, it's not so good on others. LHR and FRA for example both have high cargo demand and high pax traffic. On the other hand a few years ago the Brussels route was running crammed with freight but almost empty for passenger traffic, so combis aren't great for routes like that. Also AC's shortage of capacity in the coming months will be due to new 767 service to many new cities, so cargo won't be such a big deal for them on those routes, they'll just need 767's to develop the passenger traffic and 747combis aren't good stand-ins for routes that really need 767's.

As far as the need for cargo capacity, I have definitely heard that cargo is running very full, but would it warrant freighters? 5 years ago the all freight operations were losing tonnes of money so they got rid of the fleet of all freight aircraft, so would there be enough traffic to justify the jump from the current backlog to what could be an overcapacity situation?

As far as to where freighters would fly for AC, I don't think there's any doubt YYZ and YVR would be the primary freight warehouses and operations points. YUL would see the freighters sometimes because of its maintenance base, but probably most of the time YUL freight would just be fed to domestic widebodies on the YYZ-YUL route from the YYZ freight terminal.

As far as 747-200combis going to all freighter aircraft, that wouldn't surprise me at all. But that's in part because they have the aircraft already. I have a hard time seeing AC ordering any new 747-400F aircraft at a time that they're looking very closely at replacing their current 747 passenger aircraft. Also, with about other 200 aircraft ranging from Dash8's upward being looked at to replace, I wonder if they'd be ready to buy freighters before the rest of the fleet is replace. I doubt we'll see any orders for 747F's for a few years yet.

One last thing. I would like to see someone else other than AC doing the all cargo operations. Not that I wouldn't like to see AC freighters return, but I would like to see Kelowna Flightcraft, ICC Cargo, Winnport, or whoever else take a go at all-cargo operations for a while before AC goes in.
 
Guest

RE: AC L1011s

Mon Apr 03, 2000 4:28 pm

Delta bought some of AC's L-10's in the early '90s I don't know the status of those ships at present but they were deliverd in outstanding condition to Atlanta. I worked on several of them doing "zero-time" inspections and re outfitting the for DL use. Knowing Delta is getting rid of all it's L-10's I wouldn't be surprised to see them back with Air Canada.
 
flygirl
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:06 am

RE: AC's Under Capacity

Tue Apr 04, 2000 12:12 am

Thought you all would be interested in learning that AC has now decided to keep the last CP DC10 "in reserve" for the summer instead of retiring it. This info was slipped into a new service procedure bulletin I just received.

C-FTOD, I can't presume to guess what size of freighter aircraft could or should be used as I'm not familiar enough with the cargo system demands. My part-time roomie is home in YHZ right now so I can't pick his brain either but I will check with him when he's back in town if you like.

I have read that AC is very interested in rebuilding and expanding on a cargo operation. Air shipping is coming back in vogue right now due to the pressures and focus on the trucking industry and their recent problems. This is just another area that AC sees as a potential opportunity for bringing in the green.

I've yet to hear any noise about L1011's coming back into the fold. As someone pointed out earlier, the cost to resurrect them would be too great (training, parts inventory, current maintenence endorsements etc.). AC has enough on their platter now without this consideration. Just my opinion though.
 
Navion
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

AC Freighters

Tue Apr 04, 2000 12:35 am

If AC doesn't get a dedicated Cargo fleet of it's own, then it would be a natural for them to "farm out" the job to an ACMI carrier like Atlas or Polar. Things have changed since 5 years ago worldwide regarding cargo, plus I'm sure AC has a much more productive workforce (including pilots) than 5-10 years ago, so maybe dedicated freighters could also be in the works. I can promise you that if AC should buy 744F's, they better get on the stick quickly and order them as current production (at the lower rate) is sold out for a bit and without a ramp up in production, there could be a shortage of "new" cargo aircraft types. AC would not only flourish with 744F's (as Canada's premier airline with all of the premier routes to Europe, Asia, and the U.S.) but if they chose to sell them, the market will still be very strong for such capable aircraft.
 
Guest

RE: AC's Under Capacity

Tue Apr 04, 2000 1:22 am

Flygirl I appreciate all this info. I find it VERY interesting that AC will keep hold of DC-10. My guess is that there is a 90% chance it will be used. I heard on CJAD news today that there are 32 new routes for the summer schedule and that kind of expansion is going to warrant some growth, even with the elimination of duplicated AC/CP routes.
On a slightly different note, does anybody know how long CP's planes will be kept in the transitional livery? Secondly, how long CP's proud wings scheme will be kept? I think it's great.
 
flygirl
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:06 am

RE: AC L1011s

Tue Apr 04, 2000 4:47 am

Just to verify the DC10 claim I made (keeping it in reserve) you can check the Cdn. web site under Fleet and see one lonely DC10 still listed however I could not find one route in the timetable showing it scheduled in operation.

The paint job. Transitional livery will remain until all debt restructuring is completed and all union are ready for integration. The main hiccup is the merging of seniority. AC would like this all completed by the fall. If CIRB are drawn in though, the process could take longer. The aircraft presently sporting the proud wings livery will stay as is until this time too. They will not be redone in transitional.

Just a humorous fact for you. At least one of every CP aircraft type was painted with the wings. Anyone notice that no DC10 was ever seen in proud wings livery? That's because when they tried it, the large goose design looked distorted (some people said the goose looked pregnant). After a few tries to make it look optically correct, they gave up!
 
Guest

RE: AC L1011s

Tue Apr 04, 2000 12:21 pm

Flygirl, I'm not surprised about the DC-10 livery problem. A Canada Goose has proportions that must be kept! Still, the wing didn't have to go all the way up the tail. Perhaps that DC-10 you talk of will fly with the maple leaf in the tail.
Chris in YUL