GoBlue
Topic Author
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:27 pm

AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:07 pm

Air Canada has operated 737,747,767 and now 777. They also have i beleive operated the 727 and 707. But how come they never had the 757 in their fleet. Would be great for long thin routes from YYZ, YMX, YVR to either coast. I would assume that they had another plane to fill these needs? Or was the A321 ordered to help fill this void?

Cheers
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:14 pm

As far as I know the 737s were inherited from Canadi>n, so don't really count. 727s were replaced by A320s. 707 I don't know, but I'm not really seeing how that relates to 757s. 777s are a brand new addition, coming after the 757 is out of production.

As far as good 757 routes go, I suppose a mix of A320s and A321s for lighter routes and 767s for heavier ones ended up working better for AC than introducing another fleet type.


CanadianNorth
What could possibly go wrong?
 
N43W79
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:19 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:36 pm

First of all,

There are no commercial flights to or from YMX... all flights in Montreal are now out of YUL.

As for the 757, I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up in the AC fleet in the future. The 762s and 763s are getting long in the tooth and there are still a few years before they will get any 787 relief. I guess they could look at getting more A333s and also some A332s but I think they are trying to phase out those aircraft.
 
ZBBYLW
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:45 pm

First of AC had DC-8s rather then 707s. The 737s where from CP so they did not really have them if you catch what I am saying. The 747 was the only capable long range aircraft at the time. 767, well is just an excellent aircraft all around and has served well for AC on its long haul flights as it seems to have the right amount of seats for AC. 777, long range aircraft that can carry lots of people (replacing 333/343/345/744s) AC felt this option was better then 350/340NG. 787- Replacing the 767s. 727s Filled the gap between the DC-9s and the larger aircraft nicely. The 757 was never needed because AC always had good coverage from smaller wide bodies to larger narrow bodies, the 757 was never needed. Now with the A321 AC has an aircraft with the same amount of seats, but with fleet commonality (320,319). On a side note I really find the 757 an uncomfortable plane. It is plainly to big to be a narrow body, same problem with the A321. So as far as I see it AC has operated/will operate: 727, 737 (kinda), 747, 767, 777 and 787 while only "missing" out on the 757, 717 and the 707. Not bad if you ask me.
Keep the shinny side up!
 
jimyvr
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 pm

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:49 pm

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):
The 737s where from CP so they did not really have them if you catch what I am saying.

Also NWT Air operated the 737s for AC in 90s.

They didn't have any 707s in their fleet in the past, they went for DC8.
1000 - 01MAR07 | http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/
 
delawareusa
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:48 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:22 pm

no 757s, but many 767-200s that did the mid range flying of the 757s, and could do the long range flying also
 
GoBlue
Topic Author
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:27 pm

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:22 pm

Sorry my fault i had a brain cramp when looking for the montreal code... YUL is dorval..

Thanks for the answers. I just tought that with most american carriers using the 757 trancon, that AC would use it.
 
drgmobile
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:27 am

Some good insight on fleet selection decisions is contained in Robert Milton's book. As previous posters have pointed out, AC did not operate by choice the 707 or 737. I'm not quite sure why the company elected for the A320 over the 757 in the 1980s but the company was government owned at the time. There was an investigation, shut down by civil court action, about possible kick backs benefiting Prime Minister Mulroney, associated with that decision. I think the 757 is a bit too much aircraft for the Canadian regular scheduled market. It just doesn't fit the AC business model except in a niche role.

In contrast to what somebody else posted in this thread, I'll bet both my kidneys
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:58 am

There was a lot of controversy about the choice of the A320. Many rumours and unfounded stuff floated around. The Prime Minister at the time, Brian Mulroney, was implicated in a bribery/kickback scheme but cleared later. Karl Hans Schreiber is a German industrialist was also involved and there are a number of lawsuits and charges still surrounding him. At the time the airline was still a crown corporation. Once they went for the A320 the 319, 340 and then 330 followed. Canadian also opted for the A320 prior to its demise. Their 737 were getting ancient as some were acquired when they bought Pacific Western.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 am

Quoting GoBlue (Reply 6):
Thanks for the answers. I just tought that with most american carriers using the 757 trancon, that AC would use it.

Too much a/c for most of AC's domestic routes keeping in mind they wanted just a single a/c for DC9/727 replacement.

As for the 737s, that's right, AC never ordered them but inherited from CAIL during the merger -- noting that NWT did have their own. CP/PW/WD/TZ (TransAir ?) all operated 707s at one time or another. Pacific Western/Wardair/Transair all used them on long-haul charters, CP leased I think two from World in the 60s to cover capacity shortage after writing off a DC-8 at Haneda in 1966 and to accomodate growth. IIRC, one of the 707s was itself seriously damaged in a landing accident at YVR in 1966 when it veered off the runway and slammed into a building. Again IIRC 2 fatalities.

Almost forgot! In the historical background of airlines that became part of CAIL then AC, Quebecair had a 707 for a while in I think the early 70s.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18997
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:50 am

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 9):
CP leased I think two from World in the 60s to cover capacity shortage after writing off a DC-8 at Haneda in 1966 and to accomodate growth. IIRC, one of the 707s was itself seriously damaged in a landing accident at YVR in 1966 when it veered off the runway and slammed into a building. Again IIRC 2 fatalities.

CP only leased one 707 (an ex-QF 707-138B) from a Seattle-based charter carrier called Standard Airways from mid-1967 until it was written off in the landing accident in fog at YVR in February 1968 (not 1966). It was a wet-lease using Standard Airways pilots and CP flight attendants (one of which was the only fatality on board the aircraft in the YVR accident; the other was on the ground.)

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 9):
Quebecair had a 707 for a while in I think the early 70s.

Quebecair had 2 ex-AA 707-123Bs for a few years in the 1970s. Both of them below:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pierre Langlois
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Oswald (via Martin Stephen)



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 8):
Canadian also opted for the A320 prior to its demise. Their 737 were getting ancient as some were acquired when they bought Pacific Western.

Several Canadian 737-200s (ex-CP Air and Pacific Western) were newer than AC's first few 767-200s. Many of the earliest 737s delivered to CP Air, PWA and other 737 operators that merged with CP Air earlier (Nordair and Eastern Provincial) had long been retired prior to the CP/PW merger.
 
User avatar
yowza
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:53 pm

Quoting N43W79 (Reply 2):
As for the 757, I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up in the AC fleet in the future.

I would be VERY surprised. Since the 757 production facility has been shut down I can't see the type being added as AC would struggle to source enough frames with low enough cycles to merit the effort associated with adding a type. Some people have billed the 787 as the direct replacement for the 757 and in that respect I guess that further diminishes the chances of seeing a 757 in AC color. Damn shame, the 757 is my favorite Boeing!

Quoting GoBlue (Reply 6):
YUL is dorval..

Not to nag but it's Trudeau now.

As for the original poster, I don't really understand the question are you saying that just because they in some capacity operated most other Boeing types they should have added the 757? If so you could argue the same for Airbus. AC operates 319, 320, 321, 330, 340 so why not the 318 and 380?


YOWza
 
mah584jr
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:35 pm

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:57 pm

Quoting YOWza (Reply 11):
would be VERY surprised.

Agreed.

I think the reason AC didn't select the 757 is because there was no need for it in the Canadian market. The 762s, which are closest in size, did a fine job for AC for a number of years.
 
beechnut
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:32 pm

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 8):
There was a lot of controversy about the choice of the A320. Many rumours and unfounded stuff floated around. The Prime Minister at the time, Brian Mulroney, was implicated in a bribery/kickback scheme but cleared later. Karl Hans Schreiber is a German industrialist was also involved and there are a number of lawsuits and charges still surrounding him. At the time the airline was still a crown corporation. Once they went for the A320 the 319, 340 and then 330 followed. Canadian also opted for the A320 prior to its demise. Their 737 were getting ancient as some were acquired when they bought Pacific Western.

While this story surfaces from time to time, I firmly believe that on the technical side, AC made the right choice. Keep in mind that when the Airbus were chosen in the late '80s (with deliveries starting in the early '90s), the competitor was the Boeing 737-300/400/500. The Airbus A32x is considerably more capable than the middle generation of 737s. For starters, the Airbus cruise is 0.78M whereas the 737 is 0.74M. Secondly the Airbus is capable of carrying baggage/cargo containers, and thirdly and most important, the Airbus was capable of flying a full payload nonstop from YUL-YVR against winter headwinds. The 737-300/400/500 was capable of YUL-YVR nonstop with optional tankage but not in all conditions, and with a lower payload. CP even flew the 737-200ADV non-stop on YUL-YVR, but with many restrictions and they were not comfortable on that route; moreover if one of the few aircraft with the optional tankage went technical, CP would substitute a non ER aircraft that had to make a tech stop in Winnipeg; as a frequent traveller on that route at that time, I avoided them like the plague for that reason after one such aircraft sub.. The Airbus was also more moderen technology, being the first widespread application of fly-by-wire in commercial aviation (note I said widespread; the Concorde was FBW, but 16 aircraft hardly counts as widesepread).

The 737NG closes the gap considerably with the Airbus, especially in terms of range, speed and payload, but is not FBW and still, AFAIK, does not handle containers, wich for AC, with a large belly freight business, is important.

Before I get flamed as an Boeing basher...AC also made a brilliant choice ditching the Airbus widebodies in favour of the 787/777 duo, with the possible exception of the A330 which IMHO is the best, most versatile Airbus widebody. Not surprisingly, it is the last Airbus widebody that will leave the fleet once all the 777s and 787s are delivered. I think though that Boeing should get cracking with a 737 replacement based on 787 technology.

Beech
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18997
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:25 am

Quoting Beechnut (Reply 13):
CP even flew the 737-200ADV non-stop on YUL-YVR, but with many restrictions and they were not comfortable on that route; moreover if one of the few aircraft with the optional tankage went technical, CP would substitute a non ER aircraft that had to make a tech stop in Winnipeg; as a frequent traveller on that route at that time, I avoided them like the plague for that reason after one such aircraft sub..

I flew CP about once a month YVR-YUL-YVR for a couple of years while the 737-200s were used on one daily nonstop roundtrip. I never had a problem and all my flights did it nonstop. I preferred the more personal service on the smaller 737 and CP's inflight service was excellent in those days and seat pitch even in Y class was better than today. On 737 transcon 2-class nonstops CP usually had 5 flight attendants for only 100 passengers, 2 of which handled the 12 or so business class passengers. CP's 732ADVs were also among the few 732s with inflight audio/video systems (CRT screens over the aisle).

Even CP's 732 ADVs without the extra tanks were as capable in range as AC's 727-200s. I think AC's 727s sometimes required fuel stops on transcon nonstops when winds were adverse. I recall one CP 732 flight YUL-YVR which was scheduled for about 5 hrs. 30 min. (an hour less eastbound). Due to headwinds we were in the air just over 6 hrs, my record on a 732.
 
B4REAL
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 5:53 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:21 am

Quoting CanadianNorth (Reply 1):
As far as I know the 737s were inherited from Canadi>n, so don't really count.

Same for the 747
B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:37 am

Quoting Beechnut (Reply 13):
but is not FBW and still, AFAIK, does not handle containers, wich for AC, with a large belly freight business, is important

FBW isn't worth the letters you have to type to mention it in and of itself. The 737 had perfectly good control system, and thus was not worth changing for the NG. Point is FBW just to have FBW is useless

As for cargo, one might note that the 737 is a champ cargo hauler containers or no. Might look at the WN cargo numbers if you have any doubts.
 
jamincan
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:28 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:39 am

Quoting B4REAL (Reply 15):
Same for the 747

Although they inherited several 747s from Canadian, I believe they had 3 or 4 747 Combis before the merger.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18997
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:18 am

Quoting Jamincan (Reply 17):
Quoting B4REAL (Reply 15):
Same for the 747

Although they inherited several 747s from Canadian, I believe they had 3 or 4 747 Combis before the merger.

AC had 3 747-400 Combis of their own at the time of the merger which added 4 Canadian 747-400s. However, AC previously operated 5 747-100s and 3 747-200s,so in total they operated 15 747s, only 4 of which came from Canadian. AC was the first 747 operator in Canada when their first 747-100 arrived in 1971.

Canadian predecessors CP Air and Wardair were also 747 operators in earlier years.
 
beechnut
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:30 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
I flew CP about once a month YVR-YUL-YVR for a couple of years while the 737-200s were used on one daily nonstop roundtrip. I never had a problem and all my flights did it nonstop. I preferred the more personal service on the smaller 737 and CP's inflight service was excellent in those days and seat pitch even in Y class was better than today. On 737 transcon 2-class nonstops CP usually had 5 flight attendants for only 100 passengers, 2 of which handled the 12 or so business class passengers. CP's 732ADVs were also among the few 732s with inflight audio/video systems (CRT screens over the aisle).

Even CP's 732 ADVs without the extra tanks were as capable in range as AC's 727-200s. I think AC's 727s sometimes required fuel stops on transcon nonstops when winds were adverse. I recall one CP 732 flight YUL-YVR which was scheduled for about 5 hrs. 30 min. (an hour less eastbound). Due to headwinds we were in the air just over 6 hrs, my record on a 732.

I wasn't so lucky. Mind you I only used them once, but it was the trip from hell. I was actually inbound from Japan. The incoming aircraft that was to do our flight from YVR to YUL went technical and a non-ER 737 was substituted after a long delay to scrounge up an aircraft (and not before trying to revive the sick bird, which had taken a lightning strike while inbound and had instrument issues as a result). We stopped in Winnipeg, and got to Montreal so late, it was post-curfew so we diverted to YMX (then still in use for passenger service), and landed there at something ridiculous like 5 am.

On the other hand I never had an issue on an AC 727. Also at that time the CP birds had a business class section (ahh, the Good Old Days of business class travel even on domestic flights) that consisted of regular Y seats with the middle seatback folded down into an armrest. The AC business class seat was wider and more comfortable. I'm a read-a-good-book with a nice libation in hand type of guy on a flight, so I didn't really care that much about the service or video screens, just give me my drink and leave me alone!  Smile But please get me there on time!

Beech
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: AC Ops 737,747, 767, 777 And No B757 WHY?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:43 am

Yes the 4 Canadian 747-400 weren't combi's like Air Canada's. They had a hard time filling all those seats sometimes while the combi's always seemed to take off for Frankfurt and other places full of cargo at the back. I was lucky enough to fly on one of the last flights of the 747-200 when they were retired. A few of the older 747's were also combi's and Air Canada held on to them in the desert for quite some time while they contemplated re-initiating pure cargo flights.

Yes YUL is called Trudeau now. Montrealers however still refer to it as Dorval. Much like many in DC refuse to call DCA Reagan and still refer to it as National.  Smile