Boeingluvr
Topic Author
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:16 pm

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?
 
pictues
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:41 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:44 pm

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.
 
milan320
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:25 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:37 pm

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 ... :-)
 
beechnut
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:39 pm

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
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:47 pm

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
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:01 pm

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.
 
accargo
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:19 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:05 pm

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 
 
AeroMexico777
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:07 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:30 am

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.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:11 am

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 ....
 
Boeingluvr
Topic Author
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:37 am

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!
 
beechnut
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:33 am

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.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:50 am

Excellent post Beech.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
briboy
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2001 1:47 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:17 am

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
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:54 am

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.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:25 am

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.
 
beechnut
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:36 am

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
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:02 am

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.
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:07 am

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.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:28 am

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 avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:46 am

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!
 
ba777-236
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 11:35 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:51 pm

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:20 pm

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.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:45 pm

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.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:34 pm

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.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:39 pm

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.
 
beechnut
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:43 pm

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 727 fleet may have been relatively young at the time, but it was also extremely inefficient. Notwithstanding the belly cargo issue, the 727 has considerably higher fuel consumption than the 727-200ADV, and the inefficiency of a 3-man cockpit crew. Moreover it was more marginal than the A320 on YUL-YVR nonstops, especially westbound in the winter.

Beech
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:41 pm

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 25):
The 727 fleet may have been relatively young at the time, but it was also extremely inefficient.

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, more or less. AC had a very young 722 fleet having taken delivery of the bulk of the fleet in the late 70's and early 80's. Most US airlines at the time had 722 fleets dating back to the late 60's. I continue to argue that AC replaced its 722 far earlier than it had to, and the Fed Govt played a role in that.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 25):
Notwithstanding the belly cargo issue, the 727 has considerably higher fuel consumption than the 727-200ADV, and the inefficiency of a 3-man cockpit crew.

All the AC 722's were advanced models.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
beechnut
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:02 pm

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 26):
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, more or less. AC had a very young 722 fleet having taken delivery of the bulk of the fleet in the late 70's and early 80's. Most US airlines at the time had 722 fleets dating back to the late 60's. I continue to argue that AC replaced its 722 far earlier than it had to, and the Fed Govt played a role in that.

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 from FedEx. It clearly made economic sense to upgrade the fleet. What sank Air Canada financially was the eventual ill-thought out purchase of CP.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 26):
All the AC 722's were advanced models.

That is correct.
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 26):
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, more or less. AC had a very young 722 fleet having taken delivery of the bulk of the fleet in the late 70's and early 80's. Most US airlines at the time had 722 fleets dating back to the late 60's. I continue to argue that AC replaced its 722 far earlier than it had to, and the Fed Govt played a role in that.

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 airliner in North America in the 80s operating a more modern and advanced aircraft made sense for AC.
Since there 727s were younger they were easier to sell (if there are two 727 one build in 1969 and one in 1982 which one do I buy for freighter conversion when I intend to fly that aircraft for another 15 years).
AC of course had the costs for the acquisition for new aircraft but saved on fuel, crew and maintenance costs.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:36 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
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.

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 the AC DC-9 order covered???

The Malton factory was built by AVRO Canada inc, and was basically empty following a certain very short sighted prairie lawyer PMs defense decisions...  irked 

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
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.

They actually only received 2 737-300s, C-FCPG and C-FCPI, the latter operated on the short lived CPAir Attache service. Both were returned to the lessor before the PWA merger took effect. The other 3 733s were never delivered, one was nearing completion and was delivered to either Piedmont or Western as i recall, the other 2...?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Trevor Ogle
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Trevor Ogle

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4981
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:55 am

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 29):
They actually only received 2 737-300s, C-FCPG and C-FCPI

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 Alberta
C-FCPK
April 3/86 - December 15/86 Empress of Manitoba
C-FCPL
April 10/86 - December 22/86 Empress of Quebec
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
beechnut
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:14 am

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. I believe they also ordered 767s that were never taken up. They seemed to change their minds quite fast after a purchase.

Beech
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:17 am

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. Particularly the historical parts, which I guess have nothing to do with the original question! Anyway, thanks to you knowledgeable participants.

-Rampart
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:18 am

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 21):
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 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 its limited range compared to the A320 was a very significant factor.

The 757 was a bit too expensive and its range and seats were closer to the 767 than the A320.

The 737-400 though cheaper was too small for a 722 replacement.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 26):
All the AC 722's were advanced models.

Even the advanced models had significantly higher fuel-burn rates than the A320.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4981
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:23 am

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 31):
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. I believe they also ordered 767s that were never taken up.

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 replacing the DC-6Bs, as well as the newly awarded YVR-SFO route.

In the 1970s, it was mandated that all of CPs transcons start at YVR and end at YUL. That was when the B727-100s arrived, to perform the transcons better than the DC-8-40s they replaced. When the B737ADV arrived, with -17 engines, it was now capable of some trans-con flights, making the B727-100 almost unnecessary. The only route the B737 could not do was YUL-YVR.

When the later B737-200s with -17 engines, a fourth fuel tank and 128,800 lbs MTOW arrived, the B727-100 was now completely unnecessary, as this aircraft could now do ALL transcons. The B727-100s were phased out as a result.

The B727-200s were purchased for the YVR-SFO/LAX market. That is why they were named Empress of Los Angeles and San Francisco. It was decided that greater frequency with smaller aircraft was the way to go, and the B727-200s were eventually retired and sold to Dan-Air.

The decision to purchase B767-200s was again to replace domestic DC-8-63s, as ETOPS was not yet envisioned when the aircraft were ordered. The order was cancelled without penalty, as it was a very hot selling aircraft, and an order for B737-300s was placed. Which as stated above, 5 were delivered and shortly retired. More B737-200ADV with -17 engines, higher MTOW and a fourth fuel tank were ordered as their replacement. It was decided that to keep the fleet common, it was a more sensible decision.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:33 am

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 30):
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 Alberta
C-FCPK
April 3/86 - December 15/86 Empress of Manitoba
C-FCPL
April 10/86 - December 22/86 Empress of Quebec

-tosses out CPAir fleet list...  irked 
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: The Future Of AC's Fleet.

Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:46 am

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 34):
The B737s came first, the first were basics, with -9 engines, and were for the "BC District" flying replacing the DC-6Bs, as well as the newly awarded YVR-SFO route.

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/YOW. As you say, the arrival of those 7 732s almost coincided with CP finally being given somewhat greater access to the transcon route with up to 25% of the capacity but still with the restriction that all flights had to turn around at YVR and YUL which negatively affected scheduling flexibility. When I joined CP in late 1969, 4 of those first 7 732s were assigned to the transcon route and 3 to the"BC/Yukon" routes.

Actually, the last 2 of the first 7 CP 732s (tail numbers 706 and 706) had a higher gross weight than the first 5 and were normally assigned to the YVR-YYC-YYZ-YUL route as the YYC-YYZ sector (especially westbound against headwinds) was a stretch for the other 5 early 732s. I recall a few cases where even those 2 somewhat longer-range 732s had to make a fuel stop YYZ-YYC when winds were very strong. They kept those 2 early 732s much longer than the first 5. They were often assigned to the YVR-SFO/LAX routes in their latter years of CP service.