SPQR
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:03 am

AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:21 am

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...ts-as-return-to-profit-is-forecast

didn't see this mentioned elsewhere, if it was my apologies.

Hopefully the home team (BBD) will get at least a portion of this, assuming their offering is in line with what A and B propose.
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:13 am

It's probably more accurate to say that Air Canada is within a few months of placing a narrow body order. They have been considering the competing aircraft for over a year now. Talks must be an intensive stage because management indicated that it likely won't take the year originally thought to do a deal.

The question is whether they want to deal with one manufacturer, likely Airbus, or split the order between Airbus and Bombardier and possibly offload all of the Embraers as was indicated in the pilot arbitration submission.

Cseries for up to 120 seats, Airbus over 120 seats, something like that.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4981
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:28 am

Quoting sebring (Reply 1):
The question is whether they want to deal with one manufacturer, likely Airbus, or split the order between Airbus and Bombardier and possibly offload all of the Embraers as was indicated in the pilot arbitration submission.

As per the Final Offer Submission, the E175s are leaving the fleet as we speak. They will be operated by SkyRegional, and training has started. My guess is that by next summer, they will all be operated under the Air Canada Express brand.

That leaves the 45 E190s, which must be flown in mainline Air Canada. While the CSeries does offer a competitively sized aircraft, that leaves Bombardier to make a case for replacing the E190s. That may be hard, as while the seat mile fuel burn is promised to be less, the capital outlay to purchase/lease the new aircraft would be considerable.

Not to mention the (very expensive) infrastructure put in place to support the E190s.

As the announcement was for 100 narrow bodies, it makes me think they are looking for an A319-A321 replacement, as that present fleet is roughly 100 aircraft.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:59 am

There currently are 88 Airbus narrowbodies in the fleet roster, and that presumably includes a couple of A320s flying for JETZ. Normally, if the NHL were alive, I'd suspect the active mainline Airbus fleet would be around 80. Next, a few older planes likely are headed for the LCC.

I think the most likely scenario is an all-Airbus order, but if Bombardier wanted a marquee customer for the CSeries, it could remarket the E-190s for AC which are pretty new and were acquired at significantly discounted launch prices. That kind of arrangement has happened many times before. Considering AC went for the Embraers in the first place, passing over a bigger fleet of CRAs, it has a great deal of credibility in the marketplace for making independent decisions. A CSeries buy would therefore not be seen as a hometown or politically inspired decision, but a vote in favor of the better aircraft. So I wouldn't say that it is inconceivable, just unlikely.

[Edited 2012-12-06 22:00:24]

[Edited 2012-12-06 22:02:14]
 
boeingorbust
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:44 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:08 am

Article also mentioned they were in talks with Boeing.. Any likelyhood they could be considering the 737MAX? I assume if they go airbus it'll be NEO's all the way? I know AC recently changed their wide body preferencing to Boeing using the 777 and placing 787 orders. Would they consider the 737 for fleet commonality?
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:50 am

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 4):
Would they consider the 737 for fleet commonality?

That's not fleet commonality, that's manufacturer commonality. As there is no common type rating between Boeing (or Airbus for that matter) narrow and widebody aircraft, there would be no apparent benefit for AC to select a sole manufacturer; they would still require separate training and maintenance programs, whatever the new type.

[Edited 2012-12-06 22:51:20]
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:24 pm

How much weight does the Airbus Affair of the 1990's still have? Is it fair to say that Boeing have a 'moral' head start in this race?


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4981
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:29 pm

Quoting faro (Reply 6):
How much weight does the Airbus Affair of the 1990's still have? Is it fair to say that Boeing have a 'moral' head start in this race?

That was in the 1980s, as the first A320 arrived at AC in January of 1990. There are many that think the right decision was made, no matter how it was decided as today the A320 lasted longer than would have the B737-400 offered by Boeing.

Air Canada is likely to make a decision based on aircraft merit, and not the alleged actions of a politician 25 years ago.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
YOWVIEWER
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:45 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:46 pm

Just curious as I must have missed something over time with the E190s. When AC first got them, they were claiming up to 20% savings on routes compared to the A320s. AC143 YUL-YOW-YEG for example has been changed from A320 to E190 ever since, and with rare exception (last weeks' extreme headwinds causing refuelling stop in Winnipeg) I thought it was doing well for AC.
Why are they so eager to get rid of them now ?
Thanks !
 
lostsound
Posts: 459
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:47 pm

Air Canada will want to keep both Boeing and Airbus aircraft in their fleet in order to receive the best possible deals by playing the manufacturers against each other in years to come. So it is my opinion that the A32X fleet will be replaced with A32XNEOs.

Air Canada does appear to be interested in losing the Embraers, so I'm thinking the CSeries has a chance there. Air Canada might be poised to support the Home-Country's aviation-manufacturing sector.

Personally I hope Air Canada sticks with the Airbus narrowbodies and WestJet with the Boeings. I like having that diversity here, otherwise there will be no A32X operator here which would bum me out.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:54 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 2):
As per the Final Offer Submission, the E175s are leaving the fleet as we speak. They will be operated by SkyRegional, and training has started. My guess is that by next summer, they will all be operated under the Air Canada Express brand.

The E175 transition to SkyRegional is scheduled for Feb-June 2013 according to print at the time it was announced.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 2):
That leaves the 45 E190s, which must be flown in mainline Air Canada. While the CSeries does offer a competitively sized aircraft, that leaves Bombardier to make a case for replacing the E190s. That may be hard, as while the seat mile fuel burn is promised to be less, the capital outlay to purchase/lease the new aircraft would be considerable.

Not to mention the reduced ROI if the E190 fleet is removed from service after only a few years and are heavily discounted for re-sale (45 aircraft is alot to release onto the market). The business case to replace such a relatively new aircraft with only marginally newer aircraft might be difficult.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 2):
As the announcement was for 100 narrow bodies, it makes me think they are looking for an A319-A321 replacement, as that present fleet is roughly 100 aircraft.

Seems likely, given the age of the A320 fleet. The A32xneo seems like the logical choice, unless Boeing can win them over to the 8/9MAX. Given the popularity of the neo and the increasingly fewer earlier delivery slots, AC needs to move fast with a neo order.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:03 pm

Either the MAX or NEO will work fine for the A320/321 replacement, let the salespeople from Boeing and Airbus earn their salaries...
The to me question is, do they replace the 319 with same or with CS100 or 300? The CS300ER can cover all of North America from YYZ, most of it from YVR... very little of the flying the A319 does for AC is beyond the range (with obvious exceptions like YYT-LHR which could be moved to the larger 320 replacement). The CS300 is just slightly smaller than the A319, but thats not a bad thing necessarily. And with alot of the 319s possibly moving to the LCC... BBD might have a foot in the door if the price is right.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:08 pm

The A320neo would not require any re-training, but if AC wants to start replacing planes sooner rather than later, I wonder if the MAX might have better availability.

The engine manufacturers might have a say in this, as well. A CSeries order would allow Pratt to push A320neos with GTFs. On the flip side, AC's widebody fleet moving to GE power could have CFM making an offer for the neo or the MAX.

[Edited 2012-12-07 11:11:11]
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4981
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:38 pm

Quoting yowviewer (Reply 8):
AC143 YUL-YOW-YEG for example has been changed from A320 to E190 ever since, and with rare exception (last weeks' extreme headwinds causing refuelling stop in Winnipeg)

The E190 can easily fly non-stop from YOW-YEG, even with a 100 knot headwind. The big problem is if the winds were higher than planned, or if weather at the destination or alternate changed. Or some combination of the above, namely a far alternate, more than normal contingency fuel combined with a longer flying time.

Quoting yowviewer (Reply 8):
I thought it was doing well for AC.
Why are they so eager to get rid of them now ?

I wasn't aware they were ... as far as I can tell, this planned purchase is to replace the A320 series.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
The A320neo would not require any re-training, but if AC wants to start replacing planes sooner rather than later, I wonder if the MAX might have better availability.

I think the training and crewing aspect is what gives the A320neo the edge. They can be introduced into the fleet with only minimal training meaning a crew compliment already exists. They just introduce them into the schedule when they arrive.
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: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:59 pm

Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 4):
Article also mentioned they were in talks with Boeing.. Any likelyhood they could be considering the 737MAX? I assume if they go airbus it'll be NEO's all the way? I know AC recently changed their wide body preferencing to Boeing using the 777 and placing 787 orders. Would they consider the 737 for fleet commonality?

It would very much surprise me. The main reason, being the Airbus containerized cargo capabilities and the infrastructure already in place to handle it. Currently the A320s are the backbone of the transcontinental fleet, and carry considerable cargo across the country. It would surprise me to see AC give this up, unless the Max has this ability as well which I don't think it does. This isn't such an issue on really short haul, so won't likely impact on the C-series vs. Embraer debate, if indeed that is on the table (not so sure about that either).

Underbelly cargo is big business for AC. It's one of the things in favour of the 777 as well, for long haul. I don't think that's changing any time soon.

Also as mentioned elsewhere, the 737 wouldn't have any commonality with anything else in the AC fleet, so that's a non-issue. The only commonality would be the manufacturer, and the only benefit I could see would be deeper discounting. Maybe. But it's in AC's favour to play one manufacturer off the other until they whittle down the price to what they're prepared to pay. Really, the order is Airbus's to lose.

I'm sure the bulk of the order won't be a surprise: a mix of 320/321 NEO, with perhaps some 319 NEO, the big question mark being the exact ratios (1:1 replacement, or a different mix?), and what, if anything, migrates to the LCC fleet. Any surprises would be the replacement of the EMB fleet with BBD C-series. And that would be a BIG surprise IMHO. If AC does do it, you can bet that national pride won't have anything to do with it, the decision will be strictly economic and technical.

Beech
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:27 pm

I have always thought that the best combination for AC would be something like 50 A321s and 100 CSeries birds (some combination of CS100/CS300). Get rid of the E-Jets.

That would provide maximum CASM for thicker routes like YVR or the sun routes, and solid range-payload for long US routes like LAX/SFO/SEA. Or more TATL to hubs: YHZ-FRA? The 321NEO really is the perfect bird for routes in this hemisphere. I'd imagine AC could make AC could even deploy them on some longer, thinner routes. YVR-CUN or all-year YYC-HNL? Or YZF-YYZ direct? Or even TATL: YHZ-GLA. YHZ-MAN. YHZ-DUB. YYT-LHR all year-round.

The E-Jets really aren't all that much better than RJs. And getting 319s would be a bad CASM buy.

Just my    ...

[Edited 2012-12-07 13:37:44]
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:41 pm

I sincerely hope Bombardier goes for the win and strikes a deal to get the CSeries in AC's fleet. Remarket the E-Jets.

As a passenger, I would love to be flying on the CSeries. It would be the most comfortable offering in North America.
 
davs5032
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:12 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:16 pm

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 11):
Either the MAX or NEO will work fine for the A320/321 replacement, let the salespeople from Boeing and Airbus earn their salaries...
The to me question is, do they replace the 319 with same or with CS100 or 300? The CS300ER can cover all of North America from YYZ, most of it from YVR... very little of the flying the A319 does for AC is beyond the range (with obvious exceptions like YYT-LHR which could be moved to the larger 320 replacement). The CS300 is just slightly smaller than the A319, but thats not a bad thing necessarily. And with alot of the 319s possibly moving to the LCC... BBD might have a foot in the door if the price is right.

It will be interesting to see how the C series shakes out here. Normally, you wouldn't expect it to have much of a chance. The efficiency $$ advantages of more optimized -300 over the A319 are probably not large enough to overcome the allure of a single common fleet with minimal crew transition costs...but that assumes a buyer that has no political pressures or allegiances to think about. I don't think politics will be a major sway here given AC's a private company, but it could at least be enough of a consideration to tip the scales to the underdog. Other things that might help BBD would be if AC needs some smaller ~100 seaters added to its fleet for replacement/growth needs (CS100), in which case the scope argument may not be as strongly in the A319's favor. Also, if AC needs frames faster than they can get on a long NEO backlog, that might be a factor as well. (I'm not sure of all the facts surrounding AC at this point, so others will have to expand.)

-As for the size of an A319 vs. a CS300, I actually think it's similar enough to be a 1:1 replacement, so that wouldn't be an issue IMO. Looks like AC has their 319's configured 14F/106Y. The -300 would seem to allow for basically the same configuration.

Quoting ytz (Reply 16):
I sincerely hope Bombardier goes for the win and strikes a deal to get the CSeries in AC's fleet. Remarket the E-Jets.
As a passenger, I would love to be flying on the CSeries. It would be the most comfortable offering in North America.

The Y comfort would be very refreshing, and it's one of the reasons I like the plane so much; seems to accomodate both the airline's cost concerns and customer comfort very well.
 
User avatar
AC853
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:14 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:14 pm

Just Curious. Why is Air Canada not happy with the E190?. Are the operating costs that bad or are they just too small? They are extensively used in western Canada and very comfortable to fly in. They seem much more spacious than the CRJ-705s
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1217
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:01 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
The A320neo would not require any re-training, but if AC wants to start replacing planes sooner rather than later, I wonder if the MAX might have better availability.

It's an interesting situation for the Airbus/Boeing duopoly. Even if a plane is not as good as the other (in the buyers opinion), both manufacturers offer competitive planes that do the job well. The manufacturing constraints on both mean that they are guaranteed a good part of the market either way. (except for the much more specialised markets, such as the VLA market)
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4981
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:11 am

Quoting ac853 (Reply 18):
Just Curious. Why is Air Canada not happy with the E190?.

Air Canada is very happy with the E190.

After the initial teething trouble, (like the A320, like the DC-8, like the Super Connie, like the CSeries etc etc etc), the aircraft is as reliable as the A320 series. The E190 has a seat mile cost somewhere between the A319 and the A320, which is astounding for an aircraft its size.

Also, with one of the largest Y seats in the business, Marketing has stated there is a preference by passengers over other competing narrow body aircraft.

If this purchase for narrow body aircraft includes the E190, (VERY big if btw) then Bombardier better come up with a very good sales pitch. As I said above, the existing infrastructure and the low capital outlay of the E190 are hard to overcome by lower fuel burn alone.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:09 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 20):
As I said above, the existing infrastructure and the low capital outlay of the E190 are hard to overcome by lower fuel burn alone.

There's good opportunity here for Bombardier, since it won't be a 1:1 trade. It would be a 2:1 deal. Trade in 45 E190s and Bombardier gets to replace these and the ~40 319s. That's at least 80 aircraft. Heck, they could also get a deal to trade the E175s for more CRJ705s.
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:16 am

Who says AC is very happy with the 190? You think an airplane less than 10 years old is up for replacement signifies satisfaction? It was a bad purchase. You speak of lots of legroom but that was before they added more rows. It's cramped now.

EMJ and Bombardier build cheap disposable airplanes. They're amateur hour compared to Boeing and Airbus. Notice they never mucked about in that segment.

Either way Bombardier has a real possibility of landing this order. Remember AC is on bended knee to the govt looking for pension funding relief...... Use your imagination. And if govt meddling doesn't come into the mix realize this about Air Canada.

THE BEAN COUNTERS WILL PICK THE CHEAPEST OPTION REGARDLESS OF AIRCRAFT MERITS.

Always have always will. Except when Milton's ego got involved and he got the 777s and 787s for a song. Good on him.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4981
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:34 am

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
Who says AC is very happy with the 190? You think an airplane less than 10 years old is up for replacement signifies satisfaction?

Air Canada says they are happy with the Embraers, and where have they stated they are up for replacement?

AC had the opportunity to ditch the E175s and replace them with more CRJ705s, but they chose to keep them. Why do you think that is?

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
Notice they never mucked about in that segment.

They tried with the B737-600 and the A318. Or as I like to refer to them, the Vega and the Pinto.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
EMJ and Bombardier build cheap disposable airplanes.

It is a tough engineering assignment to build a less than 100 seat aircraft that has reasonable seat mile costs, yet both BBD and Embraer have done that well. Yes, they are lighter, that is what makes them efficient. If you see that as "disposable" then why don't airlines? Because, as you state:

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):

THE BEAN COUNTERS WILL PICK THE CHEAPEST OPTION REGARDLESS OF AIRCRAFT MERITS.

Yes, the B737-600 and the A318 are excellent aircraft, and they do their job superbly, except ... seat mile cost.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:58 am

They are cheaply built airplanes.

Why do you think the big boys didnt stick their nose into this segment? Pinto and Vega sure. How many did they sell and how much capital did they sink into those programs? Not much which is why they didnt sell and are not selling. They were too heavy. Big airliners chopped into small ones with all the big boy parts weighing them down. Now. I would hazard a guess the boys at EADS and Boeing know a little more than you or I when it comes to where the market is. And I think the 100 seat market is a bogus one nowadays as the airplanes dont provide the airlines with the upflex they need when things open up. Im sure we will agree to disagree on this.

Now. You say Air Canada has no plans of getting rid of the EMJs. Hmmmm. Is it a narrowbody? They're looking to replace their narrow body fleet.

Remember that the 10 year plan has the fleet composition looking 50/50 widebody/narrowbody. Dont be looking for narrowbody growth ie: 100 new narrowbody jets and keeping the EMJs too. aint gonna happen. There is not going to be 160 narrowbody jets at AC.

Much like I dont think the LCC will ever reach 50 airframes.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4981
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:28 am

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
Pinto and Vega sure.

I am not sure if you understood my Pinto and Vega reference, as you are younger than me. But Ford and GM designed the two, as there appeared a new threat ... the then unheard of (in North America) Toyota and Honda . They didn't need the two for profit, as much as they needed the two to stop Americans from buying Toyotas and Hondas.

It didn't work, much like the A318 and B737-600 didn't stop airlines from buying larger CRJs and EMJs.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
And I think the 100 seat market is a bogus one nowadays

With a couple thousand CRJs and EMJs built, I am not so sure one could consider it a bogus market.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
Dont be looking for narrowbody growth ie: 100 new narrowbody jets and keeping the EMJs too. aint gonna happen. There is not going to be 160 narrowbody jets at AC.

Techically, it would be 145 narrowbody jets (as 15 E175s are leaving), but then you have to include the LCC. There is talk of "a hundred" narrow body aircraft aircraft replaced, but really there are 88 A320 series aircraft to be replaced. Plus, whatever happens at the LCC. Don't forget that two of the 4 A319s slotted for the LCC are coming from "the desert" not from mainline AC.

Both internally and publicly, I have still not seen any indication that AC is not happy with the E190s, nor would they like to get rid of them. I am not saying it wont happen, just that if it will, it is a very tight secret!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:42 am

By Bogus I mean for the mainline legacy carrier.

AC has everything in place to grow internationally and shrink its domestically

Thanks for the history lesson! Very useful.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:14 am

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
EMJ and Bombardier build cheap disposable airplanes.

1) Normally Embraer is shortened to EMB. What's EMJ?
2) By what definition are their aircraft cheap and/or disposable? The Dash series (now Q series at Bombardier) has been used in some of the harshest conditions ever. RJs and turboprops in general tend to operate from more austere conditions than mainline narrowbodies. I'd say they're less delicate.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
They're amateur hour compared to Boeing and Airbus.

And you're clueless. See? We can all make generic statements without any real knowledge of the subject we are talking about.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
Notice they never mucked about in that segment.

Look at how many seats were in the original and classic 737s. Go on. You can use Wikipedia. It's easy. They did play in this market. They grew their airplanes with the market. And that's created room for Embraer and Bombardier.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
THE BEAN COUNTERS WILL PICK THE CHEAPEST OPTION REGARDLESS OF AIRCRAFT MERITS.

Publicly traded companies aiming for profit through efficient deployment of capital. Imagine that. Cheapest tool that gets the job done. Every company should be run that way. Especially airlines where capital costs are massive and misallocation of capital terminal.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
I would hazard a guess the boys at EADS and Boeing know a little more than you or I when it comes to where the market is.

No. They know how to allocate capital to make the most of their abilities. Bombardier and Embraer understand that they don't have the technical capabilties (frequently subsidized in Europe and the USA by national governments) or marketing or financial backing (government loan guarantees) to compete in the deep end of the pool. So they wisely focus on where they can make the most money. Comparatively, Boeing and Airbus are utterly terrible at playing in 90-120 seat market. Embraer alone has sold over 1000 E-Jets. The smallest model, the E-170 has 192 sales. Boeing has 69 sales for the 737-600. Airbus has sold 80 318s. A more direct comparison? The E-195 has sold 137. Just under Boeing and Airbus' sales in this exact same category...combined. And we aren't even including Bombardier in this mix.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
And I think the 100 seat market is a bogus one nowadays as the airplanes dont provide the airlines with the upflex they need when things open up.

Nonsense. See what happened with the RJ? The same situation will repeat itself with the E-Jets and CSeries. 100-120 seaters are the new RJs. This category of flying will get relegated to the minors (regionals). And given that the CSeries supposedly has CASM close to a 320NEO, this makes for a really good recipe for profit.

And if the CSeries and the upgraded E-190/195 are anywhere close to the promised CASM, the market will flourish for two other big reasons: fragmentation and frequency. These planes will let AC fly some thin routes like YYZ-YXE with the 175 today. And they'll allow for much higher frequencies on major routes. I imagine we'll see more frequencies on markets like YYZ-EWR/JFK for example.
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:30 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 25):
Both internally and publicly, I have still not seen any indication that AC is not happy with the E190s, nor would they like to get rid of them. I am not saying it wont happen, just that if it will, it is a very tight secret!

It's not whether they want to get rid of them or not. They aren't anywhere close to End-of-Life like the A319s and A320s. So the ball is in Bombardier's court to make an offer than creates a sound business case, to replace the 319, and the 190s in one shot.

And I'd argue that this kind of proposal is the only way Bombardier has any shot at all. I doubt AC wants to operate the E190, the CS300, and the 320s and 321s. So the only way Bombardier can sell the CS300 as a 319 replacement is to make a pitch that takes the 190s off AC's hands.

Otherwise, AC might as well go NEO for fuel efficiency or MAX for OEM commonality (eases transition to the widebody fleet). So it's 100 birds to be replaced. But could be 145 with the right offer.....

I still think that AC would be best served by the CS100/CS300 and the A321. Actually, I could even see a case for just the CS100 (short-haul) and A321 (medium-haul). Alternatively, I could see AC being a launch customer for the CS500 as the 319 replacement. I also see an opportunity with this kind of mix for AC to really elevate service. Short-haul J moves to a standard almost like VX.
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2268
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:01 am

Not sure why the hate for the E190. Its a wonderful aircraft for AC, very flexible, long legs, equally happy on short hops and they got them for a very good price.

Quoting ytz (Reply 15):
The E-Jets really aren't all that much better than RJs. And getting 319s would be a bad CASM buy

Compared to a 50 seater they are. The A319 is good for AC beacause of its range. Despite the poorer CASM, I think it would save more money to have the 319 as a common family with the 320 and 321 rather than introduce another fleet type and the associated costs at the present time. If one type (E190) went away, its a wash, but I do not think that will be happening for a while yet.

Quoting ac853 (Reply 18):
Just Curious. Why is Air Canada not happy with the E190?.

They are happy.

Ultimately I can see the E190 being replaced by the CS down the road (subject to what EMB do themselves of course in terms of a 190NG / replacement), say in 5-8 years time, but not now. Clearly the more pressing need is A32S replacement. I dont think AC has the cash resources to do both, or more exactly the spare cash needs to be used elsewhere. Its not only the aircraft themsleves, but all the infrastructure and crew training / simulators etc too.

I think the A32Sneo has the clear edge over the MAX

1) Easy transition from existing fleet - reduced crew training costs
2) The 321neo surely has to be more attractive to AC vs the 739ER for the long transcons
3) Containerized cargo - HUGE deal for AC
4) Airbus will be very keen to retain the client and price accordingly, particularly after losing their widebody custom
5) WS operate the 737  

I think 30x 319, 50x 320 & 20x 321.

Engine selection may be interesting too - PW may indicate hints long term as to another aircraft with a similar engine...
Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:05 am

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 24):
They are cheaply built airplanes.

Why do you think the big boys didnt stick their nose into this segment?

If they are cheaply built jets, why DIDN'T Airbus and Boeing stick their noses into this segment? They could have eaten Bombardier's and Embraer's lunch with their higher expertise and levels of quality, as you say.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 22):
THE BEAN COUNTERS WILL PICK THE CHEAPEST OPTION REGARDLESS OF AIRCRAFT MERITS.

And how do you define an aircraft's merits? Greater range, even if you don't need it? Size, even if you don't need it?
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:48 am

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
Compared to a 50 seater they are.

Except that the E-Jets effectively were A32S replacements.....or rather supplanted the growth of the A32S fleet. There's a good reason they're mainline.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
Ultimately I can see the E190 being replaced by the CS down the road (subject to what EMB do themselves of course in terms of a 190NG / replacement), say in 5-8 years time, but not now.

Except this clearly won't be an order for now. If they are going NEO, they aren't getting it till the end of the decade.

They could get the CSeries in 2015-2016. CS500 (if desired) in 2016-2017.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
I think 30x 319, 50x 320 & 20x 321.

I'd be surprised if AC doesn't get a few more 321s. It really offers tons of potential as a medium-haul aircraft for AC. Like opening up some more TATL service from YHZ.
 
davs5032
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:12 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:18 am

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
Not sure why the hate for the E190. Its a wonderful aircraft for AC, very flexible, long legs, equally happy on short hops and they got them for a very good price.

I agree. I'd always liked the EJets, but gained an even greater appreciation for it last year when, (in a lousy attempt to save some $$ of course), I booked a cheap red-eye from LAS-MKE on F9. Upon realizing I'd be stuck on a RJ for so long, my initial thought was "oh $hit, I'm going to regret this." However, it feels so spacious, (even more than a 737 when one's seated, IMO), that I actually enjoyed the ride...despite the intense LAS-hangover that I was suffering from. 
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
Compared to a 50 seater they are. The A319 is good for AC beacause of its range. Despite the poorer CASM, I think it would save more money to have the 319 as a common family with the 320 and 321 rather than introduce another fleet type and the associated costs at the present time. If one type (E190) went away, its a wash, but I do not think that will be happening for a while yet.

I hadn't thought about the range aspect of the equation. Does AC employ many A319's on trans-con routes for which the CS-300 couldn't be used? I know the C-series has fairly good range, but I believe it's slight less than trans-con capable. How about the E190's? Does AC have many thin routes which it wants/needs to use the E190 on, but can't? I've heard before on here that one short-coming of the E190 is that it's range isn't great.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 29):
I think the A32Sneo has the clear edge over the MAX

1) Easy transition from existing fleet - reduced crew training costs
2) The 321neo surely has to be more attractive to AC vs the 739ER for the long transcons
3) Containerized cargo - HUGE deal for AC
4) Airbus will be very keen to retain the client and price accordingly, particularly after losing their widebody custom
5) WS operate the 737  

I think #1 is probably enough, unless Boeing were to offer a serious discount. But yeah, given all the other factors, it's as close to a "lock" as it gets in this industry.
 
behramjee
Posts: 4344
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:41 am

In my personal opinion, Air Canada should give serious consideration to two aircraft in particular when making this decision i.e. the A321NEO and the Bombardier CS300.

The CS300 should be bought to replace its entire A319 fleet which currently numbers 37 as it offers nearly 20% better operating costs and is also a smaller capital investment versus buying A319NEO/A320NEO to replace the classic A319s.

The A321NEO has proven to be a popular aircraft since its sales inception began a year ago with big name airlines ordering this type. It can easily replace AC's entire current A321 fleet easily (numbering 10) as well replace all B 763ER operated domestic and trans-border flights easily. AC too can use this aircraft easily to operate nonstop from YVR to the U.S. East Coast plus look at the possibility to operate YHZ-LHR versus a more costlier B763ER.

The A320s should remain in AC's fleet and should be used as a bargaining tool by AC to induce Bombardier to seriously contemplate building the highly anticipated larger CS500 in hopes for a big order as currently AC has 46 A320s operating.
 
liftsifter
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:25 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:51 am

I don't know why, but I see AC as a total 737MAX airline.
A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B736 B737 B738 B744 B763 B77L B77E B77W B788 E190
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4981
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:32 pm

Quoting ytz (Reply 31):
Except that the E-Jets effectively were A32S replacements.....or rather supplanted the growth of the A32S fleet. There's a good reason they're mainline.

They were DC-9, B737-200 and F-28 replacements. No A320 series aircraft left the fleet as a result of the E190 purchase.

When ordered, the A319 was to be a DC-9 replacement, but at roughly 45,000 lbs heavier, it is a lot of airplane. Yes, the A319 is an extremely capable aircraft, but unless one is using that capability, its a lot of extra airplane to haul around. The E190 is about the same weight as a DC-9 and about 10,000 lighter than the B737s it replaced.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 32):
I hadn't thought about the range aspect of the equation. Does AC employ many A319's on trans-con routes for which the CS-300 couldn't be used?

The A319 does do some pretty long flights with AC. Yes, the usual trans-cons, YYZ/YUL to YVR/YYJ/LAX/SFO/SAN, but also a lot of farther southern flying as well YYZ-BGI/UVF/CCS/PVR/ZIH/MEX/SJO/LIR, etc. Can the CS300 do these?

And that goes back to what I said above, when one has such a capable aircraft, it is expensive to haul around that capability when not used. I would be surprised therefore if the CS300/500 could fulfill such a mission.

So consider the two fleet issue .... either E190s and A320 series, or CSeries and A321s ... where does one draw the line separating the "light" from the "heavy" narrow-body. With the E190 / A320neo series combo there are no gaps, but with the CSeries/A321 combo, the long range 120 seat aircraft is missing, unless you went for A319/A320/A321neo then it is a straight swap .. the E190 for the Cseries, and that would be a tough sell.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
lostsound
Posts: 459
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:20 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
The A319 does do some pretty long flights with AC. Yes, the usual trans-cons, YUL to YVR/YYJ/LAX/SFO/SAN, but also a lot of farther southern flying as well BGI/UVF/CCS/PVR/ZIH/MEX/SJO/LIR, etc. Can the CS300 do these?

Don't forget YYT - LHR.

It's not a long or far flight but If Air Canada continues that route, the CSeries would have to get certified for ETOPS.

[Edited 2012-12-08 08:21:27]
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:56 pm

Quoting lostsound (Reply 36):
It's not a long or far flight but If Air Canada continues that route, the CSeries would have to get certified for ETOPS.

They are already planning to certify it for ETOPS 120 by EIS and 180 within 6 months after.

http://www.rjet.ca/blog/2012/01/06/b...est-program-for-cseries-announced/

[Edited 2012-12-08 08:57:16]
What the...?
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:21 pm

Quoting ytz (Reply 31):
I'd be surprised if AC doesn't get a few more 321s. It really offers tons of potential as a medium-haul aircraft for AC. Like opening up some more TATL service from YHZ.

You think AC is going to get more 321s?

For the Atlantic.

I'd love to hear where you have them flying to. Clearly you have crunched the numbers heavily. I guess the next thing for you to do is to whip up the thousands of people needed out-of-YHZ to start up these routes.

You seem to think the 321 is such a wonderful fit for AC. I guess the good thing about it on the Atlantic (lmao) is it could do DUB no problem. And they wouldn't have to use the tracks as the a/c will have to do the crossing at 280 because it doesnt have the wing to get into the tracks.

321 on the Atlantic. Fantasy world stuff.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:29 pm

Quoting lostsound (Reply 36):
It's not a long or far flight but If Air Canada continues that route, the CSeries would have to get certified for ETOPS.

It may not be a long flight but it is a challenging flight. Eastbound there is no problem.

Westbound is an entirely different story. And is the reason this route is only done seasonally. The aircraft doesnt have the legs. By this I mean for holding alternates. You likely know that part of the world is fairly desolate and alternate airports are rather sparse compared to basically anywhere else on the eastern seaboard.

When the weather turns uglier in the winter time the ability to have the legally required alternate close-in becomes a crapshoot. When there is nothing "legal" alternate wise on the island the route becomes very challenging. And the weather in winter on the rock has worse odds than a crapshoot.

The airplane just cant load enough gas.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:43 pm

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
You think AC is going to get more 321s?

I don't know if they will. But yes, I think they should.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
For the Atlantic.

Not just the Atlantic. That was just one example. But I think the 321NEO would do quite well on other routes. YYZ-LAX for example. Or YVR-Hawaii (not just HNL). They could serve OGG, KOA or LIH. No need to send out a 763 daily. Or a whole bunch of Carribean and Central American routes.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
I'd love to hear where you have them flying to.

From YHZ? LHR, DUB, GLA or MAN.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
I guess the next thing for you to do is to whip up the thousands of people needed out-of-YHZ to start up these routes.

Well, AC seems to have no problem filling a 763 daily to LHR. I don't see why a downgrade to a 321 and more destinations would be problematic.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
You seem to think the 321 is such a wonderful fit for AC.

Not the 321. But the 321NEO. 15% lower fuel consumption. 500nm more range or another two tonnes of payload. Really, if AC is going to get the 320NEO, they might as well procure the 321 and add some seat capacity. The extra fuel burn is hardly substantial. Heck the 321NEO probably has lower trip costs than the current 320. CASM is definitely phenomenal. Only a widebody would do better.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
I guess the good thing about it on the Atlantic (lmao) is it could do DUB no problem.

And that's laughable because?

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 38):
321 on the Atlantic. Fantasy world stuff.

Ummm, that's exactly how Airbus is marketing this aircraft. As a 757 replacement. But clearly you know more than their marketing staff.

Any idea how many 757s are used on US-Europe TATL service? You should look it up sometime.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
Can the CS300 do these?

The CS300 has a 2200nm range. None of those Carribean/LatAm routes are more than 2200nm. But the CS300ER with a 2950nm range can definitely all them and probably with a decent payload too.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
... where does one draw the line separating the "light" from the "heavy" narrow-body.

Why is a line necessary? Match the aircraft to demand on the route. The CSeries ER versions have the range to do any route in North and Central America.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
With the E190 / A320neo series combo there are no gaps, but with the CSeries/A321 combo, the long range 120 seat aircraft is missing, unless you went for A319/A320/A321neo then it is a straight swap

I don't get this argument. You are saying that an aircraft with more range and a capacity that overlaps with the 32S range will have more of a gap than the 190/32NEO? Explain.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):
the E190 for the Cseries, and that would be a tough sell.

I can see for reasons of cost. And by that, I mean capital, retraining, etc. But are you suggesting AC wouldn't consider if they were given an offer that involved trading in/remarketing the E-Jets? Why not? I see such a deal as an amazing opportunity for AC. They get a more capable aircraft to replace the E-190 for nearly the same operating costs. And they get a substantially cheaper-to-operate aircraft at the middle range (A319 replacement). Added bonus: the CSeries offers substantially more passenger amenities (wider seats, larger windows, larger bins) than the NEO or the MAX. That would be good for AC's brand.
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:16 pm

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 39):
It may not be a long flight but it is a challenging flight. Eastbound there is no problem.

Westbound is an entirely different story. And is the reason this route is only done seasonally.

1) Nonsense. An aircraft with a max range-payload over 2200nm can't fly a great circle route of 2012nm with a limited payload (I doubt there's a ton of cargo to YYT)? It's seasonal because there's not enough demand for year-round service. It has nothing to do with the aircraft. With 500nm more range, the NEO will make it even easier.

2) Bombardier is certifying the aircraft for ETOPS because one of the buyers is interested in deploying the aircraft on the LCY-JFK route. And unlike BA with its 318s, the CSeries will be able to do that route without stopping in Shannon for gas.
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:36 pm

Quoting YTZ (Reply 41):
1) Nonsense. An aircraft with a max range-payload over 2200nm can't fly a great circle route of 2012nm with a limited payload (I doubt there's a ton of cargo to YYT)? It's seasonal because there's not enough demand for year-round service. It has nothing to do with the aircraft. With 500nm more range, the NEO will make it even easier.

Nonsense. LOL. Was I talking about the NEO? No. I was talking about the operation as it is today.

How often does the rock get socked in in the winter? It's often. Standard alternate airports are YJT, YDF, YQX.

You start having to use something further away such as YYR and the operation for that day is in trouble. It happened several times this summer. Mid Atlantic they diverted to Goose as they didnt have the fuel to try anything in YYT and their alternate went t/u. Thats the summer.

The operation is a little more dynamic than looking up range numbers on wiki or airbus/boeing.com

The ETOPS certification isnt a big problem. It requires certain radios, upgraded fire suppression and money to pay for the certification. You do it off the hop it's no problem. AC spent I believe on the order a million bucks per airframe just for paperwork signoffs.

[Edited 2012-12-08 15:41:50]
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
Gingersnap
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:09 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:47 pm

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 34):

I don't know why, but I see AC as a total 737MAX airline.

Each to their own but I don't see anything other than NEO for the bulk of the order.
Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:03 am

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 43):
Each to their own but I don't see anything other than NEO for the bulk of the order.

I do too. But the conspiracy theorist in me sees the CSeries. Which I think will be the lemon of the bunch.

Canadian company, needs a big first order. Govt would likely guarantee the financing or the loans.

Air Canada is in the midst of protracted negotiations concerning pension funding relief for another unprecedented 10 years with $150m per year cap. I dont think the govt would just toss them that benefit for free. Think of all the jobs in Quebec, le drool.....

It would be just to easy I think. I sure hope you're right tho.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:10 am

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 43):
Quoting liftsifter (Reply 34):

I don't know why, but I see AC as a total 737MAX airline.

Each to their own but I don't see anything other than NEO for the bulk of the order.

Agree. After a quarter century of A320 family experience and the investment in parts, training, maintenance equipment etc., I can't see AC reverting to the 737 which, despite all the upgrades, is still based on a 1960s design.

And with WS being a major 737 operator, AC has a competitive advantage with the A320's wider cabin and resulting option of wider seats or a wider aisle.
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2268
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:39 am

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
Ummm, that's exactly how Airbus is marketing this aircraft. As a 757 replacement. But clearly you know more than their marketing staff.

Any idea how many 757s are used on US-Europe TATL service? You should look it up sometime.

And where do these 757's operate from? Large O&D / point-2-point markets like JFK, EWR, IAD and major airlines hubs. The equivalent for AC is YYZ. And they can fill widebodies no problem.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
But the CS300ER with a 2950nm range can definitely all them and probably with a decent payload too.

How about cargo?

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
The CSeries ER versions have the range to do any route in North and Central America.

How about cargo?

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
And they get a substantially cheaper-to-operate aircraft at the middle range (A319 replacement). Added bonus: the CSeries offers substantially more passenger amenities (wider seats, larger windows, larger bins) than the NEO or the MAX.

I dont know this for a fact, but I think it would be cheaper to operate the 319 as part of the 32S family instead of introduce yet another type. As Longhauler notes, there are some capabilities the 319 has which are beneficial for AC.

Quoting ytz (Reply 31):
I'd be surprised if AC doesn't get a few more 321s. It really offers tons of potential as a medium-haul aircraft for AC. Like opening up some more TATL service from YHZ.

I thought about it before posting. They only have 10 at the moment, so you will note I doubled that. There is going to be no transtlantic from YHZ. There is a thread on the subject at the moment, there is no population there and the LHR flight serves the purpose for most of the O&D traffic. If AC were to make YHZ a hub, it would be at the expense of YYZ and a lesser extend YUL. Why would they do that? So they wont.

Elsewhere in the network, as has been noted, the E190 does a lot of flying and out west has been used to offer frequency. When I first moved here there were more A32S flights YVR-YYC for example, but now it is mostly if not all E190 but there is a flight pretty much every hour, at least in summer. The downside is - and I keep mentioning it as I think its important - they can not carry hardly any cargo, it now has to go by road, which sort of defeats the purpose of air freight. For an O&G market like AB, there are some pretty chuncky pieces of cargo. Their loss and Cargojet's gain I guess, but I guess they deemed the frequency was more important than the cargo in these markets.

Long term I agree I can see the the CS replacing the E190, but not now. The A32S is at AC in large numbers for a reason and AFAIK those reasons have not - and will not in the future - change.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 40):
Or YVR-Hawaii (not just HNL). They could serve OGG, KOA or LIH. No need to send out a 763 daily

WS use 737's to HI, so not outside the range for the current A32S fleet. Maybe, just maybe, AC use 767's because they have enough bums to fill the seats??

Quoting lostsound (Reply 36):
Don't forget YYT - LHR

A route that would go away if no 319 in the fleet IMO.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 33):
all B 763ER operated domestic and trans-border flights easily

But AC use all their widebodies on YYZ-YVR for example, yes they are tags or repositioning to longhaul flights for the most part, but again they are generally always full. And again - cargo. AC make a lot of money moving cargo between YVR & YYZ. Hence why the 767 and even more so the 77W can never be replaced by a 321 (even though it carrys smaller containers and is therefore much better than a 737 or CS or EJet),. That cargo then transits on to the South American and European flights.

I doubled my number of 321's as there will be some dilution of the markets when the LCC is operating with 767's and they are out of the network to do transcon tags, but the 321 can never repalce the 767, just like the CS or EJet can not replace the A32S.

As far as the fleet goes, I do think that is one area where AC have got it right for their network and vast size of the home market.
Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:03 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Quoting lostsound (Reply 36):
It's not a long or far flight but If Air Canada continues that route, the CSeries would have to get certified for ETOPS.

They are already planning to certify it for ETOPS 120 by EIS and 180 within 6 months after.

BBD have stated CS100 ETOPS 'out-of-the-box', so LCY-JFK could start up on delivery. I think this would be Privat Air.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5007
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:20 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
And with WS being a major 737 operator, AC has a competitive advantage with the A320's wider cabin and resulting option of wider seats or a wider aisle

Come on Viscount724 you can do better than drag this one out.  What is it, 2.8" at the shoulders divided over 6-seats. It is hardly measurable. I would suggest that there are a number of other seat characteristics that can make for a better or worse seating experience. For me it is whether the cushion still provides good support or whether it sinks away into a hard glob of whatever it is inside the cover.
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: AC Starting To Shop For 100 Narrow Bodies

Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:20 am

Quoting YTZ (Reply 41):
2) Bombardier is certifying the aircraft for ETOPS because one of the buyers is interested in deploying the aircraft on the LCY-JFK route. And unlike BA with its 318s, the CSeries will be able to do that route without stopping in Shannon for gas.

Hmmm. And how is this going to happen? The A318 has better range than any C Series.

The problem with this route has to do with the runway limit weight leaving LCY. Are you telling me the CSeries's runway performance is that much better than the A318 that it can go non-stop westbound off a 4,900 foot runway?

BA goes to SHA because it cant takeoff from that small runway with the fuel required. SHA allows for US Customs pre clearance which makes the best out of a bad situation.

Bombardier is likely saying the route is possible with SIGNIFICANT ZFW restrictions out of City.

I know of no airliner that can perform at MTOW and achieve a balanced field off a 4,900 ft runway.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......