Guest

Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 1:40 am

How long before Canada 3000 gets rid of those awful, antique B737s they so proudly aquired when they got scared and bought CanJet and Royal?
Those things look unfit to fly on to be honest, at least they did send two of the old Royal ones to the pop can recycling plant already.
I wouldnt get on one of those things with a free ticket- So much for "Canada's most modern fleet" which they used to love advertising.

Hudson
 
Guest

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 3:35 am

Hopefully soon. I did a quick check of the Transport Canada database, and most or all of those 737s are at least 20 years old, and thus at or beyond their expected life span. The ex-Nordair C-FNAQ (1970) gets the wooden spoon award at 31. Air Canada also had some 30-something DC-9s, but at least are getting rid of them.
 
C-GRYK
Posts: 728
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 4:55 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 4:13 am

HudsonYYZ, what would make you say that you wouldn't board a 737-200 even on a free ticket? They are still SAFE or they wouldn't be flying, and they will remain safe because there is a huge amount of spare parts all over the world to keep them flying. Just because an aircraft is old, doesn't mean it will suddenly fall out of the sky. I flew FNAQ in December and I had no worries. I find those statements so useless, what if you do end up booking a flight on one? Are you going to demand that the airline replaces their 732 for your flight with a more modern, "safe" aircraft? Hahaha, I think not!

Jeremy
Think before you type!
 
BOEING747-700
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 5:21 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 4:39 am

I read from YYZ news that Canada 3GRAND was or is looking at a Sabena one that has not been taken up from Airbus. There might also be a second one comming as well.
 
Guest

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 4:47 am

In response to McDougan, the life span of an aircraft should be more than 20 years unless you are buying one from Hyundai. AC's first 767s are hitting 20 yrs now.
And to GRYK.. its one thing to look at a nice paint job from the outside and nice looking seats on the inside, but when you take a close look at the machine up close and its parts you will really see the age. Why is it that these aircraft have so many late departures and/or arrivals? Its because of their age that they require a great deal of maintenance and things continually need repair. Its my personal feeling that I wouldnt fly on them, but if they were so good in the first place then why would US Air dump them off to CanJet and Royal ??
 
Guest

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 4:51 am

There's no doubt that Canadian air safety standards are, overall, among the highest in the world. Nor is there any doubt that any airline willing to invest in the upkeep could keep a 737 in service for 40 years or more if it really wanted to.

But aging planes can be a marketing liability, even in the absence of safety problems. Anecdotally, I can relate the tale of a co-worker who told me a couple of years ago that one thing that kept him from flying Canadian more often, in spite of the fact that he liked their on-board service better than Air Canada's, was that the fleet was so old he almost expected to find himself boarding a DC-3 someday. Given the choice between an A320 and a 732, he'd sooner take the A320 if the price and time-convenience are otherwise the same. If I were in his shoes, I would too.


 
C-GRYK
Posts: 728
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 4:55 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 5:13 am

US Airways is leasing the 737-200's to Royal and Canjet to make money, and because they are retiring these aircraft as A319's keep being added to their fleet. It's not because they are unsafe, they give most of them to Metrojet anyways.

Jeremy
Think before you type!
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 5:40 am

Figures someone from Hudson would make comments like that.

Frankly you have no idea what you are talking about when you make referance to MTC issues. Yes the planes are old, but so what? THey are maintined very very well, by highly skilled workers, if OLD Planes were so bad and unsafe then UNITED, American, USair, Air Canada, and Canadian just to mention a few would retire the planes that they CURRENTLY Operate that are over 30 Years old. Air Canada's newest DC-9 is as old as Canadians OLDEST 737! I flew on NAJ (YYZ-YOW-YYZ) yesterday and there were only minor snags that were not MEL items on the aircraft. The flight was great, and we were on time.

The 737's and most other boeings were built to last, their lifespan is supposed to be 25-30 years, unlike the A320's -20 year lifespan. I'd sooner fly on the 73 then the 320, but that is just my opinion.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
Guest

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 5:46 am

Guess no one can answer my question. Thanks anyhow
Guess most people like 'junk' aircraft rather than more modern ones..
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 5:52 am

Official line on the 737 is that it will be gone by 2004 but if the economy slows down then it will be sooner, but you can take you junk comments, about one of the best planes ever built and shove them into one of your Hudson Lav trucks.

You go talk to an Air Canada Mechanic or even an AC airbus pilot and he will also tell you where you can shove your Modern Airbus. AC's first A320's are constantly down for MTC snags, about as much as any 737 and they or only just getting to be 12 years old, and that my friend came from an Air Canada mechanic that i know.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
Gate Keeper
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2000 11:53 pm

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 6:19 am

I fly the A320. You HudsonYYZ....do not as you indicate here.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/502579/
All pilots at my level have worked hard and I don't appreciate being cheapened by wannabee's like you. Slawko..the A320 is a complicated aircraft but in qualified hands it is an extremely safe aircraft. You will be working on it one day soon. All aircraft properly maintained are SAFE!!!!
 
Guest

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 6:49 am

Slobko.. what makes you think I drive a lav truck and work for Hudson General? Would it even occur to you that it might be a "username" like perhaps my last name?

Besides that, I never said anything about Airbus aircraft so what are you talking about? First you say that B737-200s are good inspite of the maint. they need due to their age, then you call down the A320 because it needs maintenance. Do you know what you are talking about? I was referring to maintenance which becomes more and more necessary as an aircraft ages.. all aircraft that is. I didnt say that the B737-200 was a bad aircraft either. Get your facts straight next time.
 
Guest

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 6:54 am

HUDSON...

why u so bitter man.....your a TS groomer, what business do u have making nasty references like that to acft at C3?? We have dedicated well trained professionals from the ground up that work for C3. If u have a ligit ? then ask , if not keep your nasty remarks to your nasty self!
 
Jean Leloup
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 10:46 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 7:19 am

HudsonYYZ, grow up. Even if your point about these a/c being unsafe were correct (and it isn't), the incendiary manner in which you are "discussing" the topic is annoying and immature.
I was especially pleased to see this topic because it just so happens that tomorrow morning I am flying to Halifax (from YYZ) on a Canjet 737-200. For what it's worth, I am not at all worried, but quite excited. I got a good fare, and I am perfectly happy with the equipment. I trust C3's maintenace and I have had little trouble with them as far as on-time performance. Long live the 732!
Next flight.... who knows.
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 7:22 am

Hudson: What I said was the an A320 which you did not mention in particlular, but it was implied "So much for "Canada's most modern fleet" ". I said that the 737 are good airplanes, and that they were built to last, and yes they are old but they are not unsafe, nor are the 320's when I made the comment about the 320/737 I was just reitterating the endurance and that it was built to last. "How long before Canada 3000 gets rid of those awful, antique B737s they so proudly aquired when they got scared and bought CanJet and Royal?" that sounds like you are saying that the 73's are bad airplanes.

Gate Keeper: I never said the 320's are not safe, infact they with all of their technology are probably very safe, and have more backups then older planes. I was merely refering to the life expectancy of A320's which even airbus admits is not as long as the 737's. Like I said before, I look forward to it....
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
 
C-GRYK
Posts: 728
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 4:55 am

HudsonYYZ

Sat Jun 23, 2001 8:03 am

You don't belong here, go back to other forums where they accept people trying to start flame wars, etc. How does Slawko think you work for Hudson? First off your username, and second, in your profile, your occupation is "ramp work" hmmmm, it doesn't take a genious to figure out your work for Hudson on the YYZ ramp. Grow up man, all of your facts are wrong.

Jeremy
Think before you type!
 
User avatar
wjv04
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 12:18 pm

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 12:57 pm

What, thats the dumbest thing i ever heard, you obvoisly dont know how strict the standard are in canada, every 2000 hours a aircraft gets torn apart..., i can bet you that there is under 10% of the planes that are original, they have all been replaced over the years.. dont waste our time posting point less posts
 
skyservice_330
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 6:50 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 1:15 pm

Hudson,

The last person you wanna be arguing with about anything related to Canadian Aviation is Slawko. If you were around here a bit longer you would have seen that he knows more about the industry in Canada than you ever will. Do a search and you will see what I mean. Your other posts prove that you are just here to raise sh*t and we don't go for that here. Go find a forum that enjoys that kinda stuff or smartin up.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:05 pm

Canada has one of the best safety record in the world when it comes to aviation.If the planes were unsafe then they wouldnt be flying.

Canada isnt exaclty(no offence to anyone) a third-world country and it isnt lax on aviation.

i would think people may think you work in hudson hosp with your username and the attitude you have.

"Those things look unfit to fly on to be honest, at least they did send two of the old Royal ones to the pop can recycling plant already. "

I think thats a bit of an insult to royal and C3000.ok royal was brilliant but at least they were safe.

sounds like your an air transat( i was going to say ac but they dont employ idoits)employee-otherwise why would you be soo against C3000/Royal?
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
Jsheldon
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 11:01 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sun Jun 24, 2001 1:24 am

>>Guess most people like 'junk' aircraft rather than more modern ones..

This may have been said already, but the 737-200 is the best in my opinion, because it's "real" flying, as compared to todays "rotate and autopilot on" flying. But that's just my opinion.
 
Samurai 777
Posts: 2000
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 2:56 pm

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:16 am

Speaking of 737-200s, they're one of my favorite aircraft types! They've proved very reliable and able to work in harsher northern conditions, which is why Canadian North, AirNWT and Alaska Airlines prefer to use them.

Not only that, the 737-200 is very cheap secondhand, which is why low-cost carriers like WestJet and Southwest bought up quite a few of them. A used 732 can cost as little as $2 million CDN to buy, while a 737 NG costs about 12-15 times as much (or maybe more).

I've flown on the 732 more times than I can remember, and is a very safe plane and surprisingly comfortable to fly on. I do take offense at Hudson's comments about the 737-200. They are as I said before, great planes to fly on and reliable, too. There are older aircraft that I would definitely avoid, such as the F28, but not the 737-200.
 
Guest

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sun Jun 24, 2001 10:17 am

First off, if you dont like the fact I think that old aircraft are "junk" well then what word is better? Mature? Second of all how can anyone say Slawko knows more than I? Because he writes alot on this forum? Most of the posts on this forum are either rumor or factually incorrect including some of his posts.

Those offended by my opinion, just move on to the next post instead of crying. Grow up. Everyone has their own opinions.

Hudson

Oh yeah and to the person who said something about AC.. you have got to be kidding.. AC is a joke at YYZ. If you know anyone who works there,they are probably too embarrassed to tell you what happens behind the scenes.
 
skyservice_330
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 6:50 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sun Jun 24, 2001 10:39 am

Who do you think you are?

You join the forum for 2 days and you are telling long time users what to do? Where do you get off?

Secondly, In defense to Slawko I believe he works at YYz so I am pretty sure he knows what he is talking about.

This is another case of typical teenagers shooting their mouths off and starting wars. This just gives the rest of the teens in this forum who actually have something worthwhile to contribute a bad rap.

One bad apple ruins the barrel
 
AC183
Posts: 1496
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sun Jun 24, 2001 10:49 am

HudsonYYZ, welcome to the forum. I see you've got into a right little mess already  Smile, I hope you can work your way into better terms with what is generally a fairly close-knit bunch of Canuck enthusiasts. I think you should be given fair warning that one should be very careful in posting anything that can be construed as anti-Airbus/Boeing, as that's quite a mess when those arguments start. Also, FYI, Slawko is a very knowledgable person, although rather opinionated, so don't let him get under your skin if you disagree with some of his opinions, and always be a bit skeptical with anything said by anyone here, but give him his fair respect as being a very good source of info.

As to those concerns about C3 732's, I don't know that I'd pick them as the best in the country, but they're quite safe overall, I'm very confident in airworthiness standards in Canada.

Samurai777, I agree with what you said: I had the pleasure(?) of flying one of those F28's two weeks ago, and it took hours before my ears quit ringing Smile Glad I took the 737 on the way back...
 
ramprat
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2000 11:38 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sun Jun 24, 2001 11:59 am

HudsonYYZ I'm curious what happens at AC in YYZ that doesn't happen at Hudson? Other than tension between ex-CP employees and AC staff I can't imagine what could be so bad.
 
Samurai 777
Posts: 2000
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 2:56 pm

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sun Jun 24, 2001 5:20 pm

AC183, was that from YWG to YYC, with the 732 back to YWG? Big grin
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4262
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Sun Jun 24, 2001 5:21 pm

Hudson, what are you doing? What are you trying to prove?
 
RDPS
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 9:30 pm

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Mon Jun 25, 2001 9:43 pm

HudsonYYZ wrote;

"Oh yeah and to the person who said something about AC.. you have got to be kidding.. AC is a joke at YYZ. If you know anyone who works there,they are probably too embarrassed to tell you what happens behind the scenes."

This coming from someone who works for Hudson!! How much aluminum did Hudson employees destroy just this past winter alone!!?? The company who's employee turnover rate is in the same league as Big Mac's served at the golden arches. Or how about their top rate training, first day on the job in the baggage room....."take the bags with these tags and put them in here"!! Wasn't long before I got wise and left Hudson for a better company. Nobody was put out on the line without 2 weeks training!!! HudsonYYZ, do the research yourself and you'll see why people say the things they do about HGAS.
 
AC183
Posts: 1496
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Canada 3000/Royal/Can Jet

Tue Jun 26, 2001 5:03 am

Samurai777: good guess - actually I flew YWG-YYC-LAX-YVR-YWG (F28-320-732-732). I went a little out of my way to fly the F28, just for the experience (as an airplane fan, that is - as a passenger I could do without so much noise). Another reason the flight back was better was that I even got the jumpseat for the whole YWG-YVR 732 flight Big grin I suppose I should write a trip report?