I know this was briefly discussed a while ago, but I am wondering why Air Canada, an airline which has traditionally operated an extremely diverse fleet (Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, Embraer, Bombardier, and even BAe and Fokkers were operated by its regional partners), is moving to a Boeing only fleet, with the obvious exception of the Bombardier CS300. Even Air Canada Rouge's 767 and A319 aircraft will need replacement pretty soon, moving into the 2020s. While Boeing undeniably make some excellent products (and can offer extreme discounts on models where they are perhaps lacking), what has caused the change in Air Canada's multi-manufacturer sourcing strategy? There are obvious cost saving in training and maintenance by virtue of greater fleet commonality; however, lately we have been seeing many other large airlines forgoing this and ordering very similar models from both Airbus and Boeing. For example, many airlines are, or are planning on, operating the 787, A350, and 777 wide-body families.

The choice of an airplane type, whether Airbus or Boeing, in particular, is based largely, if not primarily, on (1) operating costs, (2) price, (3) availability, and (4) mission. Within those four segments there are times that Boeing can have an advantage, and other times when Airbus will. In this case, AC was looking to replace its narrow body Airbus equipment, and Boeing could meet their timeline requirements, with relatively similar operating costs. That simple.

I don't think that's a strategy at AC; it's just the result of multiple deals.

On the widebody side, the 77W/787 combo was a fantastic set of products for their needs. Their heavy routes have benefited tremendously from the cargo uplift offered by the 77W. The 787 was a better fit than the A350 for their lighter TATL routes and, unlike the A330, offered the flexibility to fly TPAC.

On the narrowbody side, it seems pretty clear that Boeing was aggressive on price with the MAX. But the MAX is also most attractive at the -8 capacity range, and that is where the bulk of AC's short-term needs are. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see AC operate A321neo side-by-side with the MAX in the future.

seabosdca wrote:

I don't think that's a strategy at AC; it's just the result of multiple deals.

On the widebody side, the 77W/787 combo was a fantastic set of products for their needs. Their heavy routes have benefited tremendously from the cargo uplift offered by the 77W. The 787 was a better fit than the A350 for their lighter TATL routes and, unlike the A330, offered the flexibility to fly TPAC.

On the narrowbody side, it seems pretty clear that Boeing was aggressive on price with the MAX. But the MAX is also most attractive at the -8 capacity range, and that is where the bulk of AC's short-term needs are. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see AC operate A321neo side-by-side with the MAX in the future.

Interesting, that would make sense, from an outside perspective it seemed as though it was a noticeable change strategy by the management. However, it does make sense that each of these deals happened to work out in Boeing favour with the various circumstances and here we are today.

What makes you think A321neos will be operated by AC?

Also, what is the replacement plan for AC Rouge's 767s and A319s, moving into the 2020s?

CANPILOT wrote:

Also, what is the replacement plan for AC Rouge's 767s and A319s, moving into the 2020s?

I am guessing the 737-7 will be the A319 replacement since it offers commonality with the 737-8.

Not sure where AC runs their 767-300s, but for domestic ops the A321-200neo would likely be a solid choice with more 787-8s for intercontinental.

AC are still buying Airbus. In addition to some used A321s picked up for mainline, AC also bought 5 new build A321s for Rouge, delivered between November '15 and May '16. So it is quite conceivable that when the A319s are due for renewal, AC will take a hard look at what Boeing, Airbus and Bombardier have on offer at that time.

Also last I heard the A330s aren't going away anytime soon. It's just a fantastic aircraft that is presently filling a very useful niche for AC on their transatlantic routes.

Beech

AC just ordered the CS300 as a replacement for their A319 and E190s. The 737 MAX will be replacing the A320/A321 aircraft and I expect the A330 to eventually be replaced by the 787. So it won't be all Boeing but Boeing dominant.

I can see the A321 Neo fulfilling a 767 replacement role within the 'Rouge' set up, based squarely on the notion that if Air Canada and therefore Rouge already had 757's they'd be using them on certain regional transatlantic missions instead of 767's which have already assumed a kind of 'hand me down' status within Rouge. But then again, as has been discussed countless times, if Boeing already had that MoM product available for instant purchase, I'm sure Air Canada Rouge would be knocking on the door already.

superjeff wrote:

The choice of an airplane type, whether Airbus or Boeing, in particular, is based largely, if not primarily, on (1) operating costs, (2) price, (3) availability, and (4) mission. Within those four segments there are times that Boeing can have an advantage, and other times when Airbus will. In this case, AC was looking to replace its narrow body Airbus equipment, and Boeing could meet their timeline requirements, with relatively similar operating costs. That simple.

I would add a 5th category: (5) relationship with manufacturer. If an airline has a particularly strong relationship with either A or B from previous purchases, it could positively impact future orders.

I agree with the A321neo as part of AC's future narrow body additions. I could see neos for thin TATL routes such as YHZ-LHR, YOW-LHR and YYT-LHR once the A319s are retired.

As mentioned, they've added 5 ex AF A321's to mainline, 5 new-builds to Rouge and 45 firm CS300's, that's 55 non-Boeings to the fleet, hardly and all-Boeing airline, more like all-Boeing wide-body airline.

ACCS300 wrote:

they've added 5 ex AF A321's to mainline

Weren't these part of the Boeing 737 MAX deal? I'm pretty sure that AC said that they'd pick up a few Airbus narrowbodies on short term lease until the 737 MAX arrives.

yyz717 wrote:

superjeff wrote:

The choice of an airplane type, whether Airbus or Boeing, in particular, is based largely, if not primarily, on (1) operating costs, (2) price, (3) availability, and (4) mission. Within those four segments there are times that Boeing can have an advantage, and other times when Airbus will. In this case, AC was looking to replace its narrow body Airbus equipment, and Boeing could meet their timeline requirements, with relatively similar operating costs. That simple.

I would add a 5th category: (5) relationship with manufacturer. If an airline has a particularly strong relationship with either A or B from previous purchases, it could positively impact future orders.

Only to the extent that the relationship impacts the first 3 factors - or, all else being equal. Since the days of an aircraft builder designing an aircraft from the ground-up or extensively modifying an existing design for 1 or 2 customers are largely gone the ability of relationship to alter the mission characteristics of an aircraft are largely moot.

I still think AC made a mistake with the 737s. They got them for cheap (I don't know how cheap, of someone knows please inform me) and got rid of half of their E90s that no one seems to want now, but I think for their operation, the A320neo and A321neo would be much better. They use their current A320s and A321s quite often on transcon flights and other longer flights ranging from 3-4 hours. This is exactly where the A320 has been better than the 737 and where the A320neo will be better than the 737max. If they keep them for nearly 30 years like they have with the current A320s, wouldn't the savings in fuel costs eventually save more money than the greater discounts on the 737max? Unless they decide not to keep the 737s for very long and pull the same trick they did with the E90s.

I think the 737 will be a step backwards for everyone. For one, the luggage is not containerized. It is a step backwards for maintenace as it is more mechanical and far less computerized. It is a design that is 20 years older by age, but even older in terms of technology and parts. It will be a step backwards in comfort (yes some of us can tell the difference). It will be a huge step backwards for the pilots. The fligh deck is noisier, less advanced (minus the bigger LCD displays), and is far less comfortable which makes a difference on transcon flights. They have to train a whole new group of pilots now rather than using the existing A320 pilots. It becomes even more of a pain when they still have the Rouge fleet which doesn't seem to be going anywhere very soon. They will have 2 fleets where they could have had 1. They will have to add two types of engine to their maintenance operation with the 737 and the CS300, where they could have picked PW1000G on the A320 which would have kept things more common.

The 737 will save fuel over the current nearly 30 year old A320s which sadly have to go, but I have the feeling that the A320neo will me significantly more efficient especially longer flights. If is is the case and AC keeps these planes for very long, like I said, the 737 would prove to be the wrong choice. I have a hunch that when all said an done AC might regret the decision. If the A320neo does not prove to be more efficient on longer flights, then the 737 will be fine.

This is all based mostly on opinion and speculation at this point, but I did state some fact such as the disadvantage to being limited to bulk loading only or the cockpit being noisier and less comfortable in the 737. I am just glad that the CS300 is coming. I will fly on it whenever I can rather than the 737s just to make a point. I was on a middle-aged A321 two weeks ago and I have to say that it was in great shape and was far quieter, more comfortable, and more pleasant than any 737 I have ever been on. I will be going on an A319 and A320 of theirs in a week unless something changes and I will enjoy flying on them again and will badly miss them when their are gone.

What would replace the A319ETOPS though? 737-8 or CS300? Or would they possibly switch it to Rouge? I could see leased A321neos though.

JannEejit wrote:

I can see the A321 Neo fulfilling a 767 replacement role within the 'Rouge' set up, based squarely on the notion that if Air Canada and therefore Rouge already had 757's they'd be using them on certain regional transatlantic missions instead of 767's which have already assumed a kind of 'hand me down' status within Rouge. But then again, as has been discussed countless times, if Boeing already had that MoM product available for instant purchase, I'm sure Air Canada Rouge would be knocking on the door already.

A321 cannot replace the 767 as it doesn't fit the requirements of AC. They require the 763 for cargo that is why it is deployed to LAS & MCO among other places.

MANYUL wrote:

A321 cannot replace the 767 as it doesn't fit the requirements of AC. They require the 763 for cargo that is why it is deployed to LAS & MCO among other places.

The A321NEO will have huge overhead bins and a lot of passengers will have carry-on baggage only. And if AC doesn't have any aux fuel tanks in the hold, then perhaps they will have quite a few containers available for cargo...?

Also, what is the replacement plan for AC Rouge's 767s and A319s, moving into the 2020s?

I'd be very surprised if there is even a plan in place, to replace these...

I think Air Canada Rouge is/was a quick fix reaction to the loss of leisure traffic they were loosing to the likes of WestJet and Air Transat, and had no long term plans, other than to obstruct and cause a nuisance to the leisure airlines.

The 767-300's were always slated to go when the 787's started to arrive, but instead they have found a use for these older aircraft. As the price of a used 767 is very low, they have probably obtained very good deals from the lessor or if they own them, probably flying them until retirement.

I think Air Canada Rouge has been far more successful than they ever planed, a further six 767-300's are due to be transferred this year, taking the fleet to 25 of this type.

If you read this presentation, the airline were only planned to have 15 by the end of 2016.
http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media ... an2014.pdf

I would imagine the airline will look to addressing this once the Mainline has received all of its new long haul fleet by 2019... They could make a decision to gradually wind down the subsidiary and hope they can build up a number of the routes to be reintegrated into Air Canada's main route network or just quietly drop routes as and when 767 fleet is slowly reduced when aircraft reach the next expensive overhaul.

There is also the possibility of A330's switching over or could the airline look to buy other second hand aircraft? But you never really hear of Air Canada buying second hand aircraft.

Air Canada's off-shoot airlines, never seem to last more than a few years, before being wound down. I could imagine if they experience any financial difficulties, have a bad trading year or fuel prices increase dramatically, Rouge could be the first victim to face the chop, as I imagine there is a smaller operating margin.

I would question if Air Canada want to fly expensive, ultra modern 787's on thin marginal routes, when they can operate with the airline on more profitable routes where premium classes are demanded?

CRJ900 wrote:

MANYUL wrote:

A321 cannot replace the 767 as it doesn't fit the requirements of AC. They require the 763 for cargo that is why it is deployed to LAS & MCO among other places.

The A321NEO will have huge overhead bins and a lot of passengers will have carry-on baggage only. And if AC doesn't have any aux fuel tanks in the hold, then perhaps they will have quite a few containers available for cargo...?

I don't think the A321neo can replace the 767s at rouge. The 763s operate a lot of European routes all the way to Greece and Italy (over 4000NM), there is no way even a A321neoLR can do routes that far from YYZ or even YUL. This is also forgetting the fact that the A321neo is a lot smaller in capacity than the 763s; rouge already operates the A321ceo with 200 seats, but the 763s have 282 seats. Also, the maximum number of aircraft's permitted at rouge is 50 under the current union agreements. The logical replacement for the 767s is some more 787s (Scoot, Norwegian air shuttle, Thomson, etc have all proven the 787-8 can be used effectively in high density economy configuration). They would have to pitch the aircrafts very tightly (probably 29 inches) to create enough differentiation from their mainline 787s which are pitched at 31 inches. There is also the possibility of replacement with the new MoM Boeing has in the works, but its EIS may be too late for 763 replacement and I am not sure if Air Canada would want to replace a tried and tested aircraft with a new clean sheet aircraft especially for their low cost arm.

gilesdavies wrote:

There is also the possibility of A330's switching over or could the airline look to buy other second hand aircraft? But you never really hear of Air Canada buying second hand aircraft.

Air Canada's off-shoot airlines, never seem to last more than a few years, before being wound down. I could imagine if they experience any financial difficulties, have a bad trading year or fuel prices increase dramatically, Rouge could be the first victim to face the chop, as I imagine there is a smaller operating margin.

I would question if Air Canada want to fly expensive, ultra modern 787's on thin marginal routes, when they can operate with the airline on more profitable routes where premium classes are demanded?

I think they would have to reconfigure A330s into 9 abreast just like Air Transat for the low cost model, because otherwise the seating is arguably better then their mainline 787s. However, this would create the problem of too much capacity (for example, air transat operate their A333s with 375 seats). For these reasons I don't think the A330s would work at rouge long term. That being said, we may still see the 8 existing A333s end up at rouge as a temporary measure.

Like I mentioned, in my view the obvious replacement for the 763s is the 788, they could easily exercise their options and acquire some more for rouge.

I also don't see rouge getting chopped very soon, primarily because of West Jets recent international expansion. I know it hasn't been smooth sailing, but long term West Jet could pounce at the opportunity to take over ex-rouge routes if Air Canada decided to chop rouge for what ever reason.

CRJ900 wrote:

MANYUL wrote:

A321 cannot replace the 767 as it doesn't fit the requirements of AC. They require the 763 for cargo that is why it is deployed to LAS & MCO among other places.

The A321NEO will have huge overhead bins and a lot of passengers will have carry-on baggage only. And if AC doesn't have any aux fuel tanks in the hold, then perhaps they will have quite a few containers available for cargo...?

Air Canada is in the business of moving freight as well as pax. The A321 will not give them the uplift they require on the routes that they fly 763s, either to Europe or within North America. It is not about LD3 containers but PMCs of freight. The inside of the hold on a 763 can take PMCs up to 64 inches high. A321 can only take LD3s upto to 45 inches. There is an extremely high demand out of LAS & MCO to fill these flights all being fed by ACs RFS, and A321s would not support this on the cargo side of the network.

MANYUL wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

I can see the A321 Neo fulfilling a 767 replacement role within the 'Rouge' set up, based squarely on the notion that if Air Canada and therefore Rouge already had 757's they'd be using them on certain regional transatlantic missions instead of 767's which have already assumed a kind of 'hand me down' status within Rouge. But then again, as has been discussed countless times, if Boeing already had that MoM product available for instant purchase, I'm sure Air Canada Rouge would be knocking on the door already.

A321 cannot replace the 767 as it doesn't fit the requirements of AC. They require the 763 for cargo that is why it is deployed to LAS & MCO among other places.

True, but I'm specifically looking at Rouge transatlantic leisure services as opposed to mainline Air Canada operational requirements. An example being YYZ-GLA where most other competing transatlantic airlines operate a daily 757 service, whereas Rouge operate a thrice weekly 763 service. I'm not sure how 'cargo-centric' a route like that would be, but surely a modest fleet of A321-NEO would allow for greater frequency, say daily, catering to the leisure market, matching the offerings of others on this and similar regional pond crosser routes ?

767333ER wrote:

I still think AC made a mistake with the 737s. They got them for cheap (I don't know how cheap, of someone knows please inform me)

This is rumor, so don't quote me as definitive, but I've heard through work and from other people, that AC got the MAX fully equipped to AC specs and options for roughly 65% of the list price of the base model. Seems like a pretty good discount if it is indeed true.
I do agree with you. I think the MAX was the wrong choice for AC. I feel the A320/321NEO was the better option. Between the cargo capacity and larger cargo doors on the Airbus vs the shallow cargo compartment height and smaller doors on the 737, it might make a big difference in what the 737 can carry in ways of cargo. I've seen some large, irregular sized specialty cargo loaded on our A319's and I can tell you, it wouldn't fit in a 737. I guess only time will tell.

AC_B777 wrote:

AC got the MAX fully equipped to AC specs

What are the extra equipment/options AC ordered on their MAX's?

AC_B777 wrote:

for roughly 65% of the list price of the base model

A 35% discount doesn't particularly seem very large for the size of order and type of customer, given the supposedly 50%+ discounts quoted by people on this website for other orders.

ACCS300 wrote:

more like all-Boeing wide-body airline.

Not quite. The A330's will be around for a while yet (as they recently announced new cabins for them) and will likely be the last to be replaced (compared to the 767's). The plan was to eventually replace them with 787's but who knows things could change by then? Air Canada might place another wide body order at that time if the situation warrant's. Maybe a future order for 777X's and A350's?

CANPILOT wrote:

AC_B777 wrote:

AC got the MAX fully equipped to AC specs

What are the extra equipment/options AC ordered on their MAX's?

AC_B777 wrote:

for roughly 65% of the list price of the base model

A 35% discount doesn't particularly seem very large for the size of order and type of customer, given the supposedly 50%+ discounts quoted by people on this website for other orders.

Sorry, having just re-read your statement, I think you meant 65% off, not of, the list price of the base model. In that case, it is indeed a very good deal.

neromancer wrote:

Maybe a future order for 777X's and A350's?

I think more likely a future order for 777X's OR A350's, not both. As things stand right now, I think the odds definitely favour the 777X... but then it wasn't long ago when we said the same about the A320neo vs. the 737MAX, and we all turned out to be wrong.

CANPILOT wrote:

neromancer wrote:

Maybe a future order for 777X's and A350's?

I think more likely a future order for 777X's OR A350's, not both. As things stand right now, I think the odds definitely favour the 777X... but then it wasn't long ago when we said the same about the A320neo vs. the 737MAX, and we all turned out to be wrong.

You certainly could be right.

Currently Air Canada has eight A330's aged 15 to 17 years old and twenty-five 777's with the oldest now 9 years old. Depending on fleet needs 10 years from now I could see room for both. Many other airlines have employed a similar strategy.

Pretty much. But, as one other wrote, they did go to both manufactures on the narrow body order and got the better delivery times and deal from Boeing.
I did read an article that indicated that Air Canada had liked its dealings with Boeing.

Every regime of every airline has preferences.

neromancer wrote:

CANPILOT wrote:

neromancer wrote:

Maybe a future order for 777X's and A350's?

I think more likely a future order for 777X's OR A350's, not both. As things stand right now, I think the odds definitely favour the 777X... but then it wasn't long ago when we said the same about the A320neo vs. the 737MAX, and we all turned out to be wrong.

You certainly could be right.

Currently Air Canada has eight A330's aged 15 to 17 years old and twenty-five 777's with the oldest now 9 years old. Depending on fleet needs 10 years from now I could see room for both. Many other airlines have employed a similar strategy.

Might want to add 787-10 to the option list - AC feels more comfortable with fleet commonality so I don't see them having any real interest in the A350.

When it comes to fleet acquisition, Air Canada rarely makes mistakes, and when it has it's not been with large numbers of aircraft, usually with niche buys like the 747-400 combi and the A340-500. The combi might have been an example of government interference, as the military lacked a dedicated carrier for large equipment until the C-17 buy a few years ago. The A340-500 was a cheap throw-in, but a mistake. However, when it has come to purchasing large numbers of aircraft, AC has usually been timely, even opportunistic. They were one of the first North American buyers of the A320, which not only fetched a good price and helped Airbus succeed with a new technology aircraft, it also changed AC's route network with its transcontinental range. The A319 and A320 added range in the lower end of the narrow body range than anything Boeing could offer, and it was the buys by AC, NW and UA that forced Boeing to launch 737 NG with its much longer range. AC was a very early adopter of the CRJ-100/200, right at the outset of Canada-US open skies, which allowed AC to launch a lot of new routes, some of which stuck, some of which failed, during a decade of the very lowest fuel prices (crude hit $18 a barrel at the end of the 1990s.)

AC was an early adopted of the A340 - it was vital for Airbus to win customers for the plane outside of Europe - and AC got excellent pricing. (It's been documented that Robert Milton, then a rising executive in AC, favoured Boeing in that competition but Hollis Harris opted for the A340.) The shift to the 777-787 also began with excellent pricing - although very poor delivery performance on the 787 by Boeing as well all know. However, AC was able to leverage those delays to get special considerations from Boeing (as did other airlines).

AC and JetBlue were key early customers for the Embraer 190, and given that AC was coming out of bankruptcy protection, AC took that deal because the pricing was so good. Much the same is propelling the CSeries buy, with an excellent combination of dollar value, an exceptional aircraft by all expert descriptions, and some local political benefits including goodwill.

Since Boeing an Airbus were hot after the MAX/NEO order, I an assume AC got good terms.

It's worth pointing out that in almost every AC aircraft buy, opportunistic delivery schedules - able to dictate when planes are delivered - has played a role for the airline. It has capital planning benefits that complement the price. Being able to get deliveries at exactly the time needed is part of good fleet management, and AC has always been able to have the planes it needs for the macro market opportunities it sees. The 787 was really the only buy that failed that test, and it wasn't AC's fault and was compensated for by Boeing.

In 2003 AC filled for bankruptsy. Shortly after they decided to order a large fleet of GE powered 787s and 777s. Boeing guaranteed to buy the A330s / A340s if AC couldn't themselves.

Recently AC decided to replace their Airbus NB's with Boeing MAX's as one of few airlines globally.

It's a testament of the strong relations Boeing has with Air Canada.

Boeing 737-9 are to replace the A321s, so Air Canada can switch over from AKH cargo to bulkloading as on Embraers and CSeries.



Or they changed their mind.

Boeing 737-9 are to replace the A321s, so Air Canada can switch over from AKH cargo to bulkloading as on Embraers and CSeries.

the problem there is that you are quite limited by weight and size of the goods shipped. as the bulkloadable goods have to be moved in the bulkhold they are limited up to max. 70 kg per piece. the AKH / PKC container can move goods up to 1135kg per unit, loaded easily into the aircraft (without pushing cargo on you knees into the right position in the bulkhold - plus securung them with tie-down material agains movements).
for cargo the 737 order is a blow...

same goes for baggage - you can prepare the baggage units long before the aircrfat is on gound with people who have checked in on time - offloading the units via the highloader - and addin the baggage cans the same way.
this helps to speed up the turnaround time aswell - than handloading 150(+) bags on and off the bulkhold

cheers

accargofra

sebring wrote:

When it comes to fleet acquisition, Air Canada rarely makes mistakes

Given your desire to compliment AC's fleet choices you might want to mention that Airbus officials said the losses at AC and QF were the main reasons they dropped the A350-not-XWB in favor of the A350-XWB.

As you later point out, Boeing's abysmal performance on the 787 program was of course unknown at the time so the advantages projected by Boeing for the 787 with regard to time to market were not significant. We'll never know what would happen if the truth was known. We do know one of the reasons the 787 struggles fiscally is the cheap launch prices, so AC should be glad they captured that in addition to whatever compensation they received. All we now know is that the 787 is still challenged fiscally and its massive budget and schedule overruns have prevented Boeing from aggressively refreshing its portfolio.

accargofra wrote:

the problem there is that you are quite limited by weight and size of the goods shipped. as the bulkloadable goods have to be moved in the bulkhold they are limited up to max.

keesje wrote:

Air Canada can switch over from AKH cargo to bulkloading as on Embraers and CSeries.

Indeed. 737s cargo specifications are known to both us and AC, and the fact that AC ordered the MAX knowing its specifications suggests that whatever limitations the cargo specifications presented were deemed to be acceptable tradeoffs for other things that made the MAX attractive.

Revelation wrote:

accargofra wrote:

the problem there is that you are quite limited by weight and size of the goods shipped. as the bulkloadable goods have to be moved in the bulkhold they are limited up to max.

keesje wrote:

Air Canada can switch over from AKH cargo to bulkloading as on Embraers and CSeries.

Indeed. 737s cargo specifications are known to both us and AC, and the fact that AC ordered the MAX knowing its specifications suggests that whatever limitations the cargo specifications presented were deemed to be acceptable tradeoffs for other things that made the MAX attractive.

Almost it seems:

ACCS300: As mentioned, they've added 5 ex AF A321's to mainline, 5 new-builds to Rouge ..

I'm not saying Boeing /GE have AC by the b.lls since the bankruptsy+787/777 order, but the relation seems very strong.

If I was a AC stake holder I would wonder why AC is the only airline in the world replacing AKH carrying A320/A321 with 737s.

767333ER wrote:

I think the 737 will be a step backwards for everyone. For one, the luggage is not containerized.

It is a step backwards for maintenace as it is more mechanical and far less computerized.

It is a design that is 20 years older by age, but even older in terms of technology and parts.

It will be a step backwards in comfort (yes some of us can tell the difference).

It will be a huge step backwards for the pilots. The flight deck is noisier, less advanced (minus the bigger LCD displays), and is far less comfortable which makes a difference on transcon flights. They have to train a whole new group of pilots now rather than using the existing A320 pilots.

Ok, just picked a few misconceptions out of your thread there to address.

Contanerized luggage means that you loose about 200lbs per container of available baggage weight due to the tare weight of the container. That adds up to less revenue.

Actually I can tell you have never chased a false BITE computer signal. Mechanic aircraft are simpler to maintain because you are chasing a physical problem you can actually see (in most cases)

There is nothing wrong with the comfort of the 737, if anything it is more comfortable because you aren't pinched at the shoulder by the curve of the cabin like you are on an Airbus product.

Pilot training isn't going to be an issue, most pilots prefer Boeings over Airbus's anyway because in the Boeing the computer isn't in charge, they are. Which makes for a safer airplane than the Airbus.

L-188 wrote:

Ok, just picked a few misconceptions out of your thread there to address.

Contanerized luggage means that you loose about 200lbs per container of available baggage weight due to the tare weight of the container. That adds up to less revenue.

Actually I can tell you have never chased a false BITE computer signal. Mechanic aircraft are simpler to maintain because you are chasing a physical problem you can actually see (in most cases)

There is nothing wrong with the comfort of the 737, if anything it is more comfortable because you aren't pinched at the shoulder by the curve of the cabin like you are on an Airbus product.

Pilot training isn't going to be an issue, most pilots prefer Boeings over Airbus's anyway because in the Boeing the computer isn't in charge, they are. Which makes for a safer airplane than the Airbus.

Wow, you call out misconceptions and just add more of your own like its going out of fashion. If mechanic aircraft are so great why do Boeing follow Airbus with more FBW in their new designs? To give Airbus a chance? Do you honestly believe the new NSA from Boeing will be all a copy of the 737 or more like the 787 with more electronics?

Have any facts to back up your assertion that most pilots prefer Boeing over Airbus? I think many threads before have confirmed you have pilots that prefer the Boeing cramped yoke and you have pilots who swore never to fly the joystick, yet now they prefer the Airbus over Boeing. At the same time there are Airbus pilots that prefer to have the yoke. It would be down to personal preference and sometimes personal prejudices over which one is preferred.

Boeing's are safer? Airbus is flown by computers? Wow again, really you think on this website people will get over these preconceived notions but even here where we are supposed to have a little more knowledge of aviation (at least you should be able to pick up information) than average Joe on the street these "truths" just continue to be peddled.

L-188 wrote:

Ok, just picked a few misconceptions out of your thread there to address.

Contanerized luggage means that you loose about 200lbs per container of available baggage weight due to the tare weight of the container. That adds up to less revenue.

Actually I can tell you have never chased a false BITE computer signal. Mechanic aircraft are simpler to maintain because you are chasing a physical problem you can actually see (in most cases)

There is nothing wrong with the comfort of the 737, if anything it is more comfortable because you aren't pinched at the shoulder by the curve of the cabin like you are on an Airbus product.

Pilot training isn't going to be an issue, most pilots prefer Boeings over Airbus's anyway because in the Boeing the computer isn't in charge, they are. Which makes for a safer airplane than the Airbus.

But containers are much faster and having a container capable cargo hold means you can put more things in it which means more revenue. People throughout the industry expect for Boeing almost unanimously agree.

I am quite certain that the MTBF on some of the comuterized things is the same or better once they become mature. For example, glass cockpits. On an old steam gauge cockpit, you could have some gyros fail or this and that and it would happen quite often. With the glass cockpits, the screens don't fail and what they rely on doesn't fail nearly as often either.

For comfort the A320 is more comfortable that the 737 given the seat pitch is the same which it usually is. This thing about shoulder room is BS. I am 6' and have been flying on A320s in the window seat for years and did two weeks ago on an A321 and noted that the shoulder room and head room is just fine. If anything, the 737 has no floor room if you are sitting in the window seat. The 737 is narrower and the seats are narrower and therefore less comfortable. The same goes for my favorite plane, the 757. Last time I was on one of those, it was a great flight, but I again noted at the floor room was poor and the seat was narrow.

Pilot training IS going to be an issue because contrary to what you might chose to believe, a pilot can't be automatically type rated to fly a 737 just because they like it better than the A320. They have to go through a costly training program. It will cost AC lots of money. The A320neo would have saved constantly here.

You claim about pilots generally preferring Boeings is false. There is nothing really to prefer about the 737 other than the "feel" it gives through the controls. The cockpit s outdated in many ways, it is horribly noisy, and is very cramped and uncomfortable. I honestly think it's a joke myself. I feel bad for pilots at AC that will have to fly from YUL-YVR and back in the 737's regional jet cockpit.

There is no plane I know of where the computer is primarily in charge. The pilot tells the automation what to do and it does it. The Airbus FBW computers will prevent tail strikes, recover from stalls, keep the plane in its flight envelope, and automatically operate the trim to make flying easier and safer. If Zeke were on this thread, you would be in for it. I do challenge you though to come up with a reason why the Airbus computers are bad.

With all due respect to those very knowledeable contributors on here, it sounds to me like this is just a Boeing bashing thread. If the A320neo was that good, I'm sure AC would have bought it. Not saying it's not a great aircraft, but AC didn't go for it, and they know vastly more then we all do here. They went 737 for a reason, and that was that they felt they would make more money from it.

whywhyzee wrote:

With all due respect to those very knowledeable contributors on here, it sounds to me like this is just a Boeing bashing thread. If the A320neo was that good, I'm sure AC would have bought it. Not saying it's not a great aircraft, but AC didn't go for it, and they know vastly more then we all do here. They went 737 for a reason, and that was that they felt they would make more money from it.

Its not a Boeing bashing thread, but if posters want to post rubbish about one manufacturer you are allowed to post a counter claim, even if others may not like it. The post was rubbish, or do you also believe the 737 has better shoulder room than the A320 when it has less cabin space? You may have the cabin pinching in at shoulder height, but you have 6 inches more room in the cabin as a whole so all the seats are more comfortable and the cabin shape may not come into it. So your shoulders may be fine in the 737 but you are sharing more of the arm rest with your neighbour.

We have also seen many threads about the dangerous Airbus FBW and the computers that fly the aircraft and the pilots only being donkeys, yet when the US Airways flight came down in the Hudson river there was little praise of the same computers allowing the hero pilot to not stall and crash the aircraft in the river. How about the OZ 777 in San Francisco where in all likelihood those same computers would not have allowed the speed to go down so low, but in that case it was the pilots fault and the plane is perfectly designed to allow a human to crash it. When an Airbus has an accident you can set your watch to the posts claiming the dangerous FBW and design of Airbus, even before we know more about what actually happened, yet statistically it is not any worse than any Boeing out there.

The reasons why AC went for Boeing could well be that they think the 737 is better than the A320. They would disagree with 60% of the current market, but it is true that this doesn't mean they are wrong. What it in all likelihood means is that they got one great deal from Boeing that made it worth their while to switch to the 737 and incur all the related cost to switching types. If the discounts they received outweighs the extra cost that would be incurred to make the switch then it the 737 is better for AC than the A320.

For years it was claimed that Airbus gave away their aircraft to ensure sales. I daresay we have a role reversal as, at least in the single aisle category, Airbus doesn't need to discount heavily to make a sale any longer. This is not to say that the 737 isn't a great aircraft. Its sales record speaks for itself, but lets not pretend that its miles better than the A320 and that the benefits that the A320 enjoy it nothing more than marketing.

Doesn't the 737 also have an advantage when it comes to availability?

The A320Neo family backlog is well over 5000 aircraft at the momen.

seabosdca wrote:

On the narrowbody side, it seems pretty clear that Boeing was aggressive on price with the MAX. But the MAX is also most attractive at the -8 capacity range, and that is where the bulk of AC's short-term needs are. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see AC operate A321neo side-by-side with the MAX in the future.

I don't think the price triggered AC to buy the 737 MAX. First reports came in AC had selected the A320neo as Airbus offered a pretty low price. Then Boeing offered AC to buy back the Embraer fleet. So Boeing offered a better overall deal.

whywhyzee wrote:

With all due respect to those very knowledeable contributors on here, it sounds to me like this is just a Boeing bashing thread. If the A320neo was that good, I'm sure AC would have bought it. Not saying it's not a great aircraft, but AC didn't go for it, and they know vastly more then we all do here. They went 737 for a reason, and that was that they felt they would make more money from it.

Aircraft purchases are not always about the best aircraft, it's about getting the best deal. Boeing taking back the Embraer fleet was a big plus in the total package.

Hey Air Canada had A340 and turned to 777 as many former A340 airline have( Cathay especially). Its natural they ordered 787 and Boeing must have made them the deal of the century on 737max's. Many airlines have gone from 737 to A320 and Boeing needed a major airline to go the other way. The AC A330 fleet is a legacy of the A340 days but does the Atlantic well from Monreal and Toronto so they will go when they are old which is coming soon, they were delivered in the 1990's.

GE kept Air Canada afloat in 2003. Just before AC (11 bill in debt) ordered the brand new GE powered 777, 787 fleets

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/ai ... n-1.366723

Financing, leases and buy and lease back are done for AC by a company called Gecas. I wouldn't be surprised if they were delighted to learn AC selected the Leap powered MAX too!

L-188 wrote:

Pilot training isn't going to be an issue, most pilots prefer Boeings over Airbus's anyway because in the Boeing the computer isn't in charge, they are. Which makes for a safer airplane than the Airbus.

Pilot training is always a cost that is going to be factored in to any aircraft purchase decision. Generally, airplanes are not chosen based on "which pilots prefer," and I would argue that there is a relatively equal amount of pilots which would rather fly a A320 vs a 737, or vise-versa. Both the Airbus A320neo family and the Boeing 737MAX family have their merits and their idiosyncrasies in terms of cockpit ergonomics, auto-flight systems, fly-by-wire technology, manual flight "feel", etc. Neither is particularly safer than the other; they are both highly computerized and although they both use somewhat different philosophies, neither one has a computer in charge.

By the way, are you a pilot? I have always noticed aviation fans saying that most pilots prefer Airbus or Boeing over the other, for x, y, z reasons, but I have never seen actual pilots claim that. At least globally speaking, there are roughly the same number of pilots that prefer each type, because as each pilot has different things they want out of the plane. Some want cockpit comfort and ergonomics for 8 hours of flying day in day out, some want to have better "feel" during a manual landing/takeoff, some may want specific features like, large displays, HUDs, user friendly FMS to program, etc. and then there are some that genuinely do not care if its a Boeing or Airbus, as long as they get paid reasonably well for what they love to do.

jfk777 wrote:

The AC A330 fleet is a legacy of the A340 days but does the Atlantic well from Monreal and Toronto so they will go when they are old which is coming soon, they were delivered in the 1990's.

Only 2 of AC's 8 A333s were delivered in the 1990s and only barely (late 1999). Another 2 were delivered in 2000 and the last 4 in 2001.

jfk777 wrote:

Hey Air Canada had A340 and turned to 777 as many former A340 airline have( Cathay especially). Its natural they ordered 787 and Boeing must have made them the deal of the century on 737max's. Many airlines have gone from 737 to A320 and Boeing needed a major airline to go the other way. The AC A330 fleet is a legacy of the A340 days but does the Atlantic well from Monreal and Toronto so they will go when they are old which is coming soon, they were delivered in the 1990's.

They are not going anywhere for a while. They will be getting new interiors very shortly.