Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
9252fly
Posts: 1226
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:20 pm

tphuang wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I think it's time to cue up Cyndi Lauper's "True Colors", because a few people are really revealing theirs in this thread again. I'm at a loss as to what the big deal is with this order change? Even if it's because they want to pick up more A321s, who cares? Is it really that important to some people that a certain aircraft win every time?

Well I fly yyz to LGA quite a bit. I previously had option of flying 737 or e90 or 320, but once the latter 2 goes away. I will be stuck with 737 or even worse e45 on AA. I have no option to avoid them in a few years. So it does matter for people that fly on these routes who want choices.


If the sky gods are kind to you,you'll see the CS100 or CS300 on the YYZ - LGA route. If one looks at the big picture,you could say AC decision to convert and down-gauge the B737MAX order as being astute,they must be gazing into their crystal ball. The remaining order for 12 900's is in my view their attempt to hedge their bets with another conversion at a later date to the MAX 10,or another down-gauge to the 800. The combined 61 B737MAX and 45 C-Series firm orders exceed the current mainline narrow-body fleet of 75 A321,A320,A319 and 25 E190.
 
Airontario
Posts: 735
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:04 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:43 pm

tphuang wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I think it's time to cue up Cyndi Lauper's "True Colors", because a few people are really revealing theirs in this thread again. I'm at a loss as to what the big deal is with this order change? Even if it's because they want to pick up more A321s, who cares? Is it really that important to some people that a certain aircraft win every time?

Well I fly yyz to LGA quite a bit. I previously had option of flying 737 or e90 or 320, but once the latter 2 goes away. I will be stuck with 737 or even worse e45 on AA. I have no option to avoid them in a few years. So it does matter for people that fly on these routes who want choices.


Is the 737 really that bad, that a 50 minute flight is too long to be on it?

You will still have the choice to go to EWR or JFK. You can take the train to Toronto, or take the train to PHL or BOS and fly from there.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 6090
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:44 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

The 737-900ER - Boeing's red-headed step-child.


Hey, its kick a ginger day!


I thought Thursdays were Kiss A Ginger Day. :yes:
 
beechnut
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:57 pm

9252fly wrote:
The combined 61 B737MAX and 45 C-Series firm orders exceed the current mainline narrow-body fleet of 75 A321,A320,A319 and 25 E190.


By a whopping 6 aircraft.

Beech
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:24 pm

The MAX 9s are currently due in the 2018-2021 timeframe, so it's hard to envision them being converted to MAX 10s unless they defer as well, which could happen. If they were planning to move to the A321neo (for example), I'm not sure they'd need to keep any MAX 9s at all. If they are planning to move to a MAX 10 conversion, then their current MAX 9 slots are not timed right. On the surface, it's hard to see anything other than they are either planning to defer the remaining MAX 9s and convert them to MAX 10s or that they actually want these frames.

We'll see, though.
 
9252fly
Posts: 1226
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:40 pm

beechnut wrote:
9252fly wrote:
The combined 61 B737MAX and 45 C-Series firm orders exceed the current mainline narrow-body fleet of 75 A321,A320,A319 and 25 E190.


By a whopping 6 aircraft.

Beech


I noticed you counted the difference,that's appreciated as it puts things in perspective. If AC is forecasting or anticipating a change in the demand curve,then it's a good way to prepare for what may lay ahead. Looking at the capacity of their future narrow-body fleet,you can get a sense of the mission profiles they have in mind.
 
tofur
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:51 pm

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:54 pm

Personally I think this is a wise move. The 7M8 will certainly be more versatile in the fleet. As it stands we will have a very large increase in number of passenger seats available.

42 Airbus 320 seating 146 passengers to 49 Boeing 7M8 seating 169 passengers. An increase of 23 passengers per aircraft.

25 Embraer 190 seating 97 passengers to Bombardier CS3 seating 130 passengers. An increase of 33 passengers per aircraft.

The Airbus 319 replaced by Bombardier CS3 will have a modest increase of 10 passengers per aircraft.

It will be a lot of extra seats to fill and I am trusting our management will make sound decisions. I did my 7M8 training a couple of weeks ago. It looks to be a fine aircraft for passengers with ptv's at every seat, powerports and more overhead bin space. Attaching girt bars to the floor is a trip back in time, as are life rafts in the ceiling like on the 747-100 overwing exit. The upward rising overwing window exits are definitely an improvement, compared to the 320. All in all looking forward to the 7M8.

Anyone else read the Financial Post link up thread? The CEO says, our next chapter of growth will involve consolidating our international routes. "A consolidation in our activity in our many markets is going to continue to increase the drive of Air Canada's profitability".

Could this be the rollover of Rouge back in to mainline? Interestingly enough, earlier this year at inflight, we now have a combined seniority list with Rouge. It certainly has created a lot of discussion. Now with the "right" aircraft and increases of productivity in our last contract, this may be a possibility.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27389
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:15 am

keesje wrote:
a lot cheaper than the two sets of wings you keep suggesting Airbus do

Me ?

Yes, proof is easy to find since you post the same stuff to so many different threads.

I found a copy of your presentation on the thread that got locked because you started another thread with the same content.

Here you go:

Image

Two sets of wings, old and new.

Seems like flies multiply a lot under the right conditions.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:30 am

I'm suggesting 2 sets of wings but there was already one. Right on Revelation :silly:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27389
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:38 am

keesje wrote:
I'm suggesting 2 sets of wings but there was already one. Right on Revelation :silly:

The picture shows two sets of wings, and as per my point, that means two sets of assembly lines, supply chains, etc. A lot more expensive than the -10 "redo" that you were complaining about. Right on!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7507
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:16 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
ACATROYAL wrote:
Lets not forget that one of the main reasons AC ordered the 737 was because Boeing gave them a price that AC simply couldn't refuse. Boeing just lost the American Airlines narrow body order to Airbus(321) and wanted to strike back at one of Airbus's customers and Air Canada was just in the right place at the right time!


The quotes from the Air Canada executives posted earlier in this thread imply that they are pretty excited about the MAX when they say it will fly higher and faster. While price probably was a factor, it looks like they are excited about performance too. The MAX can fly higher than the NEO.


As a point of order, do we know this last point? Data please

Edit. Thought I'd do some of the work. For what it's worth, Wikipedia cites 39 000ft for the A321NEO ceiling (it does not call out the A319 or A320) and 41 000ft for the whole MAX range. For the A320CEO family, it cites a range of 39 000ft to 41 000ft.

Not entirely conclusive, but does suggest that the A321 struggles vs the others, which I guess isn't a surprise

Rgds
 
Airlinerdude
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:07 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:45 am

Seems like a smart business move by AC to reevaluate their aircraft needs. A lot has changed in the Canadian airline industry since the initial order was placed. Westjet has become more competitive domestically with Q400s, and will soon become internationally competitive with B787s come 2019, along with the very minor (but potentially greater in the future) impact that NewLeaf might have had.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:53 am

astuteman wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
ACATROYAL wrote:
Lets not forget that one of the main reasons AC ordered the 737 was because Boeing gave them a price that AC simply couldn't refuse. Boeing just lost the American Airlines narrow body order to Airbus(321) and wanted to strike back at one of Airbus's customers and Air Canada was just in the right place at the right time!


The quotes from the Air Canada executives posted earlier in this thread imply that they are pretty excited about the MAX when they say it will fly higher and faster. While price probably was a factor, it looks like they are excited about performance too. The MAX can fly higher than the NEO.


As a point of order, do we know this last point? Data please

Edit. Thought I'd do some of the work. For what it's worth, Wikipedia cites 39 000ft for the A321NEO ceiling (it does not call out the A319 or A320) and 41 000ft for the whole MAX range. For the A320CEO family, it cites a range of 39 000ft to 41 000ft.

Not entirely conclusive, but does suggest that the A321 struggles vs the others, which I guess isn't a surprise

Rgds


Well, realistically, whatever the CEO says in a case like this must be taken with a fair bit of salt. Nobody is going to order an airplane and then say "Well, it's not the best but it'll do" or whatever. It's always going to be the best on the market, the best for the airline, state of the art, etc. Not necessarily lies, per se, but just corporate feel-good spin. I would imagine that's the general way it goes regardless of airline or builder.
 
Siddar
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:59 am

Makes sense when you consider the max 9 will be a limited in numbers. Basically they don't want one of few airlines operating them. The increased difficulty in finding them a home after air Canada has finished with them even if that is only a theoretical case will scare off financing.
 
QXAS
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:09 am

Good CAPEX management from AC. They're going to have additional seats on the MAX8 compared to the 320 and on the CS300 compared to the 319 and E190. And the additional 9 aircraft compared to the current fleet of 190/319/320 (85-94) makes for a lot of additional seats. From that perspective downguaging at the top end for more modest growth makes sense. As for containers, AA, UA and DL all have mixed fleets and the lack of containers on the Boeings haven't caused any issues that I know of.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:12 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

The quotes from the Air Canada executives posted earlier in this thread imply that they are pretty excited about the MAX when they say it will fly higher and faster. While price probably was a factor, it looks like they are excited about performance too. The MAX can fly higher than the NEO.


As a point of order, do we know this last point? Data please

Edit. Thought I'd do some of the work. For what it's worth, Wikipedia cites 39 000ft for the A321NEO ceiling (it does not call out the A319 or A320) and 41 000ft for the whole MAX range. For the A320CEO family, it cites a range of 39 000ft to 41 000ft.

Not entirely conclusive, but does suggest that the A321 struggles vs the others, which I guess isn't a surprise

Rgds


Well, realistically, whatever the CEO says in a case like this must be taken with a fair bit of salt. Nobody is going to order an airplane and then say "Well, it's not the best but it'll do" or whatever. It's always going to be the best on the market, the best for the airline, state of the art, etc. Not necessarily lies, per se, but just corporate feel-good spin. I would imagine that's the general way it goes regardless of airline or builder.


The maximum altitude for the 737NG and MAX is 41,000 ft, the maximum altitude for the A320 is 39,100 or 39,800.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:54 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
astuteman wrote:

As a point of order, do we know this last point? Data please

Edit. Thought I'd do some of the work. For what it's worth, Wikipedia cites 39 000ft for the A321NEO ceiling (it does not call out the A319 or A320) and 41 000ft for the whole MAX range. For the A320CEO family, it cites a range of 39 000ft to 41 000ft.

Not entirely conclusive, but does suggest that the A321 struggles vs the others, which I guess isn't a surprise

Rgds


Well, realistically, whatever the CEO says in a case like this must be taken with a fair bit of salt. Nobody is going to order an airplane and then say "Well, it's not the best but it'll do" or whatever. It's always going to be the best on the market, the best for the airline, state of the art, etc. Not necessarily lies, per se, but just corporate feel-good spin. I would imagine that's the general way it goes regardless of airline or builder.


The maximum altitude for the 737NG and MAX is 41,000 ft, the maximum altitude for the A320 is 39,100 or 39,800.

Well 2000ft of difference in service ceiling might be good on one day, but might not be on another. It might not make much difference at all as the majority of 737s flying over North America at this moment are cruising below 39000ft. I would imagine the higher ceiling is where they get the idea that the 737 is measurably faster. They typically cruise in the Mach .78 to .79 range which is the same as the A320, 757, 767, and now the CSeries. On a reflect day, that probably would be faster at 41000ft than 39000, but that's not mostly where they are flying.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:04 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
astuteman wrote:

As a point of order, do we know this last point? Data please

Edit. Thought I'd do some of the work. For what it's worth, Wikipedia cites 39 000ft for the A321NEO ceiling (it does not call out the A319 or A320) and 41 000ft for the whole MAX range. For the A320CEO family, it cites a range of 39 000ft to 41 000ft.

Not entirely conclusive, but does suggest that the A321 struggles vs the others, which I guess isn't a surprise

Rgds


Well, realistically, whatever the CEO says in a case like this must be taken with a fair bit of salt. Nobody is going to order an airplane and then say "Well, it's not the best but it'll do" or whatever. It's always going to be the best on the market, the best for the airline, state of the art, etc. Not necessarily lies, per se, but just corporate feel-good spin. I would imagine that's the general way it goes regardless of airline or builder.


The maximum altitude for the 737NG and MAX is 41,000 ft, the maximum altitude for the A320 is 39,100 or 39,800.


There's a big difference between the maximum service ceiling and the operational altitudes used on a normal day. B737NGs on average usually in the high 30s or 40/41 for the 6/700s and a touch lower for heavy 800s, Airbuses are usually lower to bid 30s...
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Air Canada downsizes 737 MAX 9 order book

Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:26 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
astuteman wrote:

As a point of order, do we know this last point? Data please

Edit. Thought I'd do some of the work. For what it's worth, Wikipedia cites 39 000ft for the A321NEO ceiling (it does not call out the A319 or A320) and 41 000ft for the whole MAX range. For the A320CEO family, it cites a range of 39 000ft to 41 000ft.

Not entirely conclusive, but does suggest that the A321 struggles vs the others, which I guess isn't a surprise

Rgds


Well, realistically, whatever the CEO says in a case like this must be taken with a fair bit of salt. Nobody is going to order an airplane and then say "Well, it's not the best but it'll do" or whatever. It's always going to be the best on the market, the best for the airline, state of the art, etc. Not necessarily lies, per se, but just corporate feel-good spin. I would imagine that's the general way it goes regardless of airline or builder.


The maximum altitude for the 737NG and MAX is 41,000 ft, the maximum altitude for the A320 is 39,100 or 39,800.


The max cruise altitude ability is more than a tad redundant when at a given weight, an A320 will burn less fuel than a 737-800. Using the planning charts from the fcoms for a 5 hour ~2200nm flight with a 55t ref landing weight, depending on the A320 engine variant, the A320 will burn 100-300kg less* than the 737. Actually planning a higher final cruise altitude at 39k for the A320 versus 37k only actually saves 30kg or so of fuel and I suspect the same is true for the 737 at the higher levels.

*A320 fcoms I've used are for msns which lack sharklets.

astuteman wrote:
Not entirely conclusive, but does suggest that the A321 struggles vs the others, which I guess isn't a surprise


Understatement of the year. ;) 320 left, 321 right

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aga, anymaninfc, Aresxerexade, Baidu [Spider], bennett123, Cheers8, Eso91, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], GSP psgr, Hamlet69, hbernal1, jacobin777, jetlagchad, kpotennis, N14AZ, Opus99, robleroy121721, seansasLCY, Someone83, tealnz, TG788, Thunderboltdrgn, TWA902fly and 131 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos