New routes from YYZ to SNN and YUL to DUB both x4 weekly on the MAX 8 beginning in June.

Press Release:
https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2017-09 ... d-Montreal

Fantastic news , the MAX aircraft is brilliant news for Irish aviation

So many types of NOPE on this, sorry... I'm curious what weight restrictions will be taken on this in the winter. Someone here would be way better on running those numbers than me...

best regards-
Andrew

foxecho wrote:

So many types of nope on this, sorry... I'm curious what weight restrictions will be taken on this in the winter.

Andrew

They are seasonal......

That makes better sense..

They are seasonal......[/quote]

Andrew

The 737 MAX will also replace the YYT-LHR when the A319s go. This is suspect won't be that long after their MAX start rolling in.

foxecho wrote:

That makes better sense..

They are seasonal......

Even if they weren't, they'd have no issues in winter either. Great to see that AC will be using the MAX on transatlantic routes other than YYT-LHR.

I'd guess they'll use one on YHZ-LHR in winter (while these new Irish routes aren't operating) to bring that up to a daily year-round service, with the 763 taking over during the summer.

I think this announcement by AC shows the 320s will be around a bit longer than anyone thinks as their first two 737s won't really be replacing any 32x capacity. There's enough time in the schedule to do a YYZ-YWG/YHZ or a couple of Rapidair turns, but that's about it.

Dominion301 wrote:

foxecho wrote:

That makes better sense..

They are seasonal......

Andrew

Even if they weren't, they'd have no issues in winter either. Great to see that AC will be using the MAX on transatlantic routes other than YYT-LHR.

I'd guess they'll use one on YHZ-LHR in winter (while these new Irish routes aren't operating) to bring that up to a daily year-round service, with the 763 taking over during the summer.

I think this announcement by AC shows the 320s will be around a bit longer than anyone thinks as their first two 737s won't really be replacing any 32x capacity. There's enough time in the schedule to do a YYZ-YWG/YHZ or a couple of Rapidair turns, but that's about it.

Some Canadian "transatlantic" routes are very short. Considering that EWR-SAN which has a 737-800 on it right now is ~2,500mi...and that's the distance Canadian shore to Irish shore...

For example, the Max 8-200 has a more range than the 737-800 which would be CASM monster routes (the 737-8 would be good too) and probably eat into Air Transat

I would imagine they have trouble (profitably) filling a 767-300 on many "secondary" cities in the British Isles in the Winter, but this could take care of the FR in VFR. Also, never underestimate Business travelers, who cannot book J fares, jumping on point-to-point travel between Canada and Ireland/Scotland/England.

george77300 wrote:

The 737 MAX will also replace the YYT-LHR when the A319s go. This is suspect won't be that long after their MAX start rolling in.

I believe the B763 is planned to take over the YYT-LHR route...

Whiteguy wrote:

george77300 wrote:

The 737 MAX will also replace the YYT-LHR when the A319s go. This is suspect won't be that long after their MAX start rolling in.

I believe the B763 is planned to take over the YYT-LHR route...

For this winter as a stop on 2/4 weekly YHZ-LHRs. I'd imagine that's a temporary move and it'll be MAXed by the time the summer 2018 schedule is rolled out.

Arent these mainline? So unlikely to appear on Rouge routes.

foxecho wrote:

So many types of NOPE on this, sorry... I'm curious what weight restrictions will be taken on this in the winter. Someone here would be way better on running those numbers than me...

best regards-
Andrew

Well it appears Air Canada ran those numbers. And as they have their economic and traveller flow data, they're probably better at running those numbers than most folks on here.

Nice announcement. the 737 MAX is very capable of flying long haul and thin routes, just like what Norwegian has been doing.

This is an excellent, proactive, low risk move on AC by testing out new markets with a very capable NB aircraft type that has the legs to do it at a competitive cost level.

I hope they try out the MAX8 during winter on YVR-Florida routes too for both p2p and Asia transfer demand.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Are the Max 8s going to have lie-flats up front, or just domestic Business seating?

I think they will have regular domestic seating. Ireland isn't too premium heavy, so it probably isn't worth having a sub fleet with lie flats.

Dominion301 wrote:

foxecho wrote:

That makes better sense..

They are seasonal......

Even if they weren't, they'd have no issues in winter either. Great to see that AC will be using the MAX on transatlantic routes other than YYT-LHR.

Both Boeing and Airbus have advertised aircraft as being able to fly certain routes easily, and then airlines struggled to operate those routes with full payload and headwinds. Throw in a snow storm in YYZ requiring a distant alternate and I think saying "they'd have no issues in winter either" is an impossible claim to make until an entire winter of TATL service has actually happened on similar stage lengths (2800+ nm) and there have been no issues. AC might not be the airline to do that first, but we'll see sooner or later whether this a/c performs as promised...

I love Air Canada's proactive approach to its business plan and desire to build its hubs. The airline is smartly utilizing its fleet renewal, and Rouge, to grow into a bigger player. It's great for Canadian airports too.

flyfresno wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

foxecho wrote:

That makes better sense..

They are seasonal......

Even if they weren't, they'd have no issues in winter either. Great to see that AC will be using the MAX on transatlantic routes other than YYT-LHR.

Both Boeing and Airbus have advertised aircraft as being able to fly certain routes easily, and then airlines struggled to operate those routes with full payload and headwinds. Throw in a snow storm in YYZ requiring a distant alternate and I think saying "they'd have no issues in winter either" is an impossible claim to make until an entire winter of TATL service has actually happened on similar stage lengths (2800+ nm) and there have been no issues. AC might not be the airline to do that first, but we'll see sooner or later whether this a/c performs as promised...

The range of the B737-8 MAX is 3500nm so it can do it

pictues1981 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

Even if they weren't, they'd have no issues in winter either. Great to see that AC will be using the MAX on transatlantic routes other than YYT-LHR.

Both Boeing and Airbus have advertised aircraft as being able to fly certain routes easily, and then airlines struggled to operate those routes with full payload and headwinds. Throw in a snow storm in YYZ requiring a distant alternate and I think saying "they'd have no issues in winter either" is an impossible claim to make until an entire winter of TATL service has actually happened on similar stage lengths (2800+ nm) and there have been no issues. AC might not be the airline to do that first, but we'll see sooner or later whether this a/c performs as promised...

The range of the B737-8 MAX is 3500nm so it can do it

Exactly what I'm talking about. You got that off of Boeing's website...congrats. But that doesn't mean actual aircraft performance fully loaded with a strong headwind and an alternate will be anywhere near that.

Newbiepilot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Are the Max 8s going to have lie-flats up front, or just domestic Business seating?

I think they will have regular domestic seating. Ireland isn't too premium heavy, so it probably isn't worth having a sub fleet with lie flats.

Depends on the routes... I agree with Ireland, those (mostly seasonal & VFR/leisure) routes will not justify a different cabin configuration, but for the LHR flights we are probably going to see a small sub-fleet configured with proper J-seating, as is the case for the A319s.

oldannyboy wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Are the Max 8s going to have lie-flats up front, or just domestic Business seating?

I think they will have regular domestic seating. Ireland isn't too premium heavy, so it probably isn't worth having a sub fleet with lie flats.

Depends on the routes... I agree with Ireland, those (mostly seasonal & VFR/leisure) routes will not justify a different cabin configuration, but for the LHR flights we are probably going to see a small sub-fleet configured with proper J-seating, as is the case for the A319s.

I wouldn't be surprised if these had a (small) proper J product. I agree that DUB isn't super premium heavy but I think there would be a few nice corporate contracts they could pick up to keep the front of the plane busy. e.g. Bombardier which is based at YUL has a factory up in Belfast. Add in the financial services aspect of Canadalife, TD, etc and it doesn't look too crazy.

The SNN route is definitely more VFR orientated

oldannyboy wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Are the Max 8s going to have lie-flats up front, or just domestic Business seating?

I think they will have regular domestic seating. Ireland isn't too premium heavy, so it probably isn't worth having a sub fleet with lie flats.

Depends on the routes... I agree with Ireland, those (mostly seasonal & VFR/leisure) routes will not justify a different cabin configuration, but for the LHR flights we are probably going to see a small sub-fleet configured with proper J-seating, as is the case for the A319s.

I would think Dublin could support a 737Max with a 'proper J-seating' cabin although I'm not sure the same demand would exist on the YYZ-SNN route for J seats. However, in their press release, Air Canada said "The flights will be operated using Air Canada's newest single-aisle aircraft, the Boeing 737 Max 8 featuring a Business and Economy cabin configuration", so I guess they are going to run with this configuration initially. Of course they could always do what Aer Lingus used to do at one stage on their DUB-MCO route, when they did not offer a business class service but sold the J seats on the A330 at a premium rate (although they have now reintroduced business class service on this route).

oldannyboy wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Are the Max 8s going to have lie-flats up front, or just domestic Business seating?

I think they will have regular domestic seating. Ireland isn't too premium heavy, so it probably isn't worth having a sub fleet with lie flats.

Depends on the routes... I agree with Ireland, those (mostly seasonal & VFR/leisure) routes will not justify a different cabin configuration, but for the LHR flights we are probably going to see a small sub-fleet configured with proper J-seating, as is the case for the A319s.

Don't C-GITP/R, the two A319s that fly LHR-YYT have the standard A319 product? They route LHR-YYT-YYZ and vice versa and back onto short haul for the next day.

I'd love to see Air Canada flying some Canadian airframes i.e. CS300 to Ireland all year around. If the plane is actually as economic as claimed it might even be economically feasible.

skipness1E wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think they will have regular domestic seating. Ireland isn't too premium heavy, so it probably isn't worth having a sub fleet with lie flats.

Depends on the routes... I agree with Ireland, those (mostly seasonal & VFR/leisure) routes will not justify a different cabin configuration, but for the LHR flights we are probably going to see a small sub-fleet configured with proper J-seating, as is the case for the A319s.

Don't C-GITP/R, the two A319s that fly LHR-YYT have the standard A319 product? They route LHR-YYT-YYZ and vice versa and back onto short haul for the next day.

AFAIK there are no subfleets regarding the seats on the mainline (see below) and RV fleet A319.



C-GITP/R 'just' have ETOPS

accargofra wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Depends on the routes... I agree with Ireland, those (mostly seasonal & VFR/leisure) routes will not justify a different cabin configuration, but for the LHR flights we are probably going to see a small sub-fleet configured with proper J-seating, as is the case for the A319s.

Don't C-GITP/R, the two A319s that fly LHR-YYT have the standard A319 product? They route LHR-YYT-YYZ and vice versa and back onto short haul for the next day.

AFAIK there are no subfleets regarding the seats on the mainline (see below) and RV fleet A319.



C-GITP/R 'just' have ETOPS

Yes, probably. You are right. I confused the single ETOPS rating for a different cabin layout. Mental fart on my part.

leghorn wrote:

I'd love to see Air Canada flying some Canadian airframes i.e. CS300 to Ireland all year around. If the plane is actually as economic as claimed it might even be economically feasible.

That may very well happen. At present, we're 2 years away from the CS300, and a month away from the Max.

i love AC and have had great service with them over the last 45 years, but ROUGE scares me. The service is fine but the quality of the aircraft interiors, the uncomfortable seating and the seat pitch make it torture to fly them on any routes over 5 hours. Tel Aviv, Athens? Forget it if you are a big guy like me (6 foot, 239 pounds). I guess this whole ' you get what you pay for' business approach is here to stay. I miss the free meals and leg room...in economy...which on Rouge is now called Premium service. https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/05/2 ... ess-class/

Great to see this...but I don't think that a year round 737MAX8 service transatlantic is just viable. I mean this isn't Caribbean weather we're talking about...this is Canada, in which a blizzard is just the norm in winter--no matter what Boeing says, this just may not be economically viable in the winter.

MIflyer12 wrote:

ibhalla wrote:

Great to see this...but I don't think that a year round 737MAX8 service transatlantic is just viable. I mean this isn't Caribbean weather we're talking about...this is Canada, in which a blizzard is just the norm in winter--no matter what Boeing says, this just may not be economically viable in the winter.

Yield - CASM determines economic viability. Effective range and ability to operate non-stop services reliably depends on winds, weather, weights...

Exactly.

WorldFlier wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

foxecho wrote:

That makes better sense..

They are seasonal......

Andrew

Even if they weren't, they'd have no issues in winter either. Great to see that AC will be using the MAX on transatlantic routes other than YYT-LHR.

I'd guess they'll use one on YHZ-LHR in winter (while these new Irish routes aren't operating) to bring that up to a daily year-round service, with the 763 taking over during the summer.

I think this announcement by AC shows the 320s will be around a bit longer than anyone thinks as their first two 737s won't really be replacing any 32x capacity. There's enough time in the schedule to do a YYZ-YWG/YHZ or a couple of Rapidair turns, but that's about it.

Some Canadian "transatlantic" routes are very short. Considering that EWR-SAN which has a 737-800 on it right now is ~2,500mi...and that's the distance Canadian shore to Irish shore...

For example, the Max 8-200 has a more range than the 737-800 which would be CASM monster routes (the 737-8 would be good too) and probably eat into Air Transat

I would imagine they have trouble (profitably) filling a 767-300 on many "secondary" cities in the British Isles in the Winter, but this could take care of the FR in VFR. Also, never underestimate Business travelers, who cannot book J fares, jumping on point-to-point travel between Canada and Ireland/Scotland/England.

I take it you mean on the days where there isn't a 763? I've heard on several occasions that cargo is good on these flights so I doubt they'll completely remove widebody service on these routes.

Jawaiiansky66 wrote:

i love AC and have had great service with them over the last 45 years, but ROUGE scares me. The service is fine but the quality of the aircraft interiors, the uncomfortable seating and the seat pitch make it torture to fly them on any routes over 5 hours. Tel Aviv, Athens? Forget it if you are a big guy like me (6 foot, 239 pounds). I guess this whole ' you get what you pay for' business approach is here to stay. I miss the free meals and leg room...in economy...which on Rouge is now called Premium service. https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/05/2 ... ess-class/

Rouge offers meals included in the fare on TATL routes in both cabins. The 767 have IIRC 3 rows of Rouge Plus seats with 35" pitch that are not too expensive. Honestly, it seems better than the 17/31 seating in the 787's.

The problem is that the 737's in economy won't be that much better. According to rumors floated on another site, the seat pitch in Y will be 30" everywhere but in exit rows. We'll see if that's true in less than a week.

WildcatYXU wrote:

The problem is that the 737's in economy won't be that much better. According to rumors floated on another site, the seat pitch in Y will be 30" everywhere but in exit rows. We'll see if that's true in less than a week.

I don't recall the exact numbers, but AC announced a cabin configuration something like 16J, 55W and 65Y. I am guessing the 55W is like current narrow body mainline aircraft with extra legroom in Y. These would be available for a fee at lower fare levels and free for higher fare levels and certain frequent flyers.

Jawaiiansky66 wrote:

i love AC and have had great service with them over the last 45 years, but ROUGE scares me. The service is fine but the quality of the aircraft interiors, the uncomfortable seating and the seat pitch make it torture to fly them on any routes over 5 hours. Tel Aviv, Athens? Forget it if you are a big guy like me (6 foot, 239 pounds). I guess this whole ' you get what you pay for' business approach is here to stay. I miss the free meals and leg room...in economy...which on Rouge is now called Premium service. https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/05/2 ... ess-class/

I'm 6'1" and 275. I went to Athens and back. I was just as comfortable as my more recent flight to HKG on United.

longhauler wrote:

I don't recall the exact numbers, but AC announced a cabin configuration something like 16J, 55W and 65Y. I am guessing the 55W is like current narrow body mainline aircraft with extra legroom in Y. These would be available for a fee at lower fare levels and free for higher fare levels and certain frequent flyers.

It would be great if it would be like this, but wouldn't it mean less seats in the 7M8 than in the 320? Regardless, 55W would be great news as there are IIRC only 24W seats in the 320 now.

flyfresno wrote:

pictues1981 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Both Boeing and Airbus have advertised aircraft as being able to fly certain routes easily, and then airlines struggled to operate those routes with full payload and headwinds. Throw in a snow storm in YYZ requiring a distant alternate and I think saying "they'd have no issues in winter either" is an impossible claim to make until an entire winter of TATL service has actually happened on similar stage lengths (2800+ nm) and there have been no issues. AC might not be the airline to do that first, but we'll see sooner or later whether this a/c performs as promised...

The range of the B737-8 MAX is 3500nm so it can do it

Exactly what I'm talking about. You got that off of Boeing's website...congrats. But that doesn't mean actual aircraft performance fully loaded with a strong headwind and an alternate will be anywhere near that.

What makes your pessimistic view any more rational? No one is saying diversions cannot happen, but it Air Canada would not launch a route that they cannot feasibly / reliably/ profitably operate.

airzona11 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

pictues1981 wrote:

The range of the B737-8 MAX is 3500nm so it can do it

Exactly what I'm talking about. You got that off of Boeing's website...congrats. But that doesn't mean actual aircraft performance fully loaded with a strong headwind and an alternate will be anywhere near that.

What makes your pessimistic view any more rational? No one is saying diversions cannot happen, but it Air Canada would not launch a route that they cannot feasibly / reliably/ profitably operate.

Well, to begin, airlines are having to bump up to 30-40 pax on some flights going from LAX-HNL and other west coast to Hawaii routes in the winter on the 737-900ER due to winds, a trip that aircraft should easily be able to handle according to its tech specs (2300 NM distance vs 3200 NM range). So, as you can see, there is a realistic precedent for it. I'm not saying it can't do it, I'm saying there are instances where airlines launch routes based on numbers manufacturers gave them and then find out later those numbers were too optimistic. Hence, don't tell everyone it can do it for sure until it's actually done it.

flyfresno wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Exactly what I'm talking about. You got that off of Boeing's website...congrats. But that doesn't mean actual aircraft performance fully loaded with a strong headwind and an alternate will be anywhere near that.

What makes your pessimistic view any more rational? No one is saying diversions cannot happen, but it Air Canada would not launch a route that they cannot feasibly / reliably/ profitably operate.

Well, to begin, airlines are having to bump up to 30-40 pax on some flights going from LAX-HNL and other west coast to Hawaii routes in the winter on the 737-900ER due to winds, a trip that aircraft should easily be able to handle according to its tech specs (2300 NM distance vs 3200 NM range). So, as you can see, there is a realistic precedent for it. I'm not saying it can't do it, I'm saying there are instances where airlines launch routes based on numbers manufacturers gave them and then find out later those numbers were too optimistic. Hence, don't tell everyone it can do it for sure until it's actually done it.

The thing is how many alternates are available between LAX and HNL? On SNN-YYZ, there's KEF, SFJ, YYR, YQX, YYT, YUL, YOW, etc.

Dominion301 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

What makes your pessimistic view any more rational? No one is saying diversions cannot happen, but it Air Canada would not launch a route that they cannot feasibly / reliably/ profitably operate.

Well, to begin, airlines are having to bump up to 30-40 pax on some flights going from LAX-HNL and other west coast to Hawaii routes in the winter on the 737-900ER due to winds, a trip that aircraft should easily be able to handle according to its tech specs (2300 NM distance vs 3200 NM range). So, as you can see, there is a realistic precedent for it. I'm not saying it can't do it, I'm saying there are instances where airlines launch routes based on numbers manufacturers gave them and then find out later those numbers were too optimistic. Hence, don't tell everyone it can do it for sure until it's actually done it.

The thing is how many alternates are available between LAX and HNL? On SNN-YYZ, there's KEF, SFJ, YYR, YQX, YYT, YUL, YOW, etc.

This is true, and we could speculate all day about these sorts of things, as the routes are surely different. However, there are tons of variables that go into this sort of planning, and the range number on the website is based on the best possible conditions. Again, I'm not saying it can't do it, just that there is no way possible to say it 100% for sure can at this point.

Dominion301 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

What makes your pessimistic view any more rational? No one is saying diversions cannot happen, but it Air Canada would not launch a route that they cannot feasibly / reliably/ profitably operate.

Well, to begin, airlines are having to bump up to 30-40 pax on some flights going from LAX-HNL and other west coast to Hawaii routes in the winter on the 737-900ER due to winds, a trip that aircraft should easily be able to handle according to its tech specs (2300 NM distance vs 3200 NM range). So, as you can see, there is a realistic precedent for it. I'm not saying it can't do it, I'm saying there are instances where airlines launch routes based on numbers manufacturers gave them and then find out later those numbers were too optimistic. Hence, don't tell everyone it can do it for sure until it's actually done it.

The thing is how many alternates are available between LAX and HNL? On SNN-YYZ, there's KEF, SFJ, YYR, YQX, YYT, YUL, YOW, etc.

Plus, the 73M that will operate the route, is a more capable frame than the 738. The 738 is a more capable plane than the 739ER. I have not seen or heard many instances of the 738s flying West Coast - HNL leaving that many passengers behind.

But more to the point, while there are times that even the 739s are payload restricted, they are still operating the routes, airlines are obviously making money flying them. Which is Air Canada's intention.

airzona11 wrote:

But more to the point, while there are times that even the 739s are payload restricted, they are still operating the routes, airlines are obviously making money flying them. Which is Air Canada's intention.

Except, airlines are swapping many of those routes back to 757s or other longer-range a/c for the winter season. So, you have to ask, were they really making money having to bump/rebook so many people so frequently? There will be very, very few Delta 900ERs operating to the islands this winter, and certainly many fewer than last season. There are still a few 900ERs scheduled to operate on United, we'll see if they stick around though, and how payload restricted they are if they do. I wouldn't call an aircraft "capable" of operating a route if 30, 20, or even 10 people need to be bumped off because of winds on a regular basis. And, it's a moot point that the 737-800 can operate the route fine. The point is that airlines were promised that the 900ER could do it, and it sometimes can't.

flyfresno wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

But more to the point, while there are times that even the 739s are payload restricted, they are still operating the routes, airlines are obviously making money flying them. Which is Air Canada's intention.

Except, airlines are swapping many of those routes back to 757s or other longer-range a/c for the winter season. So, you have to ask, were they really making money having to bump/rebook so many people so frequently? There will be very, very few Delta 900ERs operating to the islands this winter, and certainly many fewer than last season. There are still a few 900ERs scheduled to operate on United, we'll see if they stick around though, and how payload restricted they are if they do. I wouldn't call an aircraft "capable" of operating a route if 30, 20, or even 10 people need to be bumped off because of winds on a regular basis. And, it's a moot point that the 737-800 can operate the route fine. The point is that airlines were promised that the 900ER could do it, and it sometimes can't.

It is not a moot point because the 738s successor is operating the route. 739 is not relevant. Even so, there is a difference between capable and optimal. The fact the aircraft flies the route consistently (UA and AS are not replacing 739s with 757s this winter) means it is capable. Optimal is a different story.

Back the premise, there is real world data with 73Ms flying the North Atlantic track right now, Boeing and Air Canada are aware and have made the choice to fly the routes.

They could start seasonal YOW-CDG MAX8 service

airzona11 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

But more to the point, while there are times that even the 739s are payload restricted, they are still operating the routes, airlines are obviously making money flying them. Which is Air Canada's intention.

Except, airlines are swapping many of those routes back to 757s or other longer-range a/c for the winter season. So, you have to ask, were they really making money having to bump/rebook so many people so frequently? There will be very, very few Delta 900ERs operating to the islands this winter, and certainly many fewer than last season. There are still a few 900ERs scheduled to operate on United, we'll see if they stick around though, and how payload restricted they are if they do. I wouldn't call an aircraft "capable" of operating a route if 30, 20, or even 10 people need to be bumped off because of winds on a regular basis. And, it's a moot point that the 737-800 can operate the route fine. The point is that airlines were promised that the 900ER could do it, and it sometimes can't.

It is not a moot point because the 738s successor is operating the route. 739 is not relevant. Even so, there is a difference between capable and optimal. The fact the aircraft flies the route consistently (UA and AS are not replacing 739s with 757s this winter) means it is capable. Optimal is a different story.

Back the premise, there is real world data with 73Ms flying the North Atlantic track right now, Boeing and Air Canada are aware and have made the choice to fly the routes.

It *was* a moot point because my entire reason for bringing up the 737-900ER was to show that there is a commercial aircraft that was advertised to fly one stage length, but can't even operate a stage length 900 miles shorter than that without bumping off massive amounts of weight (either in cargo or pax or both), and that the Max might run into this problem too, come winter.

For the 737 Maxes flying right now: it's also not winter right now. Winds are much lighter in the summer, and there are fewer instances when an alternate is needed. Finally: many, many aircraft are technically "capable" of flying routes that are just not feasible because so much payload would have to be bumped off to do it. So, yes, if all you want to talk about is "can the aircraft make it, no matter what payload (ie financial) hit the airline takes," then yes, it's very likely the 737 Max can do it. But airlines don't care if an aircraft can do anything, from takeoff or land on short runways, to fly certain distances, to reach a certain altitude, if they can't make any money with the aircraft when it's doing those things. You can have the last word.

Newbiepilot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Are the Max 8s going to have lie-flats up front, or just domestic Business seating?

I think they will have regular domestic seating. Ireland isn't too premium heavy, so it probably isn't worth having a sub fleet with lie flats.

Depends on the route. Mainline A333 is replacing Rouge B763 on DUB-YYZ from next month due level of premium demand according to AC. EI replaced the B752 with the A332/3 on the route this year for the same reason, but I would agree J class demand is probably very low on the other 3 routes

Mainline ran summer seasonal daily YYZ-DUB on a B763 until 3 or 4 years ago when Rouge took over, who then went year round, and then 10/11 weekly in peak, EI started the route year round on B752; upgauged to A330, Westjet joined in with YYZ-YYT-DUB, Transat are 4 weekly on the route, and now mainline AC coming back.

Mad how quickly some routes grow. Makes one worry if we're in a bubble

Jawaiiansky66 wrote:

i love AC and have had great service with them over the last 45 years, but ROUGE scares me. The service is fine but the quality of the aircraft interiors, the uncomfortable seating and the seat pitch make it torture to fly them on any routes over 5 hours. Tel Aviv, Athens? Forget it if you are a big guy like me (6 foot, 239 pounds). I guess this whole ' you get what you pay for' business approach is here to stay. I miss the free meals and leg room...in economy...which on Rouge is now called Premium service. https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/05/2 ... ess-class/

Hey, I am the first to admit that 'rougeing' a route is not necessarily a good proposition, but I thought that seating on the 767 would still be better than AC mainline on the 787 and especially on the 10-abreast 773?.. and that meals were still offered for long-hauls even in Y...is it not so??

Being a short guy, I am generally envious of the bigger guys (taller=better looking, no? ) but I suspect that being short has its advantages...well, sometimes..

flyfresno wrote:

It *was* a moot point because my entire reason for bringing up the 737-900ER was to show that there is a commercial aircraft that was advertised to fly one stage length, but can't even operate a stage length 900 miles shorter than that without bumping off massive amounts of weight (either in cargo or pax or both), and that the Max might run into this problem too, come winter.

It might make it easier for some to understand, if you thought of range the way dispatchers/pilots do ... that is, think in terms of time instead of miles.

With a full fuel load, the MAX8 has about 8 1/2 hours of fuel. If MTOW is possible, there is room left for full passengers, their baggage and a modest amount of cargo. (About 2500 kgs).

Arriving in YYZ with one hour fuel is optimum, that is 30 minutes required by law, and a YHM/BUF alternate with a little extra. With the 7 1/2 hours fuel left, the aircraft can fly 3400 nm at 465 knots in calm winds.

Throw in some "winter" variables ....

A 50 knot average wind component reduces range to about 3100 miles. (50 knots is a lot, while there may be winds reaching 150 knots over the Atlantic, it is a rare day to see a -50 component for the whole flight).

A YOW/YUL/YYB alternate reduces fuel capacity by about another 30 minutes. That, with a -50 component reduces range to about 2900 nms ...or roughly the distance from DUB to YYZ. So, while the odd day over the winter may have dispatchers scratching their heads, it would take a few events occuring at once to actually preclude a non-stop flight.

Also, to reduce the range of the aircraft by 900 nms (in this example) would require a sustained -120 component for the entire flight, something I have never seen with 30+ years crossing the Atlantic.