Page 1 of 3

What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:10 pm
by yow2den
With Canada banning all 737 MAX 8 and 9 flights, what can we expect from Air Canada in terms of their transatlantic flights to Europe? Air Canada cancelled their 03/12 YHZ-LHR as well as their 03/13 YYT-LHR flights. A quick check of Air Canada's website shows that they're rerouting pax through Montreal or Toronto (at least for the YHZ-LHR route). Will they keep this up the whole time or could we expect an equipment swap back to the 763/A330 or in YYT's case even the A319?

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:18 pm
by alan3
YYT did the 319 before, so shouldn’t be a major issue to add it back . YHT I’m not sure. Probably the 763 (although that is a lot of seats in winter for that route).

I’m also wondering about Hawaii. Since AC mainline took back Hawaii routes from Rouge, the MAX has become the main go-to aircraft for Hawaii.

And spring break holidays for most schools are just about to start, when Hawaii flights are packed.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:24 pm
by nname
YVR-HNL will consolidate into one flight and operated by 77W
YVR-OGG will consolidate into one flight and operated by 789
YVR-CUN/PVR/SJD/ZIH will operated by 321
YVR-KOA looks like it will be cancelled

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:30 pm
by airnorth
Curious as to how far ahead fleet planners look? Is it a rotating two week schedule, or more often than that? Lets assume that the grounding lasts as long as the 787 event, and we have 4 months of down time, how long will it take for AC to juggle their fleets and routes to get back to "normal"?

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:06 pm
by ExMilitaryEng
And when the Max8's ban gets lifted, pilots will wait until they reach FL39 & cruising speed before engaging the autopilot... :duck:

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:09 pm
by longhauler
alan3 wrote:
YYT did the 319 before, so shouldn’t be a major issue to add it back .

The ETOPS120 A319s are no longer in the mainline fleet and no A320 pilots (mainline or Rouge) are ETOPS trained.

And in answer to the next question, no, training is not just a trip to the simulator. My guess would be that the MAX will be flying again before Transport Canada could approve and certify the ETOPS A319 operation again.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:14 pm
by longhauler
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
And when the Max8's ban gets lifted, pilots will wait until they reach FL39 & cruising speed before engaging the autopilot... :duck:

I know that was meant in jest, but remember, MCAS is only active when the autopilot is off and flaps are retracted.

Also, every Air Canada 737 pilot has been trained and passed Stab Runaway and Unreliable Airspeed exercises in the simulator.

This being the case, and M. Garneau being aware of this, I am curious about the "new information received this morning" that changed his mind.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:17 pm
by IWMBH
According to planespotter.net no AC A320-family aircraft are stored, so this means their NB fleet has just shrunk with 25%. Thats huge...

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:24 pm
by spinotter
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
And when the Max8's ban gets lifted, pilots will wait until they reach FL39 & cruising speed before engaging the autopilot... :duck:


I hope that the problems, if any, will be understood and solved by then instead of just avoiding the issue.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:28 pm
by downdata
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
And when the Max8's ban gets lifted, pilots will wait until they reach FL39 & cruising speed before engaging the autopilot... :duck:


How about hand flying with flaps at 15 until FL 340?

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:28 pm
by longhauler
IWMBH wrote:
According to planespotter.net no AC A320-family aircraft are stored, so this means their NB fleet has just shrunk with 25%. Thats huge...

The narrow body fleet has gone from 143 aircraft to 119 aircraft. Not insignificant, but also, not 25%.

There are options and I would imagine the experts at Systems Operations Control are working overtime right now. One place in the airline I would hate to work. (Other than the Lost Baggage Counter)

Don't be surrpised to see a lot of wide body consolidations as well as more E175 flying from Skyregional as well as the waning E190 operations are likely going to see a resurgence.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:31 pm
by EChid
IWMBH wrote:
According to planespotter.net no AC A320-family aircraft are stored, so this means their NB fleet has just shrunk with 25%. Thats huge...

I believe their NB fleet has shrunk 25% if you don't include Rouge. AC can Rouge a route if necessary to fill in the holes. If you include Rouge and the E190s/175s it's less than 10% of their fleet.

As for the TATL routes, they'll probably just fly people through YUL or YOW. In the off-season, there should be enough widebody slack in the fleet to upgauge if necessary, and they are already operating an A330 between Montreal and Halifax for cargo purposes.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:32 pm
by alan3
IWMBH wrote:
According to planespotter.net no AC A320-family aircraft are stored, so this means their NB fleet has just shrunk with 25%. Thats huge...


I wonder, would they need to consider any temporary dry or wet leases to get additional aircraft into service? Or make do with consolidating flights and maybe adding Rouge aircraft?

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:34 pm
by skipness1E
The two ETOPS A319s C-GITP/R went to Rouge alas.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:41 pm
by whywhyzee
Outside of the Hawaii flying, nothing else really needs a widebody, so I imagine they will just run the narrowbodies at a higher rate of utilization. Widebodies can consolidate where necessary. I'd imagine YYZ-YYC/YEG with see some 787s to pick up the slack.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:43 pm
by Thunderbolt500
Just use a wide body over the North Atlantic instead of a single aisle plane.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:52 pm
by whywhyzee
Thunderbolt500 wrote:
Just use a wide body over the North Atlantic instead of a single aisle plane.


All the TATL max flying just won't operate by the looks of it.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:53 pm
by Airlinerdude
longhauler wrote:
The narrow body fleet has gone from 143 aircraft to 119 aircraft. Not insignificant, but also, not 25%.


That's an interesting spin. The AC NB fleet just dropped from 112 to 88 excluding Jetz - a 21% drop. RV is a subsidiary of AC, has their own crew and their own flying program to deal with. I haven't seen any RV for AC subs planned for today or tomorrow.

alan3 wrote:
IWMBH wrote:
According to planespotter.net no AC A320-family aircraft are stored, so this means their NB fleet has just shrunk with 25%. Thats huge...


I wonder, would they need to consider any temporary dry or wet leases to get additional aircraft into service? Or make do with consolidating flights and maybe adding Rouge aircraft?


A couple of consolidations to Hawaii as mentioned above.

Tomorrow's YUL/LAX will be consolidated to a single 333.
A few DH4s have popped up on the YVR-YYC rotations for tomorrow.
A 789 has popped up on YHZ tomorrow afternoon.

It should be fun to watch some airplane subs tomorrow and for however long the grounding occurs. Ultimately maybe looking at some leasing of aircraft if the situation is prolonged.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:03 pm
by dampfnudel
nname wrote:
YVR-HNL will consolidate into one flight and operated by 77W
YVR-OGG will consolidate into one flight and operated by 789
YVR-CUN/PVR/SJD/ZIH will operated by 321
YVR-KOA looks like it will be cancelled

YVR-LIH will probably be cancelled as well. HA might want to consider an extra daily flight from HNL to LIH.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:15 pm
by longhauler
Airlinerdude wrote:
The AC NB fleet just dropped from 112 to 88 excluding Jetz - a 21% drop. RV is a subsidiary of AC, has their own crew and their own flying program to deal with. I haven't seen any RV for AC subs planned for today or tomorrow.

Rouge is operated and controlled by Air Canada. It would be no more difficult to sub a flight using a Rouge aircraft than it would be to use a mainline A320. It's all Air Canada.

As you know, this is Ontario March Break. Things were already being run pretty tight, Rouge included. If this grounding lasts for any length of time, you will most certainly see Rouge subbing for mainline flights.

There is already some slack built into the 767 and E190 operations, as they are winding down. There are aircraft and there are crew.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:39 pm
by Airlinerdude
longhauler wrote:
Rouge is operated and controlled by Air Canada. It would be no more difficult to sub a flight using a Rouge aircraft than it would be to use a mainline A320. It's all Air Canada.


Point was that there is a dichotomy between AC and RV. AC pilots don't fly RV planes and vice versa. So you'll have crewing challenges if you start throwing a bunch of extra sectors at RV without the crews to support the large uptick in flying.

Looks like a lot of the loads intra-East are actually fairly light, I bet we'll see a few consolidations on some of the more frequent routes.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:44 pm
by longhauler
Airlinerdude wrote:
Point was that there is a dichotomy between AC and RV. AC pilots don't fly RV planes and vice versa. So you'll have crewing challenges if you start throwing a bunch of extra sectors at RV without the crews to support the large uptick in flying.

No more so than subbing by using any other aircraft type in the fleet.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:56 pm
by Airlinerdude
longhauler wrote:
Airlinerdude wrote:
Point was that there is a dichotomy between AC and RV. AC pilots don't fly RV planes and vice versa. So you'll have crewing challenges if you start throwing a bunch of extra sectors at RV without the crews to support the large uptick in flying.

No more so than subbing by using any other aircraft type in the fleet.


That's correct, that's why myself and the previous poster stated AC NB fleet. It might seem like a trivial difference to you, but RV is a Limited Partnership, a separate entity from Air Canada. We should always look at each subsidiary as a separate operating unit. This is no different than LH/OS/LX which we would distinguish as separate operating entities.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:15 pm
by ac33e
Airlinerdude wrote:
longhauler wrote:
The narrow body fleet has gone from 143 aircraft to 119 aircraft. Not insignificant, but also, not 25%.


That's an interesting spin. The AC NB fleet just dropped from 112 to 88 excluding Jetz - a 21% drop. RV is a subsidiary of AC, has their own crew and their own flying program to deal with. I haven't seen any RV for AC subs planned for today or tomorrow.

alan3 wrote:
IWMBH wrote:
According to planespotter.net no AC A320-family aircraft are stored, so this means their NB fleet has just shrunk with 25%. Thats huge...


I wonder, would they need to consider any temporary dry or wet leases to get additional aircraft into service? Or make do with consolidating flights and maybe adding Rouge aircraft?


A couple of consolidations to Hawaii as mentioned above.

Tomorrow's YUL/LAX will be consolidated to a single 333.
A few DH4s have popped up on the YVR-YYC rotations for tomorrow.
A 789 has popped up on YHZ tomorrow afternoon.

It should be fun to watch some airplane subs tomorrow and for however long the grounding occurs. Ultimately maybe looking at some leasing of aircraft if the situation is prolonged.


FDF-YUL was operated by Rouge 321 today. Suppose the Caribbean ops will also see some cuts where necessary to be able to accommodate pax. Some people probably want to stay extra days in a resort though.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:16 pm
by longhauler
Airlinerdude wrote:
That's correct, that's why myself and the previous poster stated AC NB fleet. It might seem like a trivial difference to you, but RV is a Limited Partnership, a separate entity from Air Canada. We should always look at each subsidiary as a separate operating unit. This is no different than LH/OS/LX which we would distinguish as separate operating entities.

The big difference is that LH and OS and LX are different operations.

Whereas Rouge is just another Air Canada flight being operated by Air Canada employees, handled by Air Canada employees and controlled by Air Canada. The only difference operationally and internally is what is painted on the tail and what napkins are on the dinner trays. Externally, it may look like another "airline" as the call sign is different, internally it is just another Air Canada aircraft.

That is why if one were to look at the impact of of the grounding of the Max-8 aircraft as a percentage of the Air Canada NB fleet, Rouge is no different than say the E190 or A320. Each type with its own crews, aircraft and commitments. (During equipment bidding time, pilots often go from mainline A320 to Rouge A319 and back again, unlike say OS to LH).

That is why I did not include the E175s of Skyregional or any Jazz aircraft, even though most certainly they will be used during this time ... as more like LH/OS/LX, they are different operations.

But when you factor in Wide Body operations as a percentage, the effect is even less. It is fun to watch the shuffle. For example ... a 777 subbing for two A321s YYZ-YVR so that the A321s can now fly the Max routes out of YVR to Mexico, or YYZ to PBI. Or Skyregional and Jazz picking up some Max flying on both coasts.

Like I said, this is not insignificant ... but it isn't "a 25% reduction of the fleet".

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:21 pm
by sixtyseven
I would think the Hawaiian flying for AC to the islands will present far greater challenges. Passengers can be rerouted easier thru ACs present networks in the UK. No Rouge base in YVR...

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:21 pm
by Vladex
I am in Canada, AC bought a cheap and apparently flawed aircraft and they deserve to be exposed for it. They were boasting about it. In the open market they would be finished but aviation is a total government entity so they are protected as it's in their name.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:33 pm
by airnorth
Vladex wrote:
I am in Canada, AC bought a cheap and apparently flawed aircraft and they deserve to be exposed for it. They were boasting about it. In the open market they would be finished but aviation is a total government entity so they are protected as it's in their name.

Ridiculous statement, Trolling.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:38 pm
by Airlinerdude
longhauler wrote:
Whereas Rouge is just another Air Canada flight being operated by Air Canada employees, handled by Air Canada employees and controlled by Air Canada. The only difference operationally and internally is what is painted on the tail and what napkins are on the dinner trays. Externally, it may look like another "airline" as the call sign is different, internally it is just another Air Canada aircraft.

That is why if one were to look at the impact of of the grounding of the Max-8 aircraft as a percentage of the Air Canada NB fleet


Let's just be glad that you don't work on the administration side of things if that's how you think it works. The assets, like the entities, are separate.

For example: if AC wants to substitute a AC flight with a RV aircraft, AC will have to pay a transfer fee (which is essentially a market rate for the transaction) to RV for operating the flight - a taxable transaction. AC gets taxed on the profit they earn from the flight, and RV gets taxed on the profit they get from operating the flight for AC. Each entity is taxed unlike in the US.

Another example, RV could feasibly go bankrupt without impacting the liquidity status of AC.

The entity and asset division is important. As per TC, RV's aircraft are owned by RV, not AC. Hence the distinction.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:41 pm
by Dominion301
For the next little while I could see the YHZ-LHR 4x and YYT-LHR 3x reverting back to last winter’s YHZ-LHR 2x and YHZ-YYT-LHR 2x on the 763 operation.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:54 pm
by whywhyzee
Dominion301 wrote:
For the next little while I could see the YHZ-LHR 4x and YYT-LHR 3x reverting back to last winter’s YHZ-LHR 2x and YHZ-YYT-LHR 2x on the 763 operation.


For the time being, the routes are cancelled.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:00 am
by longhauler
Airlinerdude wrote:
For example: if AC wants to substitute a AC flight with a RV aircraft, AC will have to pay a transfer fee (which is essentially a market rate for the transaction) to RV for operating the flight - a taxable transaction. AC gets taxed on the profit they earn from the flight, and RV gets taxed on the profit they get from operating the flight for AC. Each entity is taxed unlike in the US.

Oh I am quite certain, that when it comes to "tax time" the lawyers and accountants are making sure numbers are moved about to their best advantage.

But ... for the several Rouge rescue operations that I have personally flown, (indicating to me that it is somewhat common), that decision was made at an operational level. Namely, Air Canada Systems Operation Control, decided that this mainline aircraft would go here, that was one there, replacing that Rouge flight which replaces that mainline flight etc etc etc. Each is just another line on the matrix indicating an aircraft.

SOC would be doing then, what they are doing now ... trying to get everyone where they want to be. What happens at tax time is the least of their worries. But the Rouge aircraft are most certainly at their disposal for use.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:00 am
by B747forever
sixtyseven wrote:
I would think the Hawaiian flying for AC to the islands will present far greater challenges. Passengers can be rerouted easier thru ACs present networks in the UK. No Rouge base in YVR...


As of now they have consolidated several flights into fewer WB. Once in Hawaii it is easy to reach the final destination with a multitude of HA flights.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am
by Airlinerdude
longhauler wrote:
But the Rouge aircraft are most certainly at their disposal for use.


I'm sure they will be! No hard feelings either, I just happen to be in one of the professions you mentioned earlier, so I generally prefer to educate about the legal way to look at this situation, rather than the colloquial way.

LH, do you have any insights on the Hawaii operations over the next few days? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I assume they're doing a 3 or 4 crew operation and operating HNL and OGG as turns this evening? I suppose that's the only way to stay within the duty regulations.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:14 am
by sixtyseven
B747forever wrote:
sixtyseven wrote:
I would think the Hawaiian flying for AC to the islands will present far greater challenges. Passengers can be rerouted easier thru ACs present networks in the UK. No Rouge base in YVR...


As of now they have consolidated several flights into fewer WB. Once in Hawaii it is easy to reach the final destination with a multitude of HA flights.


I figured that would be the case. Any idea if it’s mainline or rouge??

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:26 am
by njdevilsin03
Would it make sense to take some of the Rouge 767s off the Florida routes and swap them to the max routes and use a321s and variations of other aircraft on the florida runs?

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:27 am
by alan3
Vladex wrote:
I am in Canada, AC bought a cheap and apparently flawed aircraft and they deserve to be exposed for it. They were boasting about it. In the open market they would be finished but aviation is a total government entity so they are protected as it's in their name.


That is rather asinine. Nobody deserves this. AC bought the newest plane by the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, as did dozens of other airlines. From a pax point of view it’s one of the nicer narrowbody experiences I’ve flown in a while. Hopefully whatever is causing this can be worked out soon.

There are lots of reasons in Canadian aviation history to be resentful of Air Canada’s historically cozy relationship with the government, but this is not one of them.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:28 am
by B747forever
sixtyseven wrote:
B747forever wrote:
sixtyseven wrote:
I would think the Hawaiian flying for AC to the islands will present far greater challenges. Passengers can be rerouted easier thru ACs present networks in the UK. No Rouge base in YVR...


As of now they have consolidated several flights into fewer WB. Once in Hawaii it is easy to reach the final destination with a multitude of HA flights.


I figured that would be the case. Any idea if it’s mainline or rouge??


See the 3rd reply:

YVR-HNL will consolidate into one flight and operated by 77W
YVR-OGG will consolidate into one flight and operated by 789
YVR-CUN/PVR/SJD/ZIH will operated by 321
YVR-KOA looks like it will be cancelled

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:34 am
by smartplane
longhauler wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
And when the Max8's ban gets lifted, pilots will wait until they reach FL39 & cruising speed before engaging the autopilot... :duck:

I know that was meant in jest, but remember, MCAS is only active when the autopilot is off and flaps are retracted.

Also, every Air Canada 737 pilot has been trained and passed Stab Runaway and Unreliable Airspeed exercises in the simulator.

This being the case, and M. Garneau being aware of this, I am curious about the "new information received this morning" that changed his mind.

Perhaps the 'new information', is that in certain circumstances, your paragraph one has been found to be incorrect?

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:05 am
by BoeingGuy
smartplane wrote:
longhauler wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
And when the Max8's ban gets lifted, pilots will wait until they reach FL39 & cruising speed before engaging the autopilot... :duck:

I know that was meant in jest, but remember, MCAS is only active when the autopilot is off and flaps are retracted.

Also, every Air Canada 737 pilot has been trained and passed Stab Runaway and Unreliable Airspeed exercises in the simulator.

This being the case, and M. Garneau being aware of this, I am curious about the "new information received this morning" that changed his mind.

Perhaps the 'new information', is that in certain circumstances, your paragraph one has been found to be incorrect?


Paragraph 1 is correct. MCAS is inhibited if Autopilot is On or Flaps not Up. No if ands or buts or certain circumstances.

The apparent new information is they saw some new radar data that indicated the flight profile was very similar to Ryan Air. Also it has been reported that they found something at the crash site about the airplane configuration that is similar to Lion Air but they haven’t yet said what it is.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:07 am
by SuperTwin
Vladex wrote:
I am in Canada, AC bought a cheap and apparently flawed aircraft and they deserve to be exposed for it. They were boasting about it. In the open market they would be finished but aviation is a total government entity so they are protected as it's in their name.


You build no credibility by making such idiotic statements.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:07 am
by BoeingGuy
B747forever wrote:
sixtyseven wrote:
B747forever wrote:

As of now they have consolidated several flights into fewer WB. Once in Hawaii it is easy to reach the final destination with a multitude of HA flights.


I figured that would be the case. Any idea if it’s mainline or rouge??


See the 3rd reply:

YVR-HNL will consolidate into one flight and operated by 77W
YVR-OGG will consolidate into one flight and operated by 789
YVR-CUN/PVR/SJD/ZIH will operated by 321
YVR-KOA looks like it will be cancelled


Is this the first time that a 787 has gone into OGG?

I guess they could combine LIH and KOA into one 777 or 787 flight if they had the equipment. Pretty sure a 789 could do LIH-KOA. Might even be able to do LIH-YVR.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:34 am
by Whiteguy
BoeingGuy wrote:
B747forever wrote:
sixtyseven wrote:

I figured that would be the case. Any idea if it’s mainline or rouge??


See the 3rd reply:

YVR-HNL will consolidate into one flight and operated by 77W
YVR-OGG will consolidate into one flight and operated by 789
YVR-CUN/PVR/SJD/ZIH will operated by 321
YVR-KOA looks like it will be cancelled


Is this the first time that a 787 has gone into OGG?

I guess they could combine LIH and KOA into one 777 or 787 flight if they had the equipment. Pretty sure a 789 could do LIH-KOA. Might even be able to do LIH-YVR.


LIH & KOA are canceled for now.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:58 am
by Vladex
alan3 wrote:
Vladex wrote:
I am in Canada, AC bought a cheap and apparently flawed aircraft and they deserve to be exposed for it. They were boasting about it. In the open market they would be finished but aviation is a total government entity so they are protected as it's in their name.


That is rather asinine. Nobody deserves this. AC bought the newest plane by the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, as did dozens of other airlines. From a pax point of view it’s one of the nicer narrowbody experiences I’ve flown in a while. Hopefully whatever is causing this can be worked out soon.

There are lots of reasons in Canadian aviation history to be resentful of Air Canada’s historically cozy relationship with the government, but this is not one of them.


It's a 50 year old dinosaur that is totally outdated that they bought for really cheap which somehow encouraged Boeing to go after and almost kill C series. Boeing only went after Bombardier because they got so many cheap orders so they got overconfident.that they could crush a smaller player. So in a convoluted way, government connected AC tried to kill of the only Canadian manufacturer and the only outsider ouf of a duopoly.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:29 am
by TedB777
Vladex wrote:
alan3 wrote:
Vladex wrote:
I am in Canada, AC bought a cheap and apparently flawed aircraft and they deserve to be exposed for it. They were boasting about it. In the open market they would be finished but aviation is a total government entity so they are protected as it's in their name.


That is rather asinine. Nobody deserves this. AC bought the newest plane by the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, as did dozens of other airlines. From a pax point of view it’s one of the nicer narrowbody experiences I’ve flown in a while. Hopefully whatever is causing this can be worked out soon.

There are lots of reasons in Canadian aviation history to be resentful of Air Canada’s historically cozy relationship with the government, but this is not one of them.


It's a 50 year old dinosaur that is totally outdated that they bought for really cheap which somehow encouraged Boeing to go after and almost kill C series. Boeing only went after Bombardier because they got so many cheap orders so they got overconfident.that they could crush a smaller player. So in a convoluted way, government connected AC tried to kill of the only Canadian manufacturer and the only outsider ouf of a duopoly.

Whats with the hate on air canada... they got 45 orders for the cseries, a220 whatever u wanna call it... even tho they could do like everyone else and keep flying there E190s for bunch of years.
The 737 max is going to be a great aircraft and you have to remember West jet and sunwing are also flying it like a bunch of airlines in the us.
And the first one to try to take down the cseries was the government by destroying any chance to the YTZ expansion so porter could fly the cseries out of there...

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:00 am
by continental004
So what's the fate of the upcoming YUL-BOD at this point?

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:03 am
by max999
Air Canada and Westjet will waive rebooking fees, but they will still charge customers any fare difference. I think it's piss poor customer service under the circumstances. They should just waive the fare difference, too.

For example, if your 737 Max flight gets cancelled today and you paid $200 for it. The next available flight is tomorrow, but the ticket price is the full walk up fare at $800. It seems you will have to pay the $600 difference.

https://montrealgazette.com/pmn/busines ... 4599f4e134

Air Canada said it will grant affected customers on its roughly 75 daily Max 8 flights a full fee waiver — though that may not cover higher fares for a rebooked flight — along with “the ability to obtain a full refund.”

-------------------------------------

WestJet said the grounding order will affect about 1,400 customers daily. The Calgary-based company said it will “attempt to rebook guests for no additional charge,” but is sticking to a policy that could see passengers pay the difference in fares or fees for the changed ticket.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:48 am
by STLflyer
max999 wrote:
Air Canada and Westjet will waive rebooking fees, but they will still charge customers any fare difference. I think it's piss poor customer service under the circumstances. They should just waive the fare difference, too.

For example, if your 737 Max flight gets cancelled today and you paid $200 for it. The next available flight is tomorrow, but the ticket price is the full walk up fare at $800. It seems you will have to pay the $600 difference.

https://montrealgazette.com/pmn/busines ... 4599f4e134

Air Canada said it will grant affected customers on its roughly 75 daily Max 8 flights a full fee waiver — though that may not cover higher fares for a rebooked flight — along with “the ability to obtain a full refund.”

-------------------------------------

WestJet said the grounding order will affect about 1,400 customers daily. The Calgary-based company said it will “attempt to rebook guests for no additional charge,” but is sticking to a policy that could see passengers pay the difference in fares or fees for the changed ticket.



If you've purchased a flight from AAA-BBB, then the airline is responsible to get you from AAA-BBB. I don't think anyone's going to pay more to get rebooked if their MAX flight got canceled. What they're probably not doing is allowing people to reschedule for a later date, fly to a different city, or cancel their reservation.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:26 pm
by whywhyzee
It's a disaster right now, looks like they have a few extra 77Ws on YYZ to pick up the slack, some days, all 4 flights look like they will be 77Ws. YYZ-SFO had 2x daily 789s and 2x daily max 8s, the 2 max flights are still awaiting some replacement, 2x 789s isnt nearly enough right now. YYZ-PBI is gone completely, routing through YUL, YYZ-YYC has seen 9 flights a day become 7 with no real equipment change.

YUL-LAX went from 2x max to 1x A333. YUL-SFO went from 2x max 8 to nothing.

If anyone held any remote belief that this would be absolutely disasterous for AC, this should remove that notion entirely. Once the new A333s arrive, it should help a LITTLE bit, they can delay YVR and YUL-DUB to help clear the backlog.

AC is going to be eating massive losses. Looking at up to $10 million/day taking into account lost revenue, paying over 300 pilots to do nothing, parking fees, lost customers and massive network disruptions.

Re: What MAX Ban Means For Air Canada TATL

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:50 pm
by ACCS300
Do we know if AC is seeking any compensation from Boeing at this point? I know Norwegian is presently pursuing it. IMO the grounding should now financially burden the airlines affected.