Air Canada News And Discussion Thread - 2020

FabienA380 · Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:57 pm

Is it an appropriate thread?

Says 3 B77Ws are been quickly reconfigured to carry cargo only.

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2020-04 ... sary-Cargo

""
The three Boeing 777-300ER aircraft are being converted by Avianor, an aircraft maintenance and cabin integration specialist, at its Montreal-Mirabel facility. Avianor developed a specific engineering solution to remove 422 passenger seats and designate cargo loading zones for light weight boxes containing medical equipment and restrained with cargo nets. This modification has been developed, produced and implemented within six days. All operations have been certified and approved by Transport Canada.
""

Aircellist · Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:42 am

That is an interestingly short timespan.

pictues1981 · Sun Apr 12, 2020 3:04 am

Aircellist wrote:
That is an interestingly short timespan.

Short however not that difficult. I am sure Transport Canada worked with Air Canada and the company converting the aircraft quickly due to the need of full freighter aircraft to transport medical and other supplies. I would rather that then all the money going to foreign carriers to bring in the supplies. This will help keep Canadians working.

Airlinerdude · Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:45 pm

Air Canada cutting flights to the US effective April 26th until May 22nd:

Air Canada has announced it is suspending service to the United States after Canada and the U.S. agreed to extend restrictions on cross-border travel for another 30 days because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The airline said Tuesday its last commercial flights between Canada and the U.S. will be on April 26. It plans to resume service May 22, unless government restrictions are extended again. It will waive change fees for affected customers.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-ca ... -1.5539796

Dominion301 · Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:41 am

Airlinerdude wrote:
Air Canada cutting flights to the US effective April 26th until May 22nd:

Air Canada has announced it is suspending service to the United States after Canada and the U.S. agreed to extend restrictions on cross-border travel for another 30 days because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The airline said Tuesday its last commercial flights between Canada and the U.S. will be on April 26. It plans to resume service May 22, unless government restrictions are extended again. It will waive change fees for affected customers.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-ca ... -1.5539796

It’ll probably go beyond that date.

whywhyzee · Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:41 am

Crazy impressive stuff. Block time of 16:55.

Some data from the ofp:
It took off at 239 tons, 95 tons of fuel, 17 tons of payload. 8558nm filed route.

MTOW is 254 tons, max fuel is 102.7 tons. It could theoretically have taken full passengers (30 tons payload) given the winds today with extra gas to account for the higher weight, or taken the same payload an extra hour or so.

Scale that to a post Covid world, the performance isn't there yet to run Eastern NA-SYD direct, but with the rumoured CMC PiP or the rumoured 260T MTOW bump, it could easily be within reach. This plane is insane.

DylanHarvey · Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:23 am

The 789 is flying routes at or close to 17hrs daily, and a few that go over 17hrs. The 77L, 789, and both A350's can carry 30+ tons on this, 77L and 350's getting 40+

GEUltraFan9XGTF · Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:26 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
The 789 is flying routes at or close to 17hrs daily, and a few that go over 17hrs. The 77L, 789, and both A350's can carry 30+ tons on this, 77L and 350's getting 40+

Didn't take but one post for the other models to come into the thread. What do they have to do with the B789?

DylanHarvey · Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:34 am

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
The 789 is flying routes at or close to 17hrs daily, and a few that go over 17hrs. The 77L, 789, and both A350's can carry 30+ tons on this, 77L and 350's getting 40+

Didn't take but one post for the other models to come into the thread. What do they have to do with the B789?

I was just mentioning it. Nothing to downplay the revelation of an aircraft the 789 is. Absolutely love both.

x1234 · Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:57 am

Yeah its east-bound. UA's IAH-SYD is similar with a air time of 17.5 hours west-bound. And it will be similar to Air NZ's planned AKL-EWR.

NW · Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:24 am

Where is the planned stop? Or is it non stop?

Exrampieyyz · Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:50 pm

On the flight out to SYD it stopped in LAX

Exrampieyyz · Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:55 pm

Actually another on its way right now
AC7217 C-FRTU 04/27

jetblueguy22 · Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:00 pm

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
The 789 is flying routes at or close to 17hrs daily, and a few that go over 17hrs. The 77L, 789, and both A350's can carry 30+ tons on this, 77L and 350's getting 40+

Didn't take but one post for the other models to come into the thread. What do they have to do with the B789?

You need a comparison. The 787’s capability could be absolutely incredible, or it can be average for an aircraft of its size.

QF93 · Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:05 pm

Is there significant demand for cargo between Australia and Canada, that can’t be satisfied via the existing (albeit reduced) cargo services to Australia from the U.S. or Asia?

zeke · Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:10 pm

whywhyzee wrote:
Some data from the ofp:
It took off at 239 tons, 95 tons of fuel, 17 tons of payload. 8558nm filed route.

Seems far too light, have the removed the seats from the cabin ?

TropicalSky · Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:21 pm

Only their 777's & Q400's have been converted

https://simpleflying.com/dash-8-cargo-plane/
Canadian cabin cargo conversions

Through its cargo division, Air Canada has been using commercial passenger aircraft for cargo-only flights that it would otherwise have parked. Furthermore, the airline has even done some cabin converting of its own to maximize capacity. The airline has reconfigured three of its Boeing 777ER aircraft to hold cargo rather than passenger seats.

zeke wrote:
whywhyzee wrote:
Some data from the ofp:
It took off at 239 tons, 95 tons of fuel, 17 tons of payload. 8558nm filed route.

Seems far too light, have the removed the seats from the cabin ?

SwissCanuck · Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:52 pm

Exrampieyyz wrote:
Actually another on its way right now
AC7217 C-FRTU 04/27

Stopped for a coffee and fuel at LAX.

I don't get the point of doing YYZ-SYD direct - it's cargo it doesn't care. Why not do this with a tech stop and cut a massive chunk of the fuel bill? Burning 5t of fuel for every 1t of cargo.

LDRA · Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:15 pm

You call it impressive, I call it overkill

BNEFlyer · Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:54 pm

NW wrote:
Where is the planned stop? Or is it non stop?

SYD-YYZ was non-stop, YYZ-SYD was direct.

SeaEagle8 · Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:14 pm

SYD has seen quite a few Air Canada flights in the last few days. 789s and 77Ws. The YYZ flights stopping in LAX westbound and nonstop eastbound. YVR flights remain nonstop as normal.

CFM565A1 · Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:25 pm

Impressive stuff!

sixtyseven · Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:41 pm

SwissCanuck wrote:
Exrampieyyz wrote:
Actually another on its way right now
AC7217 C-FRTU 04/27

Stopped for a coffee and fuel at LAX.

I don't get the point of doing YYZ-SYD direct - it's cargo it doesn't care. Why not do this with a tech stop and cut a massive chunk of the fuel bill? Burning 5t of fuel for every 1t of cargo.

Where do you you get this fuel stat?

Exrampieyyz · Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:07 am

sixtyseven wrote:
SwissCanuck wrote:
Exrampieyyz wrote:
Actually another on its way right now
AC7217 C-FRTU 04/27

Stopped for a coffee and fuel at LAX.

I don't get the point of doing YYZ-SYD direct - it's cargo it doesn't care. Why not do this with a tech stop and cut a massive chunk of the fuel bill? Burning 5t of fuel for every 1t of cargo.

Where do you you get this fuel stat?

Yea I'm sure I'd be cheaper to fly non stop if you could. Decending, landing, taxiing, takeoff, climbing.
Gotta use much more fuel. They would only stop if they had too

Whiteguy · Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:12 am

TropicalSky wrote:
Only their 777's & Q400's have been converted

https://simpleflying.com/dash-8-cargo-plane/
Canadian cabin cargo conversions

Through its cargo division, Air Canada has been using commercial passenger aircraft for cargo-only flights that it would otherwise have parked. Furthermore, the airline has even done some cabin converting of its own to maximize capacity. The airline has reconfigured three of its Boeing 777ER aircraft to hold cargo rather than passenger seats.

zeke wrote:
whywhyzee wrote:
Some data from the ofp:
It took off at 239 tons, 95 tons of fuel, 17 tons of payload. 8558nm filed route.

Seems far too light, have the removed the seats from the cabin ?

3 A330s are getting seats removed as well for cargo.

CRJ900 · Tue Apr 28, 2020 8:28 am

17 tonnes of cargo - does that mean the cargo holds were stuffed to the brim and empty cabin, or did they have light cargo items in passenger seats and overhead bins too?

cedarjet · Tue Apr 28, 2020 8:46 am

Exrampieyyz wrote:
Yea I'm sure I'd be cheaper to fly non stop if you could. Decending, landing, taxiing, takeoff, climbing.
Gotta use much more fuel. They would only stop if they had too

Actually the weight of the extra fuel needed for the nonstop severely impacts fuel burn overall, especially in the first half of the flight, so taking half the fuel needed and stopping en route is much more efficient. Cargo doesn’t care if a long trip takes an extra hour which is why Anchorage is still a Mecca for 747Fs and MD-11Fs doing a splash-n-dash. Long haul nonstop has evolved because of passenger preference, not economics.

SwissCanuck · Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:20 am

sixtyseven wrote:
SwissCanuck wrote:
Exrampieyyz wrote:
Actually another on its way right now
AC7217 C-FRTU 04/27

Stopped for a coffee and fuel at LAX.

I don't get the point of doing YYZ-SYD direct - it's cargo it doesn't care. Why not do this with a tech stop and cut a massive chunk of the fuel bill? Burning 5t of fuel for every 1t of cargo.

Where do you you get this fuel stat?

Have you read the post you're replying to?

cedarjet wrote:
Exrampieyyz wrote:
Yea I'm sure I'd be cheaper to fly non stop if you could. Decending, landing, taxiing, takeoff, climbing.
Gotta use much more fuel. They would only stop if they had too

Actually the weight of the extra fuel needed for the nonstop severely impacts fuel burn overall, especially in the first half of the flight, so taking half the fuel needed and stopping en route is much more efficient. Cargo doesn’t care if a long trip takes an extra hour which is why Anchorage is still a Mecca for 747Fs and MD-11Fs doing a splash-n-dash. Long haul nonstop has evolved because of passenger preference, not economics.

This is correct - the equation is logarithmic not linear so the savings would be substantial.

thepinkmachine · Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:36 am

zeke wrote:
whywhyzee wrote:
Some data from the ofp:
It took off at 239 tons, 95 tons of fuel, 17 tons of payload. 8558nm filed route.

Seems far too light, have the removed the seats from the cabin ?

@Zeke, it seems legit. ~127T DOW with seats installed is what our birds weigh...

Exrampieyyz · Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:39 pm

cedarjet wrote:
Exrampieyyz wrote:
Yea I'm sure I'd be cheaper to fly non stop if you could. Decending, landing, taxiing, takeoff, climbing.
Gotta use much more fuel. They would only stop if they had too

Actually the weight of the extra fuel needed for the nonstop severely impacts fuel burn overall, especially in the first half of the flight, so taking half the fuel needed and stopping en route is much more efficient. Cargo doesn’t care if a long trip takes an extra hour which is why Anchorage is still a Mecca for 747Fs and MD-11Fs doing a splash-n-dash. Long haul nonstop has evolved because of passenger preference, not economics.

Well I'm just a rampie but if this is true then why are all these east asian cargo flights not stopping in ANC either way from YYZ or YUL. Also a 77W right now flying AKL-YVR why not stop in HNL.
I've seen plenty of FedEx going non stop east bound from China, Japan to MEM. Yes most stop but isn't this from MTW not being able to carry the extra fuel.
Again with the descent, approach, taxiing, landing fees, ground handling fees, another climb out, another cycle on the airframe, extra pilot time. Its gotta be cheaper going non stop.

jetblueguy22 · Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:54 pm

cedarjet wrote:
Exrampieyyz wrote:
Yea I'm sure I'd be cheaper to fly non stop if you could. Decending, landing, taxiing, takeoff, climbing.
Gotta use much more fuel. They would only stop if they had too

Actually the weight of the extra fuel needed for the nonstop severely impacts fuel burn overall, especially in the first half of the flight, so taking half the fuel needed and stopping en route is much more efficient. Cargo doesn’t care if a long trip takes an extra hour which is why Anchorage is still a Mecca for 747Fs and MD-11Fs doing a splash-n-dash. Long haul nonstop has evolved because of passenger preference, not economics.

Cargo does care, it’s simply a matter of cost vs benefit. At my airline we schedule the fuel stop for planning, but if you can take the load and go nonstop you do it.

I don’t know where this mindset came that cargo doesn’t care about an extra stop. The customers who bought space on the aircraft often do, and they usually will pay a premium. An extra stop can easily add another day to the transit for a package airline.

Cargo doesn’t care about the bumps, about everything else is the same. People want their stuff now. If they didn’t they would have put it on a ship or a train

zeke · Tue Apr 28, 2020 7:01 pm

thepinkmachine wrote:
@Zeke, it seems legit. ~127T DOW with seats installed is what our birds weigh...

Thanks

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Again with the descent, approach, taxiing, landing fees, ground handling fees, another climb out, another cycle on the airframe, extra pilot time. Its gotta be cheaper going non stop.

I did a few flight plans for a 787-9 taking just 17 tonnes of cargo, no catering, and no passengers. One plan from SYD-YYZ non stop, 16 h 36 min 85,678 kg of fuel, another SYD-HNL-YYZ, 17 h 04 min, 79,029 kg of fuel, SYD-YVR-YYZ 17 h 09 m, 83,599 kg.

It would have probably been cheaper to go SYD-YVR-YYZ, SYD-YVR probably 3 pilots (45.9 hrs), YVR-YYZ two pilots (7.4 hrs, 53.3 hrs total), SYD-YYZ, 4 pilots (66.8 hrs).

Not a lot of difference in fuel cost, at $139 / tonne, going via YVR saves a few tonnes, or $288 in fuel (at $139/tonne).

Exrampieyyz · Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:23 pm

zeke wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
@Zeke, it seems legit. ~127T DOW with seats installed is what our birds weigh...

Thanks

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Again with the descent, approach, taxiing, landing fees, ground handling fees, another climb out, another cycle on the airframe, extra pilot time. Its gotta be cheaper going non stop.

I did a few flight plans for a 787-9 taking just 17 tonnes of cargo, no catering, and no passengers. One plan from SYD-YYZ non stop, 16 h 36 min 85,678 kg of fuel, another SYD-HNL-YYZ, 17 h 04 min, 79,029 kg of fuel, SYD-YVR-YYZ 17 h 09 m, 83,599 kg.

It would have probably been cheaper to go SYD-YVR-YYZ, SYD-YVR probably 3 pilots (45.9 hrs), YVR-YYZ two pilots (7.4 hrs, 53.3 hrs total), SYD-YYZ, 4 pilots (66.8 hrs).

Not a lot of difference in fuel cost, at $139 / tonne, going via YVR saves a few tonnes, or $288 in fuel (at $139/tonne).

Thanks for all the numbers!
So with fuel costs not a big factor, pilots offering more savings. As LAX772LR asks what are the deciding factors?
And who makes the non-stop decision? Dispatch?

yzfElite · Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:01 pm

Any numbers on the average cost of a technical stop (landing fees, maintenance costs amortization for the extra cycle, fuel for take-off/climb, etc.)?

sixtyseven · Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:27 pm

Exrampieyyz wrote:
zeke wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
@Zeke, it seems legit. ~127T DOW with seats installed is what our birds weigh...

Thanks

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Again with the descent, approach, taxiing, landing fees, ground handling fees, another climb out, another cycle on the airframe, extra pilot time. Its gotta be cheaper going non stop.

I did a few flight plans for a 787-9 taking just 17 tonnes of cargo, no catering, and no passengers. One plan from SYD-YYZ non stop, 16 h 36 min 85,678 kg of fuel, another SYD-HNL-YYZ, 17 h 04 min, 79,029 kg of fuel, SYD-YVR-YYZ 17 h 09 m, 83,599 kg.

It would have probably been cheaper to go SYD-YVR-YYZ, SYD-YVR probably 3 pilots (45.9 hrs), YVR-YYZ two pilots (7.4 hrs, 53.3 hrs total), SYD-YYZ, 4 pilots (66.8 hrs).

Not a lot of difference in fuel cost, at $139 / tonne, going via YVR saves a few tonnes, or $288 in fuel (at $139/tonne).

Thanks for all the numbers!
So with fuel costs not a big factor, pilots offering more savings. As LAX772LR asks what are the deciding factors?
And who makes the non-stop decision? Dispatch?

Not sure who is paying for the flight if it’s chartered by the govt I doubt cost savings is a huge concern. They would be very lucrative. Outside freight operators will be signing on as as well rumour one of the big US operators will use AC for pacific flights.

More 330s will have seats removed. The 787 won’t as it’s floor isn’t stressed for such loads (carbon floor) and is limited to belly freight only.

thevery · Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:16 pm

zeke wrote:
I did a few flight plans for a 787-9 taking just 17 tonnes of cargo, no catering, and no passengers. One plan from SYD-YYZ non stop, 16 h 36 min 85,678 kg of fuel, another SYD-HNL-YYZ, 17 h 04 min, 79,029 kg of fuel, SYD-YVR-YYZ 17 h 09 m, 83,599 kg.

I guess that 83,599 kg. is plan with all the reserves rather than actual burn?

Exrampieyyz · Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:05 pm

I saw a AC 333 doing YUL-TLV yesterday. Thats a pretty long haul for the 333 isn't it.

aeromoe · Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:37 am

LDRA wrote:
You call it impressive, I call it overkill

"Overkill"? One could also say "It's A Mistake" If you don't get the reference, check out the album lineup for the Australian band 'Men At Work' album "Cargo"

SwissCanuck · Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:41 am

yzfElite wrote:
Any numbers on the average cost of a technical stop (landing fees, maintenance costs amortization for the extra cycle, fuel for take-off/climb, etc.)?

At some point reducing fuel use has to be the driving factor, not costs. I'm not an environmental extremist, but I do believe we need to cut it out a bit.

AS FOR THOSE TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS: Off topic; please start your own thread before this one gets locked.

fraT · Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:53 am

L0VE2FLY wrote:

What you saw was probably the regular AC YUL-TLV service which has been flown by the A333 for a while, it's more than 1000 miles shorter than DL's A333 DTW-NGO.

Since it was a flight number in the 7000 area, it was not the regular AC flight which is not operating at the moment.

Most likely it was a cargo only flight.

zeke · Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:50 pm

thevery wrote:
I guess that 83,599 kg. is plan with all the reserves rather than actual burn?

That would just be the trip fuel, taxi and reserves are ontop.

alexdelzotto · Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:39 pm

Exrampieyyz wrote:
I saw a AC 333 doing YUL-TLV yesterday. Thats a pretty long haul for the 333 isn't it.

Since TLV started from YUL a few years ago they've been using a A333 on the route. However this summer it is scheduled to operated with the B789.

Exrampieyyz · Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:40 pm

alexdelzotto wrote:
Exrampieyyz wrote:
I saw a AC 333 doing YUL-TLV yesterday. Thats a pretty long haul for the 333 isn't it.

Since TLV started from YUL a few years ago they've been using a A333 on the route. However this summer it is scheduled to operated with the B789.

Thanks for the info. I probably saw that when it started but having been YYZ I don't followYULtoo much thanks again

DylanHarvey · Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:34 pm

fraT wrote:
L0VE2FLY wrote:

What you saw was probably the regular AC YUL-TLV service which has been flown by the A333 for a while, it's more than 1000 miles shorter than DL's A333 DTW-NGO.

Since it was a flight number in the 7000 area, it was not the regular AC flight which is not operating at the moment.

Most likely it was a cargo only flight.

DL use their 230t A332's to NGO.

beechnut · Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:00 pm

Have AC done the cargo conversion on the 333s? I saw an article about the firm that converted the 77Ws and it said they were also doing 333s, but it wasn't clear if it was AC's birds or someone else's.

Beech

yzfElite · Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:33 pm

SwissCanuck wrote:
yzfElite wrote:
Any numbers on the average cost of a technical stop (landing fees, maintenance costs amortization for the extra cycle, fuel for take-off/climb, etc.)?

At some point reducing fuel use has to be the driving factor, not costs. I'm not an environmental extremist, but I do believe we need to cut it out a bit.

AS FOR THOSE TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS: Off topic; please start your own thread before this one gets locked.

That was my question really, how much fuel does a tech stop save, especially when it must take you slightly off the most efficient route and requires additional taxi/take-off and expedites the need for heavy maintenance. I just don’t know if these things are meaningful or negligible.

ExMilitaryEng · Fri May 01, 2020 1:57 am

beechnut wrote:
Have AC done the cargo conversion on the 333s? I saw an article about the firm that converted the 77Ws and it said they were also doing 333s, but it wasn't clear if it was AC's birds or someone else's.
Beech

A La Presse article indicated that four Air Canada A333 are to be also converted by Avianor.

alexdelzotto · Fri May 01, 2020 7:25 pm

beechnut wrote:
Have AC done the cargo conversion on the 333s? I saw an article about the firm that converted the 77Ws and it said they were also doing 333s, but it wasn't clear if it was AC's birds or someone else's.

Beech

Yes 2 ex. TAP fins (939 & 940) were converted to cargo.

One just landed in YUL from TLV.

SpaceshipDC10 · Mon May 04, 2020 11:14 am

"Operating revenue fell to $3.72 billion compared with $4.43 billion in the year ago quarter."

"Air Canada is also accelerating the retirement of 79 older aircraft in a move that it says will simplify the airline's fleet, reduce costs structure and lower its carbon footprint."

https://www.ottawamatters.com/national- ... ic-2321527

It's not surprising but still, more than 1 billion difference compared to last year, that hurts. I wonder how much compensation cargo flights have generated amd Q2 should be interesting to discover in July.

Dutchy · Mon May 04, 2020 11:48 am

So which a/c are going to go.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net