Air Canada mainline to order Boeing 737-MAX
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: Kanada Eh!
''One of my instructors at school said AC isn't allowed hand flying below 10,000 feet which I find hard to believe''
Relief pilot (RP) are not allowed to fly below 10,000feet with AP on or off.
No such restriction for Capt and FO.
Relief pilot (RP) are not allowed to fly below 10,000feet with AP on or off.
No such restriction for Capt and FO.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 782
Likes: 21
From: netherlands
Less payload? Hmmm I think Air Canada know more than you..or I for that matter.
No doubt Air Canada took teh deal that was best for them overall. I guess it was a strategic deal for Boeing.
Others flying transcon are ordering A321s (AA, DL, US, Jetblue). AC ordering a A321NEO subfleet above the 737-9 doesn't seem unlikely.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 661
Likes: 14
From: UK
Keesje, if airlines made decisions based on purely range V payload charts, then everyone would be doing it. Bear in mind they are going to be taking the Max 8, and not the 900.
In the missions that Air Canada will typically use their 737's for will allow for shorter turn times, higher utilisation, and greater revenue.
Air Canada are facing up to the reality that they need an airframe to replace their ageing 320/321's...and in most aspects the max in their configuration will prove to be superior to the NEO.
In the missions that Air Canada will typically use their 737's for will allow for shorter turn times, higher utilisation, and greater revenue.
Air Canada are facing up to the reality that they need an airframe to replace their ageing 320/321's...and in most aspects the max in their configuration will prove to be superior to the NEO.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Canberra
RT787,
Your instructor is talking bollocks. Hand flying is encouraged at Air Canada, when appropriate. As a matter of fact, some of us occasionally hand fly the whole flight (as long as it's fairly short...an hour or so).
I recall hand flying a DC-8 freighter across the Atlantic when we couldn't get the auto-pilot to engage. No auto-thrust either. This was back in the 1980's before RVSM. Wouldn't be allowed to do it now. There were 3 of us on the flight deck and we took turns flying. Pretty exhausted when we got to LHR though. The beer went down well on that layover.
Air Canada pilots have had a ton of experience in some of the worst weather mother nature can through at them before they get hired. Hand flying is not a problem.
Your instructor is talking bollocks. Hand flying is encouraged at Air Canada, when appropriate. As a matter of fact, some of us occasionally hand fly the whole flight (as long as it's fairly short...an hour or so).
I recall hand flying a DC-8 freighter across the Atlantic when we couldn't get the auto-pilot to engage. No auto-thrust either. This was back in the 1980's before RVSM. Wouldn't be allowed to do it now. There were 3 of us on the flight deck and we took turns flying. Pretty exhausted when we got to LHR though. The beer went down well on that layover.
Air Canada pilots have had a ton of experience in some of the worst weather mother nature can through at them before they get hired. Hand flying is not a problem.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The 330 is easier to to hand fly than a 172. Really. It is.
One issue is how busy do you want your "pilot monitoring" to get? He needs to run the FCU as well as the radios and MCDU etc. In a busy terminal its best to offload some of the workload to the automation for better situational awareness and a happier PM.
One issue is how busy do you want your "pilot monitoring" to get? He needs to run the FCU as well as the radios and MCDU etc. In a busy terminal its best to offload some of the workload to the automation for better situational awareness and a happier PM.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: Canada
What safety improvements does the MAX cockpit offer?
I've not read or heard much about that, have you?
If you go through the antiquated B737-2/3/4/5/6/7/8 and 900 series flight deck, I'd imagine most, especially 7-37 crew, are waiting for the damned thing to catch up with today's modern advanced (B-787 and A350 come to mind) technology or will we get handed yet another dressed up 1965 aeroplane that still doesn't have EICAS after how many 'advancements' and new-and-improved versions of it?
If you love to fly aeroplanes, who gives a ratzass about what engine type or percentage of fuel costs are saved? Yer sitting on the flight deck! How about s'more automation and gee whiz stuff. Put the IRSs where a 5' 10" bloke can reach them. Synoptics would help. We have a whole entire generation weened on Synoptics. Pilots don't buy aeroplanes anyway.
When is the single digit fuel cost saving lost through increased fuel prices? Let the financial weenies and airline managers worry about that. I'd prefer to see something state-of-the-art in the MAX. Something that addresses the aeroplanes safety issues and human factors issues. I think it's time these issues were addressed and not just strapping on a 'new' engine.
Otherwise, those new engines and fancy sharklet and sceptre-like winglets are nothing more than a bandaid solution to hopefully keep market share losses to a minimum.
Good choice or bad choice for Air Canada? Doesn't matter. I'm sure there will be some disappointment in the Airbus crews moving over to the MAX.
Willie
I've not read or heard much about that, have you?
If you go through the antiquated B737-2/3/4/5/6/7/8 and 900 series flight deck, I'd imagine most, especially 7-37 crew, are waiting for the damned thing to catch up with today's modern advanced (B-787 and A350 come to mind) technology or will we get handed yet another dressed up 1965 aeroplane that still doesn't have EICAS after how many 'advancements' and new-and-improved versions of it?
If you love to fly aeroplanes, who gives a ratzass about what engine type or percentage of fuel costs are saved? Yer sitting on the flight deck! How about s'more automation and gee whiz stuff. Put the IRSs where a 5' 10" bloke can reach them. Synoptics would help. We have a whole entire generation weened on Synoptics. Pilots don't buy aeroplanes anyway.
When is the single digit fuel cost saving lost through increased fuel prices? Let the financial weenies and airline managers worry about that. I'd prefer to see something state-of-the-art in the MAX. Something that addresses the aeroplanes safety issues and human factors issues. I think it's time these issues were addressed and not just strapping on a 'new' engine.
Otherwise, those new engines and fancy sharklet and sceptre-like winglets are nothing more than a bandaid solution to hopefully keep market share losses to a minimum.
Good choice or bad choice for Air Canada? Doesn't matter. I'm sure there will be some disappointment in the Airbus crews moving over to the MAX.
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 18th December 2013 at 19:50.
