AC to return 747-400

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
boeingboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

AC to return 747-400

#1 Post by boeingboy » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:40 am

The word is that Air Canada is returning their 3 combi 747-400's to the leaser in Sept. and replacing them with 2 A340-500's.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Pratt
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: YVR

#2 Post by Pratt » Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:32 pm

They have received 1 of the 340-500's already, the other is coming shortly. As for the retiring of the 747-400's, I haven't heard anything about that.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
lazionic
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: u/s bench

#3 Post by lazionic » Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:02 am

they are returning the combi's back to the lessor at the end of september. The lessor wants the original engines back on the combi's so we have to do 16 engine changes. :?
---------- ADS -----------
  
If you think a professional costs a lot, wait until you see what an amateur will cost you ;)

loopy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:59 am

#4 Post by loopy » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:03 am

Doesn't AC make some good revenue off the freight in those combi's? I'm guessing although the 340-500 cariies a good load of baggage, ot doesn't have the freight capacity of a 747-400 combi.
---------- ADS -----------
  

loopy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:59 am

#5 Post by loopy » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:04 am

Doesn't AC make some good revenue off the freight in those combi's? I'm guessing although the 340-500 cariies a good load of baggage, ot doesn't have the freight capacity of a 747-400 combi. :?
---------- ADS -----------
  

loopy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:59 am

#6 Post by loopy » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:04 am

Doesn't AC make some good revenue off the freight in those combi's? I'm guessing although the 340-500 cariies a good load of baggage, ot doesn't have the freight capacity of a 747-400 combi. :?
---------- ADS -----------
  

loopy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:59 am

#7 Post by loopy » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:09 am

Ooops. I kept getting an error message and didn't think my post was going through. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

The Hammer
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:46 am

#8 Post by The Hammer » Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:25 am

The AC 747-400 combi is not a very successful airplane, it has a very heavy empty weight and combined with PW engines, (identical to AC 767 engines)is under powered (relative to the RR and GE versions). Throw in the fact that there are only 3 a/c to support a training department/flight crews and maintenance spares, this decision should have been made long ago. I would even venture to say "not at all" seeing as these a/c were delivered new to the desert in the early 90's and sat for quite awhile. It;s decision like these that got AC to where they are now -IN CCAA!!!
---------- ADS -----------
  

boeingboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

#9 Post by boeingboy » Sun Jul 04, 2004 11:34 pm

Actually - only one of the three is PW powered. The other 2 - like the bulk of the A/C 767-300 fleet - are powered by the GE CF6-80. I agree with all your other comments.
---------- ADS -----------
  

The Hammer
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:46 am

#10 Post by The Hammer » Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:16 am

Thanks Boeing, I got the engine names mixed up, but I believe the under powered statement is correct (AC made the "Fuel Efficient" choice) :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”