The attributes of the 737MAX joining the AC fleet?

[A321]

Just had a chance to fly on the new Air Canada 737MAX this past weekend. As a passenger, I was happy my flights were only YYZ-YUL-YYZ. Not sure I would want to fly long haul in this bird. On entry to the aircraft the Flight Attendants advertised...for a claustrophobic experience try the LAVs in the rear of the aircraft!

Do AC pilots find the 737MAX an object of desire to fly? Is the technology infused in the front end of the 737MAX office significant enough to make an A319/320/321s from the 80's seem archaic and undesirable?

Is the 737MAX merely a best economic choice for the company without regard to providing an improved passenger experience?

[fish4life]

From a systems point of view the Max is still very 1960’s making the Black cockpit philosophy of a 1980’s Airbus seem like the future. Avionics wise it’s more like a 787 though. As for sitting long haul the 737 fuselage is too narrow to be stuck in it if you have 3 people across and no empty middle seat, definitely noticeable to an A320

[rudder]

Other than the engines, the MAX is dated technology. The only feature resembling a 787 is the flight displays/hgs. The rest of the flight deck systems are the same as the NG series and in some cases the same as the first generation 737. The cabin height/width has not changed so there is only so much that you can do with the useable space while trying to maximize the revenue generating metric (seating). Hull is certified for 189 and AC runs at 169 with J class.

AC got good pricing for these aircraft and unloaded 20 190’s as part of the deal. On paper, the unit costs on the MAX likely are compelling. Whether AC falls in love with the plane will be confirmed by what comes of the MAX options. MAX might be better suited as a Rouge product with max capacity seating configuration.

[ZBBYLW]

Some pilots are excited to "fly a real mans airplane again". Most of us think it's a step backwards. Having been fortunate enough to fly the brand new 321s at Rouge it's an awesome work experience. Quiet, comfortable and great airplane.

I've never flown the 737 but from my understanding is its smaller, louder and a step back in technology. But we bought the airplanes for the bean counters not the pilots or the customer experience. I've heard our old COO had much to do with choosing the 737 over the 320. It's interesting he's no longer employed with us.

[Victory]

Does a 321 have a GPS?

[Gino Under]

Just wait till the C series shows up at Air Canada. Then compare the NG or the MAX with the CS100/300. I can tell you now what pilot and customer preference will be. Then you begin to understand why Boeing's complaint about Bombardier's "dumping" the C series onto American markets is for the threat it poses, not the bargain basement pricing, despite the fact it doesn't even compete with low end 37s.
Boeing and deHavilland? Swing and a miss.
Boeing and Bombardier? Swing and a miss.
Boeing and Embraer? Swing and a miss?

Gino Under

[rudder]

Just wait till the C series shows up at Air Canada. Then compare the NG or the MAX with the CS100/300. I can tell you now what pilot and customer preference will be. Then you begin to understand why Boeing's complaint about Bombardier's "dumping" the C series onto American markets is for the threat it poses, not the bargain basement pricing, despite the fact it doesn't even compete with low end 37s.
Boeing and deHavilland? Swing and a miss.
Boeing and Bombardier? Swing and a miss.
Boeing and Embraer? Swing and a miss?

Gino Under

I am guessing that the CS300 will become the aircraft of choice for the former Airbus pilots. Will be particularly attractive if AC triggers the NB common pay provision.

[JBI]

I've never flown the 737 but from my understanding is its smaller, louder and a step back in technology.

I can only comment from a passenger's perspective, but the MAX is remarkably quiet in the cabin even as compared to an AC 321. I've not been on any of the 320NEO aircraft so couldn't comment there.

However, as others have said, the seat width is noticeably tighter. The other month I had one leg on an older A320 and the second on the MAX (again as a pax), and while I was surprised at how quiet the max was and how many bags you could stuff in the overhead bins, the A320 was still a generally more comfortable ride.

[altiplano]

"Most of us think it's a step backwards"

I don't think that's the case. Maybe the Rouge Airbus pilots like to poo poo it. But I've flown with guys coming off the bus into a 777 who dis that too... cockpit/yoke/no tray table/etc...

I for one am happy to see another fleet joining the airline, my experience is that's what most of us think. I think this thing and it's capabilities are going to do great things for AC. IMO we will still end up with some 321neos soon too and the 737 orders will be converted to all MAX8. We will have enough of each that a mixed NB fleet will still realize economies of scale while exploiting the best capabilities of each.

[Fanblade]

"Most of us think it's a step backwards"

IMO we will still end up with some 321neos soon too and the 737 orders will be converted to all MAX8. We will have enough of each that a mixed NB fleet will still realize economies of scale while exploiting the best capabilities of each.

I agree. I doubt AC will exercise many, if any max 9 derivatives.

I wouldn’t throw out the idea of the max 10 being a contender to replace the 321 though. The trailing link gear should allow for a larger wheel/brake, addressing the brake energy issues created at higher weights.

[confusedalot]

If you want a nicer airplane, choose Airbus.

If you want cost effective (and money making) equipment, the boeing choice is the way to go.

The primary attributes as far as I can see, are, firstly, purchase price, secondly, total operating costs. Durability may or may not have been considered by the cheque writers. A boeing will last forever.

It's all about money, comfort and technology take a back seat in the boardroom as far as I can see.

Airbus is clearly more refined, but Boeing is a tough piece of equipment that does the job.

Money money money, in a rich man's world............

[RVR6000]

99.7% dispatch reliability vs. 99.35% for an A320. Maintenance cost on a Boeing are probably lower than Airbus.

[Fanblade]

Currently the Max 8 has better economics than the 320 NEO. But so far nothing Boeing has will touch the economics of the 321 NEO. Maybe the Max 10 will get close.

Neither Boeing or Airbus (Max7 /319 NEO) have an offering that will touch the economics of the CS300.

No single manufacturer has the edge. Together Airbus and Bombardier get close. A CS500 may dethrone Boeing completely.

[teacher]

A CS500 may dethrone Boeing completely

I wish! The aircraft is apparently designed but no decision on whether to actually proceed and build it. Cash flow is an issue. If only a company would step forward, place a large order and be a launch customer. It's economics would be off the chart....

[Victory]

Didn't Airbus already do that?

[TheStig]

"Most of us think it's a step backwards"

I don't think that's the case. Maybe the Rouge Airbus pilots like to poo poo it. But I've flown with guys coming off the bus into a 777 who dis that too... cockpit/yoke/no tray table/etc...

I for one am happy to see another fleet joining the airline, my experience is that's what most of us think. I think this thing and it's capabilities are going to do great things for AC. IMO we will still end up with some 321neos soon too and the 737 orders will be converted to all MAX8. We will have enough of each that a mixed NB fleet will still realize economies of scale while exploiting the best capabilities of each.

I'll second that, there are enough options available that no one should feel that they were forced onto the 737. I think most of us assumed the NEO would be the logical aircraft to order. That the former COO overstepped and imposed the MAX on the airline seems to be an open secret. However, the powers that be still seem satisfied with the planned narrow body fleet renewal. Air Canada's stated objectives are to grow internationally and reduce its debt, these two objectives are obviously counter to each other, and it will be interesting to see how they plan on growing while replacing the A320's and B767's.

The upside is that the MAX sounds like an efficient and reliable replacement for the older airbuses and AC's biggest rival will be operating the same type. WS has a big CASM advantage on any route they directly compete with AC's EMJ and A319/A320, that will no longer be the case. While at the same time AC will be able to use the 737 in it's 'sweet spot' were it can be most profitable and/or uniquely capable (such as the recently announced Atlantic routes).

[aV1aTOr]

All valid points regarding the economics and fleet diversity strengths.
From the AC pilot's perspective of the type joining the fleet, since the order was announced 2 years ago, I have met "one" guy who was excited to fly it. By far most intend to avoid it or stay away as long as possible until forced onto it.

[pilotbzh]

Going on the 737 max and not exited about it but economics and seniority make sens.... end of the day It’s an airplane and I’ll be more senior than the 320 for the same pay....

[plhought]

If you want a nicer airplane, choose Airbus.

.... A boeing will last forever....

Air Canada has been operating this specific piece of fly-by-wire high technology for 29 years now.
They are one of the world-wide leaders in Airbus Narrow-Body hours and continue to fly one of the top-5 highest time A320's in existence.
The wing and many parts of the fuse +systems are designed and made by over-engineered British Aerospace nut-jobs (ie: the brick s***-house which is the BAe 146).

If Air Canada had gotten 737-300's and -400s (which was the only other option back in 1986-88) - there's no way they'd be still be operating them into the late 2010's. No. Way. Sorry. Not on a scale that a domestic operation that AC runs would require.

On paper yes, parts for the Airbus are more expensive. I would argue though, that Airbus for 30 years has had centralized fault computers that will help you with what the problem is for 30 years. The millions of countless man-hours saved in troubleshooting and diagnosis on the ground has more than made up for parts cost. Something the 787/(newer)777/737Max is just figuring out.

[confusedalot]

Hey, I am not debating anything Airbus, I said it is a nicer airplane than a Boeing, and it is...but, as a former Boeing driver, I can attest to it's durability, you find these things all over the world in third world environments flying forever. It's a truck.

I suspect that acquisition cost has much to do with the actual decisions that were made,. can't say for sure unless I was on the board of directors.

[Jean-Pierre]

Who let you drive a boeing? You seem absolutely deranged.

[confusedalot]

He he he....yeah I am one of those former boeing drivers who was always curious about airbus. Never had the pleasure though, only came close, but ended up in boeings because of base preference.

[Level Change]

I am currently flying the new Max at AC. To compare, I have flown the DC9, Embraer, Airbus, B767 and B777. From a pilots perspective, I prefer the Max to both the Embraer and the Airbus. The Airbus has a bigger cockpit and nicer ergonomics for sure but it was also designed from the get go so that Ziegler's Concierge could fly it. As a result, there is always a computer between the pilot and the airplane. The Boeing/Airbus debate will always be personal preference. They are quite different in philosophy, with one being no better or worse than the other, just different. I admittedly prefer the Boeing however. The Embraer was just a big mistake IMHO, plain and simple. The other night I was flying to YVR in the Max with 169 pax onboard, burning the same amount of fuel as an Embraer with 90 passengers onboard! That is simply, incredible.

Anyone who understands the concept of "Children of the Magenta" will appreciate the Max for being a stick and rudder airplane with an awesome avionics package. The overhead panel is straight out of the 70's with big toggle switches and analogue dials. No ECAM or EICAS, just old fashion caution and warning lights accompanied with a paper bound QRH. The systems are basic, simple and for the most part, seem to make sense. Doing an RNP appraoch in this compared to the Airbus, or even the 777 is night and day. We are set up with GLS, ADS and CPDLC. No RAT however.

It takes forever to start the new Leap engine. Anyone who has flown Garretts will understand the concept of having to spin prop blades after shutdown. The Leap requires the same on start up. It motors for 90 secs to stabilize internal temps before we can add fuel and ignition to the mix. Typically, another 90 secs from light off to start sequence termination. Add another 3 minutes to stabilize temps before applying takeoff thrust and you have 6 minutes from start to ready for takeoff. There may not be as many single engine taxi outs as a result.

Flew in the cabin during a deadhead. Much quieter during the climb out compared to our older Airbus fleet which sounds like it has a couple of Briggs and Strattons out on the pylon rather than a CFM56. I have not flown on the newer 321 at Rouge.

The biggest PIA I see is the bulk hold. Right now it is taking waay too long to load and unload this aircraft compared to the Airbus, which is containerized. The cockpit is small. Perhaps a little too small. I am sure that if you sneeze, you will need to wipe down the windshield. I don't find it any louder than the Airbus or Embraer both of which employ ANR headsets. If I try to compare this Max to anything else I have flown, it would be the DC9. A basic pilots airplane and the DC9 was the most fun to fly of all of them.

[rudder]

The NG and the MAX both have a nice set up for coupled LNAV/VNAV approach because the speed window stays closed and the speed bug resets with each flap selection. Using LPV minimums will mean preferred approaches will be RNAV STAR transition to RNP APP rather than cat 1 ILS.

Having said that, Boeing should have made available an optional EICAS for standalone MAX operators.

Fuel burn on an A321NEO is 25% less than a 757. Sounds like the MAX is offering a comparable fuel burn reduction from the Classic 320 and the NG.

[altiplano]

Good write up LC!