Widebody fleet replacements?

[Ass-on-tap]

I’ve heard that the earnings report on Feb 12th (or shortly thereafter) will be the same time the company announces their future widebody replacement plans.

Through the grapevine it sounds like the company is pushing more towards the A350-1000 rather than the 777-8 or 777-9.

What are you guys’ thoughts on that?

[goingnowherefast]

The A350 exists, and has a type certificate and is in commercial service. It comes from a stable and predictable country (really a group of countries).

777x is still in flight testing, no type certificate. It's made in a country with chaotic and unpredictable economic policies.

I know which one I'd prefer. Although cost, manufacturer guarantees and delivery schedule will play largely into that. If Boeing can offer favorable pricing and price guarantees, despite their rapidly varying material costs, then maybe it is a winner.

[flieslikeachicken]

The A350 exists, and has a type certificate and is in commercial service. It comes from a stable and predictable country (really a group of countries).

777x is still in flight testing, no type certificate. It's made in a country with chaotic and unpredictable economic policies.

I know which one I'd prefer. Although cost, manufacturer guarantees and delivery schedule will play largely into that. If Boeing can offer favorable pricing and price guarantees, despite their rapidly varying material costs, then maybe it is a winner.

Additionally, switching between AC's already owned 319/320/321/330s to the 350 is a lot cheaper and easier than to a new type.

[altiplano]

The A350 exists, and has a type certificate and is in commercial service. It comes from a stable and predictable country (really a group of countries).

777x is still in flight testing, no type certificate. It's made in a country with chaotic and unpredictable economic policies.

I know which one I'd prefer. Although cost, manufacturer guarantees and delivery schedule will play largely into that. If Boeing can offer favorable pricing and price guarantees, despite their rapidly varying material costs, then maybe it is a winner.

Additionally, switching between AC's already owned 319/320/321/330s to the 350 is a lot cheaper and easier than to a new type.

What are you talking about?

1. A350 would be an entirely new type at Air Canada
2. B777X will share a common type with B777
3. Easy never factors into Air Canada management plans although they are so cheap that it ends up costing them

[BTD]

777x has about 50 tonnes on the 350-1000 MTOW. The -8 has an even heavier MTOW.

That has pay implications.

[350driver]

I’ve heard that the earnings report on Feb 12th (or shortly thereafter) will be the same time the company announces their future widebody replacement plans.

Through the grapevine it sounds like the company is pushing more towards the A350-1000 rather than the 777-8 or 777-9.

What are you guys’ thoughts on that?

The rumor is that they're navigating how to announce the WB fleet (yet another cost) without tanking the stock. Guess there's concern that if a company with 295.4M publicly tradable shares out of the 296.2M total shares tanks, it doesn't take much for an ONEX (or similar) buying up the majority shares for cheap and owning the majority of the company.

What would Air Canada be worth if it tanked 50%? Just around 3B? Let's not forget when ONEX bought WJ for 3.5B in 2019. It's not a lot of money for these guys if they want to own it outright. And a panic would be the perfect environment to scoop up the company. Sure above 20% they have to send out disclosures to all of the shareholders, blah blah blah, but the reality is 80 ish% (when you remove institutions and insiders) is held by the public float.

It doesn't take much for 5 shell companies to buy up AC stock and be its new majority shareholders. Esp in the private equity space.

I think they need their stock price higher if they plan on announcing another fleet endeavor. Probably 26-30/share (reflecting a 9-12B company). Not down here in the 18-20's. And hey, maybe that's what they're planning. Report solid earnings, and if the stock pumps into the atmosphere, announce the new fleet selection. Would be neat to fly a 350! With the recent shit show between USA/Canada, could be a reality I guess.

Okay I am done trying to sound smart lol. Positive Rate Gear up! Ahhh the world is much better from up here than on the ground

[flieslikeachicken]

What are you talking about?

1. A350 would be an entirely new type at Air Canada
2. B777X will share a common type with B777
3. Easy never factors into Air Canada management plans although they are so cheap that it ends up costing them

I was under the impression that Airbus types have a simplified course if you are already typed on another Airbus as the systems are designed to be as similar as possible.

[thepoors]

3. Easy never factors into Air Canada management plans although they are so cheap that it ends up costing them

This is the key point. Which is why I think they will lean towards making a deal with Boeing with promises of cost and deliveries...then the airplanes will arrive a decade late at double the cost. The people running this company are straight up retarded.

[goingnowherefast]

I'm sure training costs are part of the decision, but only a small part. Delivery slots seem to be a major decider of which aircraft an airline chooses. Whichever manufacturer will deliver the airplanes closest to when the airline wants them.

Airline discounts and total purchase cost is also quite important.

Think about it this way. When the purchase cost is hundreds of millions per unit. That's several orders of magnitude higher than the cost of pilot training.

An airline has a fleet of old 777s that are coming up to a D check worth several millions, plus lost revenue. Said airline wants to take delivery of the new aircraft before the D checks come due. They'll factor that into whichever manufacturer can get them airplanes delivered and in service before the D checks are due. Again, one can train a lot of pilots instead of doing a $4 million D check.

I'm sure it's all on some big wig's spreadsheet, and there's more variables than purchase cost, pilot training and fuel consumption. Whichever airplane comes out with the most favorable and most reliable number wins.

[altiplano]

What are you talking about?

1. A350 would be an entirely new type at Air Canada
2. B777X will share a common type with B777
3. Easy never factors into Air Canada management plans although they are so cheap that it ends up costing them

I was under the impression that Airbus types have a simplified course if you are already typed on another Airbus as the systems are designed to be as similar as possible.

No. There is no short courses based on that practise here ie. 320 - 330 or 787 - 777 etc.

The only short course at AC is FO - CA on same type and even then it's only occasionally offered based on the rest of the people that may be on the course at that time.

They don't care about training costs here. They run bids and bump and micromanage crewing here to an extent you wouldn't believe. They will run a guy through a course just to put him in another course the week after he qualifies without ever doing a revenue flight. It's confounding. But it's the way they do it... different towers not talking or caring about what's going on in the other but somehow it looks good on paper.

[Flyboy736]

What are you talking about?

1. A350 would be an entirely new type at Air Canada
2. B777X will share a common type with B777
3. Easy never factors into Air Canada management plans although they are so cheap that it ends up costing them

I was under the impression that Airbus types have a simplified course if you are already typed on another Airbus as the systems are designed to be as similar as possible.

This means nothing because you get pilots from all walks of life going 350. Bunch of 777 and 787 captains and a sprinkle of junior 330 would hop on the plane. Fo from every single fleet type will hop on as well. It's not like folks are 100% airbus their whole AC career

[flying4dollars]

What are you talking about?

1. A350 would be an entirely new type at Air Canada
2. B777X will share a common type with B777
3. Easy never factors into Air Canada management plans although they are so cheap that it ends up costing them

I was under the impression that Airbus types have a simplified course if you are already typed on another Airbus as the systems are designed to be as similar as possible.

This means nothing because you get pilots from all walks of life going 350. Bunch of 777 and 787 captains and a sprinkle of junior 330 would hop on the plane. Fo from every single fleet type will hop on as well. It's not like folks are 100% airbus their whole AC career

Really? If we got 350s or they brought 330's back to YVR, there definitely would be Airbus lifers. I'd likely be one

[altiplano]

That explains a lot...

[rudder]

I'm sure training costs are part of the decision, but only a small part. Delivery slots seem to be a major decider of which aircraft an airline chooses. Whichever manufacturer will deliver the airplanes closest to when the airline wants them.

Airline discounts and total purchase cost is also quite important.

Think about it this way. When the purchase cost is hundreds of millions per unit. That's several orders of magnitude higher than the cost of pilot training.

An airline has a fleet of old 777s that are coming up to a D check worth several millions, plus lost revenue. Said airline wants to take delivery of the new aircraft before the D checks come due. They'll factor that into whichever manufacturer can get them airplanes delivered and in service before the D checks are due. Again, one can train a lot of pilots instead of doing a $4 million D check.

I'm sure it's all on some big wig's spreadsheet, and there's more variables than purchase cost, pilot training and fuel consumption. Whichever airplane comes out with the most favorable and most reliable number wins.

Not that long ago, AC undertook a NB fleet renewal exercise. The only aircraft under consideration were the NEO and the MAX. It was rumoured that AC had a deal with Airbus (unsigned) until they ultimately announced an agreement in 2013 with Boeing. The difference was that Boeing had agreed to take some of the 190’s off their hands as part of the order agreement (along with typically aggressive Boeing discounting off list price).

The result was a new fleet type requiring infrastructure (parts/no ULD/employee training across many departments) and expense associated with a new fleet type although many purchase agreements at least cover training costs for a certain number of pilot initial type courses per aircraft delivered. It was also this decision that impacted AC during the MAX grounding debacle (although that earned AC a couple of high density 777’s).

AC commercial would already have identified current and potential WB routes which then allows operations to identify mission capable candidates. AC already operate too many WB fleet types (4) for the total WB fleet size (91). At some point, there will need to to be a migration to either two (ideal) or three WB fleet types. The 330’s will likely remain for so long as they are considered mission capable and cost effective given low relative lease expense and reasonable maintenance expense. AC is clearly committed to the 787 in the long term. That leaves the 777X and 350 as replacements for current 777 lift, although the 787-10 will occupy some of that space.

Only proven (and currently certified) platform is the 350. Options are -900 and -1000 which will offer range and capacity flexibility. One cannot help but think that the 350 would be the first choice absent price or availability considerations. However, price and availability usually ultimately determine final selection.

Historically, Airbus has never been as aggressive on price discounting as Boeing. And the 350 is a desired WB choice (except in North America where DL is the only operator). Perhaps Airbus will consider the implications of adding another North American operator of the 350 in pricing for AC. And reasonable delivery schedule (airlines typically have holdbacks on the production line in order to attract larger orders).

There is a compelling argument for AC to migrate to a standalone 787/350 operator but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Boeing swoop in with aggressive discounting and immediate availability (post-certification).

[oldnbold]

My money is on the 777 for political reasons alone.

[Eric Janson]

I was under the impression that Airbus types have a simplified course if you are already typed on another Airbus as the systems are designed to be as similar as possible.

I'm guessing the salary structure and collective agreements make this impossible at Air Canada.

airbus has CCQ (Cross Crew Qualification) courses across all types. The cockpits are similar as are the procedures.

Some Airlines allow true Mixed Fleet Flying (MFF).

This is a question of approval from the regulator and updating procedures.

I've flown A320/A330 and A330/A340 Mixed Fleet. Extremely straight forward and a lot of fun.

[piedpiper]

Web presentation today at 5:30EST for an annoucement. My guess is we're finally getting a fleet renewal.

[rudder]

There is a compelling argument for AC to migrate to a standalone 787/350 operator but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Boeing swoop in with aggressive discounting and immediate availability (post-certification).

And the winner is…….

https://www.aircanada.com/media/a-new-e ... rk-growth/

[goingnowherefast]

I'm not surprised. Boeing has proven unreliable with the max fiasco. Then the volatile economic trade policies of that country of manufacture. All for a plane that isn't even certified yet. Apparently Boeing wasn't able to sweeten the pot enough to overcome those hurdles.

A350 makes sense

[flying4dollars]

Keep in mind the order was 8 firm 8 options. Not exactly ground breaking. I think given the order number, the door is open for 777x given it's lift capabilities. Still, very exciting announcement either way (even though I think most of us were prepared for it).

[thepoors]

I was under the impression that Airbus types have a simplified course if you are already typed on another Airbus as the systems are designed to be as similar as possible.

I'm guessing the salary structure and collective agreements make this impossible at Air Canada.

airbus has CCQ (Cross Crew Qualification) courses across all types. The cockpits are similar as are the procedures.

Some Airlines allow true Mixed Fleet Flying (MFF).

This is a question of approval from the regulator and updating procedures.

I've flown A320/A330 and A330/A340 Mixed Fleet. Extremely straight forward and a lot of fun.

It's also that the AC training department thinks they know better than the aircraft manufacturer. The A320 course at this company is a disaster because AC thinks they're special and need to operate the airplane differently than every other airline. It should be the easiest and most straightforward aircraft to learn if they used Airbus SOPs, but no they have to act superior. Working out great considering YHZ, SFO, and now BNA.

[thrust set]

In the recorded message from Mark G he mentions that the initial 8 are replacements for the older 330’s. Which is surprising since the aircraft has a lot longer range. I do know that the older 330’s has had a 20,000 hour extension which is about five years on average.

[jpilot77]

I was under the impression that Airbus types have a simplified course if you are already typed on another Airbus as the systems are designed to be as similar as possible.

I'm guessing the salary structure and collective agreements make this impossible at Air Canada.

airbus has CCQ (Cross Crew Qualification) courses across all types. The cockpits are similar as are the procedures.

Some Airlines allow true Mixed Fleet Flying (MFF).

This is a question of approval from the regulator and updating procedures.

I've flown A320/A330 and A330/A340 Mixed Fleet. Extremely straight forward and a lot of fun.

It's also that the AC training department thinks they know better than the aircraft manufacturer. The A320 course at this company is a disaster because AC thinks they're special and need to operate the airplane differently than every other airline. It should be the easiest and most straightforward aircraft to learn if they used Airbus SOPs, but no they have to act superior. Working out great considering YHZ, SFO, and now BNA.

Yes this is true, but they have been trying to go in the Airbus direction. What I’ve heard from guys in the training department is if they could it would be done but Transport drags their feet on every change.

[TheStig]

In the recorded message from Mark G he mentions that the initial 8 are replacements for the older 330’s. Which is surprising since the aircraft has a lot longer range. I do know that the older 330’s has had a 20,000 hour extension which is about five years on average.

The airline is looking at ASM growth of 3-5%/year, this order allows them to phase out the original 8 A330's. The routes that the 330's do can be flown by any combination of WB, including the 350 and 321XLR's.

The options allow the airline to phase out the 777-200LR's used on YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG if the 777-8/9 isn't assessed to be the better airplane (to replace the 777 fleet) once it enters service. This order buys Air Canada time, while meeting its fleet replacement needs in the next 4-6 years.

[rudder]

In the recorded message from Mark G he mentions that the initial 8 are replacements for the older 330’s. Which is surprising since the aircraft has a lot longer range. I do know that the older 330’s has had a 20,000 hour extension which is about five years on average.

The airline is looking at ASM growth of 3-5%/year, this order allows them to phase out the original 8 A330's. The routes that the 330's do can be flown by any combination of WB, including the 350 and 321XLR's.

The options allow the airline to phase out the 777-200LR's used on YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG if the 777-8/9 isn't assessed to be the better airplane (to replace the 777 fleet) once it enters service. This order buys Air Canada time, while meeting its fleet replacement needs in the next 4-6 years.

There is a reel that AC media put out associated with the 350 announcement.

It talks about ‘new routes’ and shows a graphic with eastern operations out of YYZ/YUL to the Indian subcontinent and South Africa and a single westerly route (Bangkok?). I cannot believe that AC would acquire a true ULH capable aircraft to be used on current 330 routes. As you mentioned, the 321XLR is a more likely replacement for some thinner current 330 routes (ETOPS). And the 787-9 is a good replacement for current high density 330 routes.

I wonder if AC wouldn’t also consider the A330-900NEO as a potential 330 replacement. Even if AC evolves to a 100+ WB operator, too many fleet types lowers efficiency……777/787/350/330. But then again, AC seems a fan of operating a sub fleet of virtually every platform available (NB - 320 family/former c-series/737).