AC selects Boeing 777s and 787

[727200er]

All wood jokes aside this is an excellent choice. Going to one supplier for all your equipment is always a bad idea. Add in the fact that AC will be getting more efficient aircraft, that will save them money in the long run ,and for once I am willing to give kudos to AC management. This was the best decision at this time. As for the 320s I expect that AC will stay with airbus for narrowbodies, unless of course the 737 replacement is the best equipment at that time. At least that is how "good" management works. I guess we'll see.

[bizjet_mania]

The Airbus narrowbodies are staying (they have too many to replace) but the widebodies are going to Boeing and Boeing is gonna lease them to some Eurocrap Airline. Send the garbage back!!! Welcome back Boeing!!

[ScudRunner]

Um, is it just me or is everyone forgetting that AC's Wide body fleet Is mostly Boeing anyway 43 Boeing 767 series comparied to 20 Airbus 330/340's.

I think this is great news for Boeing and AC. Airbus has just been to focused on the 380 program and lost focus on where the real bread and butter market is, Its very simply really the mid (767) sized aircraft market is a larger slice of the pie than the 380's.

AC is finally heading in the right direction and this has alot to do with less politcal interference, I was shocked to hear AC order Embraers a year ago even though it made business sense. AC was the first mainline carrier in North America to operate the wide body airbus's back in the day and now is right still a leader with this new order. AC is finally focussing on the International Market which is what it should have done in the first place not get into a slug fest with WJ and C3 after the take over of Canadian.

way to go MapleFlot, If it aint BoeinG I aint Going.!!

[EI-EIO]

This was Boeing's to lose and they won. The excitement from the fanboys puzzles me.

As to "Boeings built like tanks" the first 787 vs ground vehicle/airbridge incident will be interesting. The serried ranks of "you can't tell how damaged tham thar compo-sites are, look at AA587 and that TS in Varadero" will quickly become "composites, tested, reliable, Boeing wouldn't use them otherwise..."

If Airbus were serious about AC, they would have taken the 345s back and given them ones that work - like SQ's. The 380 has consumed their planning resources and now the 320 refresh and the 30x/30xF replacements are way overdue.

For AC, it means a smaller engine choice compared to the merged fleets and better SFC. However, they need to wring every dollar from the transpacific to make it work. While waiting for the 787s to arrive, the 762s (20 years old) keep on chugging...

A Boeing win could have been predicted from the article (in the Globe I think) the day before lauding the performance of Air Canada Cargo since they started the MD-11s. 2 777Fs are in the initial package.

As for the colour scheme - observing it at close quarters at YYZ T1 this weekend en route YHZ and back I have to say I like the more discernable maple leaf on the tail but the "ice blue" is a bit dubious.

[Yoyoma]

As far as your buddy saying that AC has maxed out its' capital and Airbus will only deal with "real money making airlines" I have one question.

If that were true, why the hell would Airbus send an entourage of sales people to camp out at Air Canada for the past month trying to put a deal together?

Sounds like they may be suffering from sore loser syndrome!

Not only it's true, but it's a well accepted fact at any North American airline. Besides, that comment was directed towards the A350 sales and not the rest. Airbus has squeezed a lot out of AC by selling them the A320 family. They're a pretty loyal customer.

As far as the 30% fuel savings, AC claimed that they could not rely on the A380/350 figures although they were generated using previous aircraft data and tweaked to match the new designs, yet they welcomed the 787 figures which in my opinion are a little stretched and sugar coated...You know, the American Car salesman way!

Don't get me wrong, I love the 777...Can't wait to see it.

Cheers[/quote]

[helmetfire]

I think AC is a little more trusting of Boeing's performance claims compared to Airbus.
The 777 performed better than they promised.
The A340-600 was significantly worse than promised performance.

[CClub]

Boeing has proved before that their estimates for new aircraft are accurate. In the case of the 777, and more specifically the -300ER, it outperformed expectations. I would expect the 200LR to do the same.

[Localizer]

Yoyoma ...

Sorry you had to fly an airbus .. they suck .. actually, if your a lazy pilot they are great .. but for those who like the "hands on approach" Boeing is the way to go .. The 67 is a masterpiece .. i can only imagine what the 77 & 87 will be like ..

My opinion maybe bias's .. Im a big boeing fan ..

[Mitch Cronin]

AC was the first mainline carrier in North America to operate the wide body airbus's back in the day and now is right still a leader with this new order.

I was just about to object to that comment, and then I noticed the word "mainline"... I guess Wardair couldn't be called "mainline"?

[Yoyoma]

Yoyoma ...

Sorry you had to fly an airbus .. they suck .. actually, if your a lazy pilot they are great .. but for those who like the "hands on approach" Boeing is the way to go .. The 67 is a masterpiece .. i can only imagine what the 77 & 87 will be like ..

My opinion maybe bias's .. Im a big boeing fan ..

Oh sure hands on, I keep forgetting that the 777 or 787 have to be tamed just like a Beech 18...

I think AC is a little more trusting of Boeing's performance claims compared to Airbus.
The 777 performed better than they promised.
The A340-600 was significantly worse than promised performance.

That's not true, Cathay beat the performance & records set by the A345 & 346. I can assure you both A/C outperformed initial stats. Problems occured with systems but not with the general performance!

[helmetfire]

Yoyoma:
Sorry but I think you are misinformed about the A340 program.
There are many disappointed A346 customers, including Cathay.
(They don't have any 500 series as you allude to)
Cathay got these aircraft with the sole intention of flying non-stop from New York to Hong Kong. They are still unable to do so with a full load.
Airbus realized that they needed to find weight savings to even come close to promised payloads and range.
They reduced it's original weight by removing 2000lbs of metal from the main spar.
There is so much flex that almost all the mirrors have cracked in the lavs.
The a/c were only a year old, and had to go through an extensive "get well" maintenace program.
Cathay just picked up a 777. Industry rumour that they are ready to do some more shopping in Seattle soon. 744ER and 777F would be logical.

[talkinghead]

Yoyoma:

They reduced it's original weight by removing 2000lbs of metal from the main spar.
There is so much flex that almost all the mirrors have cracked in the lavs.
The a/c were only a year old, and had to go through an extensive "get well" maintenace program..

If this is true, thats fucing scary. (Or is it just me)

[Yoyoma]

Yoyoma:
Sorry but I think you are misinformed about the A340 program.

There is not possibility of me being misinformed as I have sat on numerous chair meetings on the matter. I have managed the 345-346 migration maturity to A380 and the interlaced QMS between them. You could not find anyone, besides my boss, the board of executives and probably the CEO who might have a bit more info.

I didn't say they had a 345 but they broke its records. They were able to fly the Non stop 18.28 hours but complained of numerous other issues. The agreement set out binded both parties as to the disclosure of such events and therefore, the general public is fed with dog scraps.

Trust me, if AC says we slap slap boeing and hate them because of this and that, I would start by looking the other way and get to root of the problem (in Cathay's case, order priority, seniority in purchasing etc...)

Its all business and Boeing has the same problems...You surely don't believe "Disappointment" to be a real term when it comes to A/C manufacturing. Those Airlines impose the silliest constrainst which are often not met, then they complain and sue...That's why Boeing has such a good legal entity incorporated to the ramp-up and down of each program!

My 2 cents

[Localizer]

Only on this website would someone take peoples comments and twist the crap outa them .. you think im compareing a 777 to a Beech 18? .. I was saying that you can either let the computer fly .. or you can get your hands on the yoke and fly it yourself .. I know you can do it with the scarbus aswell, but its not the same .. i've been in both and flown both and its no competition .. i personally don't like the "joy stick" .. i like the yoke .. and i think there are a lot of other guys out there that would say the same thing ..

You are entitled to your opinion .. and so am I so no need to try and pick my comments apart, you'd think from the way everyone picks apart peoples threads that we were a bunch of lawyers, not pilots ..

[Yoyoma]

I was just pulling your leg...I know what you meant!

And who said anything about me being a pilot?

[d-to]

Great choice. Boeing makes great airplanes. I also prefer Boeings philosophy over Airbus.

[Jaques Strappe]

Localizer

I hear ya about the yoke thing however it was nice to be able to cross your legs or pull out a table for dinner without the yoke being in the way.

Unfortunately, you and I only fly them, we don't buy them. So how a pilot feels about an airplane these days seems to be less and less important. The almighty bottom line is what matters.

I do believe Boeing listens to pilots a bit more than Airbus. How does the saying go?

Airbus was designed by an idiot to be flown by a genius while the Boeing was designed by a genius to be flown by an idiot.

[sky's the limit]

Ok, who's kidding who?

They fly us, Boeing, Airbus, who cares, the computer does it all these days anyhow. "Yup, did you see me grease on that last (auto)landing?"

[bizjet_mania]

Ok, who's kidding who?

They fly us, Boeing, Airbus, who cares, the computer does it all these days anyhow. "Yup, did you see me grease on that last (auto)landing?"

So true, those guys leave the aircraft glowing as if they actually flew the airplane.

[Jaques Strappe]

I think you will find that the only time an autoland is done is during Cat2 and Cat3 ops or if required for maintenance. For one thing, the localizer is not as reliable for autoland unless Cat2 or 3 ops are in effect.

I for one always hand fly and turn off the autothrottles below 10k ( provided that it does not overload the PNF ) because I can anticipate aircraft energy requirements better than the FMS.

The bus is notorious after takeoff for pitching over hard to chase green dot speed and once it gets there, as a passenger, you think you just suffered a dual flameout! For that reason alone, I would not put on the autopilot until we had a clearance well above the SID altitude.

I think you will find most do not do autolands.

[ScudRunner]

Griffon Wrote

I was just about to object to that comment, and then I noticed the word "mainline"... I guess Wardair couldn't be called "mainline"?

My bad Dude , What I ment was the 340/330 and 320 series. You are correct with Ward Air and the 310's. Even though it was goverment interferance that fuct Ward Air around for so long. If you have the chance read the Max Ward Story a must for every one in Canadian Aviation. The AC Airbus order was a huge break through for Airbus into Boeings back yard at the time.

[Yoyoma]

I do believe Boeing listens to pilots a bit more than Airbus. How does the saying go?

Airbus was designed by an idiot to be flown by a genius while the Boeing was designed by a genius to be flown by an idiot.

You know, when I was there, Pilots, FAs, Maintenance crews as well as passengers and airport crews were part of the A340-380 and now the 350 design. They had a department of their own and I know for a fact that boeing started this recently. Prior, the Co. used to get the ideas from simple meetings.

So when you get bells and whistles as well as sticks and lots of automation, you have to realise it is a pilot giving the input to the engineering department. But also keep in mind that he's not your typical canadian pilot who started on the ramp, flew beavers and twotters, a dash 8 to end up on an Airbus...

So his view on flying might be different than our good old canadian standard!

[Mitch Cronin]

I once had a lengthy chat with a Boeing aerodynamics engineer over a few beers... He asked me what I like about Airbus vs Boeing (at the time my only endorsements were on the DC10, A310 and 747).
... among other things, I told him it seemed that Airbus must have talked with AME's about some of their designs because there were so many nice little features incorporated to make our jobs easier...

He looked stunned for a bit and finally said, "Geez, I don't think we've ever done that, what good idea."

From what I've seen and heard, it sounds as if Boeing may have started consulting with maintenance people some time ago... No doubt about it, they can make fine airplanes.

BTW - .... Thanks... I keep forgetting when I'm at a book store, but one of these days I'll definitely grab that book.

Cheers,
Griffon

[EI-EIO]

Griffon

the emphasis in the 787 sales pitch about maintenance reductions would imply that as you say, Boeing are listening.

[helmetfire]

Yoyoma,
Thanks for the info all the way from Toulouse. But I still think you are misinformed.

I didn't say they had a 345 but they broke its records. They were able to fly the Non stop 18.28 hours but complained of numerous other issues. The agreement set out binded both parties as to the disclosure of such events and therefore, the general public is fed with dog scraps

I don't think Cathay was/is interested in breaking the records for an a/c they don't own.
They could have flown the 346 even longer that day if they had zero passengers and cargo on board. When Cathay ordered these airplanes, I'm sure their intent was to be able fly them full, and they are not able to.
I guess if they flew with no alternate fuel, that should solve their problem.
What are these numerous other issues you know? Unless you work for ILFC or Airbus, I have my doubt that your inside information is much more insightful than these dog scraps we are fed.