e190s

CanadianEh · Post by **CanadianEh** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:02 am

Anyone hear a rumour about AC mgmt entertaining the idea selling the E190s?

Fanblade · Post by **Fanblade** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:50 am

Its not a rumor.

AC has already stated publicly the long term narrow body fleet plan (5-7 years out) is to replace all 320's and E190's with a single fleet type, new geared engine.

They mentioned the 737 Max, 320 NEO and C series IF they make something as large as the 321/737-900

If you want to start a rumor? Pick one.

I'm thinking the Max

CanadianEh · Post by **CanadianEh** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:52 am

Ok good to know Fanblade.

My theory is that once they sell the E190s, AC will post a huge profit thanks to "one time revenues" from the sale and mgmt will shower themselves in bonuses for achieving a profit.

Definitely curious as to what they will choose. I have high hopes for the C Series

Gravol · Post by **Gravol** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:09 pm

Whatever their decision I am sure the Canadian worker is the least of their priorities ... so definitely NEO or MAX.

Mad Catz · Post by **Mad Catz** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:18 pm

My guess would be the NEO since they already have most of the infrastructure in place. Secondly, I would imagine it would be advantageous to keep multiple aircraft brands in the fleet to keep them competing against each other for future purchases. I guess from that logic, the c-series might make a compelling case as well.

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:05 pm

I would love to see (and fly) the 737. To my knowledge it doesn't have containers. Could that be a problem?

And after this latest round of " negotiations " ... the company might be under a bit of pressure to buy some Canadian product.

The C Series actually looks like a pretty neat plane.

ZBBYLW · Post by **ZBBYLW** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:51 pm

The lack of bins in the 737 may be an issue. The 320 would be much easier to add to the fleet but the 737 may win after all is said and done, perhaps some big discounts for the 787 delays?

Also the flight deck in the A320 is much nicer for those above a certain hight, not that that's important for those buying the airplane though...

sportingrifle · Post by **sportingrifle** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:00 pm

I would be a bit surprised to see the 737 unless Boeing were to pretty much give them to us. The container issue is huge and the airplane can't even approach the fuel specifics of the re-engined/upgraded A-320. Having pilots typed and maintenance engineers qualified is another big bonus.

My money is actually on the C series for one simple reason - The Air Canada Act. It requires us to purchase a certain percentage of our needs from suppliers in Quebec. (I don't recall the exact numb er.) he fact that the companies real expertise in in snowmobiles is irrelevant. (sarcastic personal opinion only) So it comes down to buying a few airplanes at XX million a piece or an awful lot of printer paper, maple syrup, or ? Sad but if the government really wanted to help Big Red, leveling the playing field by scrapping the AC Act would be more beneficial than anything else.

The cynic in me will be quite impressed if AC is still around in its current form in 7 years and with enough cash/credit to think about new airplanes. Hopefully I'm wrong.

sportingrifle

Localizer · Post by **Localizer** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:53 am

There would be a lot of extra cost associated with the 737, the Airbus would be an easy transition.

yyz monkey · Post by **yyz monkey** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:18 am

Oddly enough, I got a call on Tuesday from one of the ramp trainers at YYZ asking if a 737-700 bar would work on a 737-800 as they were going to be handling one later in the day.

Mig29 · Post by **Mig29** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:25 pm

A320neo would make the most sense.

C series - would be most politically correct

B737 - someone would be getting a fat check under the table from Boeing. It happened before

Flap_Operator · Post by **Flap_Operator** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:32 pm

Mig29 wrote:A320neo would make the most sense.

C series - would be most politically correct

B737 - someone would be getting a fat check under the table from Boeing. It happened before

Or maybe they'll just sell them 190s and not buy anything... Future AC fleet ... 777 and 787 only international flights and leave them small jet to lcc and not have to worry about the southern market..... Just making a wild guess

Mig29 · Post by **Mig29** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:45 pm

That's what Robert Milton wanted back when he was in power. He wrote that in that book of his, whatever the name was. He's "prophecy" is continuing....

Flap_Operator · Post by **Flap_Operator** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:57 pm

Flap_Operator · Post by **Flap_Operator** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:00 pm

Id be willing to bet few bucks that prediction is gonna happen....

We'll find out soon enough

ZBBYLW · Post by **ZBBYLW** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:26 pm

They may pass off the E90s but I am more than certain they will replace the narrow body fleet with the 737Max or 320NEO... The reason why the long haul flying is working well for the company is that they feed those flights from many cities across the USA.

Flap_Operator · Post by **Flap_Operator** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:37 pm

ZBBYLW wrote:They may pass off the E90s but I am more than certain they will replace the narrow body fleet with the 737Max or 320NEO... The reason why the long haul flying is working well for the company is that they feed those flights from many cities across the USA.

But they can send those transborder flights to lowcost...or Express, they dont need to keep the narrow body fleet. Hence why they started Express in the first place... All the feeders had to repaint to aircan express, so it causes less confusion for passengers on connecting flights.

P.S AC just announced they were hiring on PCC

ZBBYLW · Post by **ZBBYLW** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:35 am

Flap_Operator wrote: But they can send those transborder flights to lowcost...or Express, they dont need to keep the narrow body fleet. Hence why they started Express in the first place... All the feeders had to repaint to aircan express, so it causes less confusion for passengers on connecting flights.

P.S AC just announced they were hiring on PCC

Not really. The only way that would be possible is if in the next contract they can get rid of anything below say 200 seats but as of right now they are forced to keep aircraft larger than the E75s and also maintain a specified ratio of ASMs at AC vs the feeder airlines. Now let us pray that in 2015 there is no repeat of these rounds of "negotiations". Someone needs to fly those aircraft and as per the contract right now it needs to be AC who flies them.

whiteguy · Post by **whiteguy** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:39 am

Flap_Operator wrote:
ZBBYLW wrote:They may pass off the E90s but I am more than certain they will replace the narrow body fleet with the 737Max or 320NEO... The reason why the long haul flying is working well for the company is that they feed those flights from many cities across the USA.

But they can send those transborder flights to lowcost...or Express, they dont need to keep the narrow body fleet. Hence why they started Express in the first place... All the feeders had to repaint to aircan express, so it causes less confusion for passengers on connecting flights.

P.S AC just announced they were hiring on PCC

The pilot job posting has been on the AC website since end of Sept!

Flap_Operator · Post by **Flap_Operator** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:33 am

whiteguy wrote:
Flap_Operator wrote:
ZBBYLW wrote:They may pass off the E90s but I am more than certain they will replace the narrow body fleet with the 737Max or 320NEO... The reason why the long haul flying is working well for the company is that they feed those flights from many cities across the USA.

But they can send those transborder flights to lowcost...or Express, they dont need to keep the narrow body fleet. Hence why they started Express in the first place... All the feeders had to repaint to aircan express, so it causes less confusion for passengers on connecting flights.

P.S AC just announced they were hiring on PCC
The pilot job posting has been on the AC website since end of Sept!

It was updated 2012/10/20 on the website its not the september one

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:01 pm

Why are containers "an issue"?

ZBBYLW · Post by **ZBBYLW** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:20 pm

While the bins are great for luggage as you can just put the bins one and off (helps with turn around times/man power requirements) the big benefit would be cargo. If you have big bulk cargo on a crate that needs to go from LAX to FRA you can take it on the narrow body plane out of LA and bring it to Frankfurt. Without the bins you'd have to send it on another plane/airline. Cargo is huge for AC.

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:58 pm

Fair point.

What's the typical staffing on a 320 turn?

What's a typical turn time for a 320?

yyz monkey · Post by **yyz monkey** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:48 pm

ZBBYLW wrote:While the bins are great for luggage as you can just put the bins one and off (helps with turn around times/man power requirements) the big benefit would be cargo. If you have big bulk cargo on a crate that needs to go from LAX to FRA you can take it on the narrow body plane out of LA and bring it to Frankfurt. Without the bins you'd have to send it on another plane/airline. Cargo is huge for AC.

Nope, you'd just load it in the hold and strap it down. That's how AC sends mining equipment/samples/etc between YYT & YMM.

JZA · Post by **JZA** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:00 pm

The Inability to load containers on Boeings/C-series is really a non issue. The pallet size (limited by the door) on the Bus is quite small...these pallets are not interchangeable with the wide-body ones. Although I've seen it on occasion, there are very few small bus cargo pallets loaded at AC. The Containers loaded with mail/other cargo can easily be loaded in a bulk-hold just as easily (and are on 319 aircraft). I therefore IMO don't see a decision on which type to purchase coming down to containerized vs. Not in the slightest.

e190s

e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s

Re: e190s