Apparently Air Canada will be changing their livery in 2018 when

it's the shitposting airline
>pls be my ai gf

A FUCKING LEAF

>>1008112
>737max
well played good sir. That will teach them.

File: The-Evolution-of-Ralph-Lauren.jpg (59KB, 495x558px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 495x558px

>>1008097

>>1008113
boeing must be so happy their 737 survived this long

wonder if theyll make a 737-1000

>not getting the CS series

y?

>>1008150
doesnt fit their pilot contracts and it doesnt have the performance they want/need

its also a brand new type, so loads of training and test runs

>>1008147
it's basically just a license to print money

>>1008147
Unlikely, they'll need a clean sheet design to incorporate any more major improvements to the fuselage.

>>1008147
It won't be called 737-1000
the 737max uses 737-8, 737-9, etc.

>>1008995
heard boeing wanted to lengthen the 737 past the -900

that should be a fun one since the -900 is alread a tail striking machine

>>1008256
>>1008150

They ordered 45 of them.

>>1009016
bet canadian government pressured them to buy them so that they can support canadian buisness

File: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Concepts MoM Airbus A321_zpspv3sexao.jpg (70KB, 1024x581px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1024x581px

Seriously, Boeing needs to finally let the 737 family rest in fucking peace. As much as budget carriers love the little fucker, it is very much outdated. The overhead panels are literally copy-pasted from the first 737-100, the aircraft is way too low to the ground, and the 737-900 is already tail-strike galore. With the 757 gone, there is a rising need for aircraft that perform the same jobs. There has already been talk about a 737-MOM, but you got me fucked up if you expect me to sit in one of those things for 9 hours across the Atlantic.

As much as I can appreciate what it's done for the industry, it is a creativity killer and needs to be replaced.

>>1008997
>that should be a fun one since the -900 is alread a tail striking machine

only if you're using flaps 1 or 5 like an idiot

>>1009113
>that fly

keejse?

>>1008097
I'm working on the new livery and I can tell you it does not look like that

>>1008150
The CS series competes with regional jets, and at its highest level, only the lowest end of the 737 and A320 families.

>>1009113
There's so much wrong with your post.

The 737's interior is fine, and because the Sky Interior is standard, and has been for a while, it looks and feels more open than the standard interior on A320s.

The plane has already been raised higher off the ground and could be again with a more substantial engineering effort. The only reason it wasn't raised more the last time around is because doing it to the level they did was much cheaper, took less time, and achieved the desired results at the time.

The -900 doesn't have tail strike problems unless you're retarded.

The 757's niche has already been filled for all intents and purposes with the A321LR. Same capacity profile with slightly better range. But the problem is that airlines aren't asking for a direct 757 replacement, otherwise Boeing could have just re-engined it and been done with it. What they want is an aircraft with a 767's capacity profile (more than either the 757 or A321LR in a typical configuration) and range (i.e. notably more range than the 757/A321LR's ~4000 nmi maximum) but with the operating economics of a 737.

>>1008097
>bottom livery
>polygons
This meme needs to die.

>>1010357
bs

post a quick sample of it then

doubt you had to sign a NDA

>>1010574
sounds like a 757-300 with much more range

its going to be a sad day when 757s leave the sky, hot rods of the sky

>>1009113
hi ehm... whats so bad about a plane being too low to the ground. I mean its obvious a 737 is much lower than a 320 but why is that bad ?

>>1011248
tailstrikes, probably, as in, rotating too far on takeoff, dragging the tail along the ground.

Also, the engines would be quite close to the ground. You are going to have a very bad day if your engines touch the ground.

>>1009113
There are airlines that maintain their profit profiles using single-platform aircraft

>>1011251
also engines lower to the ground increase the risk of them sucking something in

>>1011248
737s are already so low to the ground that the manufacturers had to distort the shape of their engines just to fit them in.

>>1008097
They always have decent movies on the trip, why do I never get this on American shit

>>1012282
have you not flown American?

their inflight movie selection is amazing, miles ahead of what air canada offers

>>1009116
we always take off with flaps 5...

>>1009113
>but you got me fucked up if you expect me to sit in one of those things for 9 hours across the Atlantic.
It's already happening
SAS do Houston to Stavanger in a 737, and BA do London City to New York via Shannon in a A318

>>1013159
SAS does not fly to Houston at all. In fact, SAS doesn't fly non-stop from Stavanger to any US destination or vice versa.

>>1012282
Air Canada rouge has better selection than normal Air Canada, but on Rouge, there are no fucking seatback screens. You have to pay to rent an ipad for the flight, which you can use the folding cover to hook into a slot on the seatback in front of you.

I was fucking pissed when I couldn't watch Hyena Road on standard Air Canada.

>>1009113
>Economy: 3x2
>Economy+: 3x2
So what's the +?

>>1013507
Would I be right in deducing you're really short?

Most people would have noticed the difference in legroom.

>>1013511
So the seats are the same, just with a bit more legroom?

Psssht

>>1013159
you are talking about the privatair 737 that does the flight to houston

the A318 is fantastic, its all business class

>>1013507
economy plus is 34~36in of seat pitch

all the US3 have 31in

>>1014068
That route doesn't exist either.

>>1014073
that route actually did exist and SAS flew that route with a 737

the route was pulled out of service tho, flies to Newark now instead

the plane was a wet leased 737 from privatair