I would avoid the MAX and go with A320 or A220 given the choice. Not because of a safety concern but because the AC seat configuration and lavs have a bit more space. I don't like how AC configured there 737.

Thankfully AC has adopted the A220 as its smaller narrow body and the A321 as it wider narrow body. The role of 737MAX in AC is fairly narrow.

Should we expect Air Canada to codeshare on that flight this summer because of their purchase of TS? Or they will start codesharing later on?

While I am satisfied with the MAX recertification, I would rather travel on the 220 where possible.

Oh! Did the purchase go through? I thought someone told me that it fell through!

Went through at 25 cents on the dollar no?

Calgary Sun shared an interview with WS CEO Ed Sims, in which the tone was much more optimistic than the interview he gave back in May.

He mentioned back then the airline was considering deferring the 4 787s it was planning to take delivery of in 2021. In this interview, he confirms the airline will take them and have a fleet of 10 by the end of next year.

He also talks about the MAX return to service, and hopes to have all 13 in their existing fleet back in service in 2021 and then consider possibly taking delivery of more of them.

And here he takes a page out of Air Canada's playbook on government support:

Be interesting to see what they do with 10 787s in 2021, given the six they have haven't seen much action until recently.

Looks like you will get your wish at long last. Way to go!

You have to wonder when a lot of transatlantic flights resume from the east that are normally on widebodies, will they be relegated to the MAX for the first year or two of the recovery? Routes like YOW-LHR, YYZ-DUB and YUL-LYS spring to mind.

I personally would wait two years for the MAX to prove itself before getting aboard one.

Well, if the long term storage of the MAX will give us engine reliability issues with the frames, like we saw last week, there could be ETOPS implications for AC/WS.

I think it’s wiser for AC/WS to operate these frames closer to home - and closer to land - for a few years. Wasn't WS using the MAX to Hawaii before the grounding? Those are ETOPS 180 min routes.

It won't just be the Max8. Every other a/c from Dash 8s up to the 777 that has been parked for months.

Sure, but AC has a lot of widebodies that never went into long term storage. And COVID storages have barely broken 8 months now. Whereas every single MAX has been grounded for close to 2 years now.

Good news the feds are going to require a positive COVID test to re-enter Canada.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...ival-1.5248467

If you want to get people upset tell them they can't have Christmas dinner with their family while there are people vacationing in COVID hot zones such as the US and Mexico. This is a good positive decision in brining public confidence back to the airline industry.

We're all assuming you mean negative test to covid before arrival back to Canada.

It'll be interesting to see the overall pax for airports in Canada for the 2020 year.
Calgary will very likely get 3rd busiest Canadian airport for passengers designation again after being 4th for a few years.

If anything I see this as another barrier to keep people from traveling. Those tests aren’t free and can cost upwards of $300. It also appears they would still need to quarantine for 14 days afterwards. Also they can’t legally prevent Canadians from returning to Canada so I’m curious how this will be enforced? Leaving the airline employees to be the bad guys.

Also why a half ass vague announcement with no real details on how this will be done or when it starts. This sounds like the government is trying to gain public support possibly in reaction to that Ontario minister who was caught traveling well telling people to stay home.

That's how it is done in other parts of the world where negative test result is required. If you cannot provide a negative test result, you will be denied boarding as the airline will be responsible (and possibly facing fines) if the passenger is denied entry at the destination.

I think it should be "evidence of vaccination or the PRT test" with the 14 only being required if you don't have the vaccination.

The vague announcement makes sense. They are basically launching a trial balloon to see how the industry and public react. In two or three days they will announce the details once they digest all the feedback. In the article the conservatives have already responded negatively, however they are the opposition its their job to find problems with the government position.

As for Canadians entering Canada. They can't stop that, so if a Canadian shows up at a point of entry with COVID the government has to let them in. That would leave marine, rail and land boarders available.

They can however define safety rules on who is allowed to board a flight into Canada.

I think it is a positive for the airlines. They need to rebuild confidence in domestic travel so Canadians are willing to travel in side the country. This is a step in that direction.

Yes, negative for COVID being present.

I guess most people would view a negative result as a positive things, but that is not how the term is used.

They’ve already barred foreigners and CBSA cannot legally deny entry to a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

As noted above, you need to actually get to Canada to be granted or denied entry.

Which isn't all that hard if you're vacationing in the US. Simply rent a car and drive. It'll be cheaper than spending another 2 weeks in the US.