Halifax Stanfield International Airport Developments

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Ii would suggest that is true of your response, not mine. If Airbus had the capacity to build and fill their order backlog in a more timely manner the Boeing 737 order book would be much thinner. Fortunately the FAA has stepped in to ensure Boeing builds that ancient design properly.

I readily acknowledge the current QA problems at Boeing.

What I take issue with is your statements "However there is no doubt that as an airframe it is as if GM still was trying to sell the Chevette - long past its best-before date. Airlines are only ordering it because it is cheaper than the competition.", both of which are demonstrably false.

To address the second statement first, the B737 - any model - categorically is not materially cheaper than its competitors. Feel free to research that - you'll prove yourself wrong very quickly.

What's more pertinent, and more egregious, is the assertion that the basic 737 design is "long past its best-before date". I hardly know how best to begin to respond to that other than to say that nobody with real knowledge and understanding of aviation and aircraft design and manufacturing would agree. In fact, they'd laugh at the idea. There are few more proven and reliable designs in aviation history.

As I noted, Boeing has very real current quality problems, largely resulting from too many MBAs and not enough engineers in the front office. Bill Boeing, a notoriously hands-on owner, is surely rolling in his grave over the disastrous squandering of his company's hard-earned reputation for top quality. It's truly tragic.

But the idea that the 737 is a design past its time and no longer suited to the current market is simply ludicrous on its face.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I readily acknowledge the current QA problems at Boeing.

What I take issue with is your statements "However there is no doubt that as an airframe it is as if GM still was trying to sell the Chevette - long past its best-before date. Airlines are only ordering it because it is cheaper than the competition.", both of which are demonstrably false.

To address the second statement first, the B737 - any model - categorically is not materially cheaper than its competitors. Feel free to research that - you'll prove yourself wrong very quickly.

What's more pertinent, and more egregious, is the assertion that the basic 737 design is "long past its best-before date". I hardly know how best to begin to respond to that other than to say that nobody with real knowledge and understanding of aviation and aircraft design and manufacturing would agree. In fact, they'd laugh at the idea. There are few more proven and reliable designs in aviation history.

As I noted, Boeing has very real current quality problems, largely resulting from too many MBAs and not enough engineers in the front office. Bill Boeing, a notoriously hands-on owner, is surely rolling in his grave over the disastrous squandering of his company's hard-earned reputation for top quality. It's truly tragic.

But the idea that the 737 is a design past its time and no longer suited to the current market is simply ludicrous on its face.

To back up your point Saul, just have a look at the other ubiquitous American high fleet build aircraft in the C-130 family. It seems Lockheed has not suffered the beancounters as much.Different utilization but more demanding also.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

To back up your point Saul, just have a look at the other ubiquitous American high fleet build aircraft in the C-130 family. It seems Lockheed has not suffered the beancounters as much.Different utilization but more demanding also.

Interesting that you bring up the C-130; I was going to mention if if the thread continued. In continuous production since 1955 and still going strong!

And mark my words: the A320 family could very well match the 737's longevity as a viable design, even if some lesser-informed souls consider it by that time to be an "ancient airframe long past its best-before date".

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

But the idea that the 737 is a design past its time and no longer suited to the current market is simply ludicrous on its face.

There are far too many available (and highly credible) references from crew and maintenance personnel who have to deal with them daily to cite that refute all of your points except for the financial driver that prevents it’s shortcomings from being addressed due to crushing costs of the recertification that doing so would necessitate. But this is a decent summary of the issues and the opportunity missed by the company a couple of decades ago when they decided to not build upon their great 757 design and instead cheap out with the equivalent of chewing gum and baling wire updates to keep selling the obsolete 1960s 737 platform.

https://askthepilot.com/the-plane-that-isnt/

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There are far too many available (and highly credible) references from crew and maintenance personnel who have to deal with them daily to cite that refute all of your points except for the financial driver that prevents it’s shortcomings from being addressed due to crushing costs of the recertification that doing so would necessitate. But this is a decent summary of the issues and the opportunity missed by the company a couple of decades ago when they decided to not build upon their great 757 design and instead cheap out with the equivalent of chewing gum and baling wire updates to keep selling the obsolete 1960s 737 platform.

https://askthepilot.com/the-plane-that-isnt/

That's one person's opinion; it's decidedly not the consensus of either the aviation community or the market.

Further development based on the 757 was seriously debated in the past, and perhaps it's true that Boeing missed an opportunity in not going in that direction. But that in no way detracts from the viability of the 737.

The apparent conflation of Boeing's recent quality screw-ups with the notion that the basic 737 design is not amenable to continued development is misguided and unfortunate. Your continued insistence that it's an "obsolete 1960s platform" is simply not borne out by fact. For that matter, even the author of that piece disagrees with you about the continued viability of the design: he appropriately noted in closing that "There’s a place for the 737 and always will be".

It seems pointless to continue this back-and-forth, and we're way off topic anyway. To steer it back to what's happening at YHZ, I'd just comment that I've taken a lot of flights out of here on 737s - including 5-hour-plus runs - and it's never entered my mind that they're any less comfortable or provide any less satisfactory an experience than any other aircraft type. An economy seat is an economy seat no matter whether you're on a narrow-body or wide-body aircraft.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

For that matter, even the author of that piece disagrees with you about the continued viability of the design: he appropriately noted in closing that "There’s a place for the 737 and always will be".

Yes, there will always be a place for cheap and outdated aircraft. That place is on short-haul discount flights, not trans-oceanic 6-hour ordeals.

[connect2source]

More Max's on the way for Air Canada, some to cover the 6-7 A220's out of service due to the P&W GTF engine issues. According to the airliners.net forum, up to 16 more rumoured to enter service some in all economy configurations. I suspect perhaps they're picking up some ex-Lynx birds

https://media.aircanada.com/2024-05-...ancial-Results

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yes, there will always be a place for cheap and outdated aircraft. That place is on short-haul discount flights, not trans-oceanic 6-hour ordeals.

Just couldn't resist a parting cheap shot, could you?

Cheap and outdated? Again - not materially cheaper than the A320 family - which itself will soon be 40. Will you be relegating it to the dustbin too? Better tell Airbus - their order book for the latest versions is overflowing.

What you continue to fail to address are is how a six-hour flight in economy class on a 737 is qualitatively different than a six-hour flight in economy class on any other aircraft. Answer: it just isn't.

You are so far off-base on this that it's actually comical.

[Keith P.]

And your apologist postings for the 737 would be comical if they weren’t so sad. Better bring a pillow if you get a window economy seat because your shoulder will be jammed into the fuselage. Wear dark clothing because if you have to use the bathroom, the narrow gourd-shaped sink guarantees you’ll splash water over yourself. Maybe bring some earplugs too because of the cabin noise. Might be a good idea to bring some snacks or a sandwich also because the galley is so small the crew might not be able to get to you for a long time.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And your apologist postings for the 737 would be comical if they weren’t so sad. Better bring a pillow if you get a window economy seat because your shoulder will be jammed into the fuselage. Wear dark clothing because if you have to use the bathroom, the narrow gourd-shaped sink guarantees you’ll splash water over yourself. Maybe bring some earplugs too because of the cabin noise. Might be a good idea to bring some snacks or a sandwich also because the galley is so small the crew might not be able to get to you for a long time.

Oh, give it a rest. I have flown on 737s quite literally dozens of times, often on flights exceeding five hours (Halifax-Calgary, most frequently), and will repeat: I have never found them any more uncomfortable, noisier or more inconvenient in any way than any other airliner. Nor (until this exchange) have I ever heard complaints about 737s like yours from anyone I know or travel with. Nor have have I heard such gripes about the airplane from airline pilot (including a nephew) or cabin staff acquaintances. (And certainly never, ever a complaint about cabin noise; that one in particular is just totally bizarre as far as I'm concerned.)

Again: an economy ride is an economy ride is an economy ride, no matter what damn airplane you're on. The single most uncomfortable ride I've ever had, as I mentioned earlier, was a transatlantic flight on a 767! Complain all you like about your discomfort flying economy, but blaming it on the airplane design is really misguided. Blame the airlines, whose economics dictate that they have to squeeze nickels and seat people like sardines. They're the ones who dictate seat size and pitch. Or go executive class. Flying economy just generally sucks out loud.

I'm not an "apologist" for the 737 or for Boeing; I don't have any kind of stake in the debate, nor any reason to defend them. But aviation is a topic I have a keen interest in and some knowledge about, and asserting that the 737 is a fundamentally bad or outdated design is just patently, laughably false. Seriously, it's enough to make me wonder if you've ever actually been on an airplane.

Rant on if you like; I'm done.

PS: FWIW, I always book a window seat if possible. That's my preference. Never a sore shoulder yet.

[q12]

Construction is underway for the new International Connections Facility.

This expanded International-To-Domestic Connections facility is being built on a newly constructed floor above the International Arrivals Hall, to provide additional capacity for processing passengers arriving on international flights and connecting to an onward domestic flight.

https://halifaxstanfield.ca/business.../rfps-tenders/

This will allow for quicker (shorter) connections for passengers making international <-> domestic connections.

Here is the new taxiway (November) on Runway 14. All runways are now accessible via taxiways, which mean planes never have to taxi via runways.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iFvXB3mNpeSQpzXz9


https://maps.app.goo.gl/RWgsMmaVCBpqEUmK7

[connect2source]

The new taxiway November looks great!! Doubling back for takeoffs on Runway 14 took forever, this should really improve operations!

[teddifax]

Just curious about the airport, how much land does it have for future expansion? Also, if expansion is planned, I wonder how it will be done!

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by teddifax

Just curious about the airport, how much land does it have for future expansion? Also, if expansion is planned, I wonder how it will be done!

You can see the plans on the Airports website. There are VERY long term plans to replicate the 10,500 ft Runway by building it parallel to the present one but almost 1 mile to the East. Many tonnes of Earth moving would have to occur for that to happen.The present airfield support services building and probably the control tower would have to re located to make it work.I think in the short term the Cargo business will grow steadily as there are now 8 hard stand heavy aircraft parking spaces.

[q12]

I think we will see the Terminal Expansion start (new pier in blue) before this decade ends. This part of the terminal between gate 22 and 28 seems to be left untouched intentionally expecting the new pier to be attached.

[HaliGroot]

What ever happened to the large commercial development that was talked about for the airport? Did that get cancelled?