Qantas' New A321XLR

[Saab34]

Great to see some new planes arriving. Meanwhile I think I'll be stuck on the Embraer highway CNS-BNE with no Wifi and regular IFE outages for a good while yet.

I recall this route was going A220, I remember reading the schedule update. Obviously got canned.

 

[Himeno]

Great to see some new planes arriving. Meanwhile I think I'll be stuck on the Embraer highway CNS-BNE with no Wifi and regular IFE outages for a good while yet.

At least you aren't stuck on the dash 8 highway.

 

[AuSammy]

Well there’s the problem. 5 hours from Sydney/Brisbane to Perth is a long time to hold it in (so to speak).

Thats specifically why I mentioned it. 5hrs I understand. Not the eastern seaboard.

 

[elanshin]

Shifted flights slightly, will be doing syd-mel runs over the next week in the 321. Also found a 787 one day so I'll take that.

 

[kookaburra75]

At least you aren't stuck on the dash 8 highway.

Being a fellow Canberran I was tossing up whether to use the 'Agree' or the 'Sad' emoji to respond to your post - I wanted to use both.

For a long-ish weekend in Hobart in mid December we had booked our flights, direct flights from Canberra to Hobart and back, on E190s. Two weeks ago we got an update that the times of our flights had changed, no issues, and they slipped in we would now be on Dash8s for flights both ways. Not much we can do about it

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well there’s the problem. 5 hours from Sydney/Brisbane to Perth is a long time to hold it in (so to speak).

Well… except then you have five hours, not one. So presumably it’s not 90 pax trying to use the WC all at once, it might be 20 pax per hour. Still a little tight at 3 mins per pax.

 

[Aeryn]

Bit of a storm in a tea cup imo, most passengers do not use the loo on domestic flights.

 

[elanshin]

I find this amusing that the seat selection map shows 3 loos at the back.

 

[SYD]

I find this amusing that the seat selection map shows 3 loos at the back.
View attachment 473043

Good chance of getting 35ABC to oneself. But potentially cough seats in the future…!

 

[jrfsp]

Bit of a storm in a tea cup imo, most passengers do not use the loo on domestic flights.

Sure most people just wait on anything under 2 hours but good luck doing that on a trans con after a few drinks in the lounge

 

[Daver6]

Part of the problem on a single aisle is for about an hour of the flight the toilets become unusable. From the start of meal service till the end once trays are cleared and carts out of the aisle. Once this happens you suddenly have built up need for the toilets.

Going to the bathroom is a basic human right. People shouldn't have to plan their bathroom usage around airlines not providing sufficient toilets and blocking access to them for extended periods of time.

 

[Aeryn]

Sure most people just wait on anything under 2 hours but good luck doing that on a trans con after a few drinks in the lounge

No luck involved I've flown SYD-PER and vice versa many times, never once used the onboard loo (never used on any domestic flight). I dont find the lounge or inflight beverages so appealing that I guzzle enough to be going to toilet more than usual.

 

[Himeno]

Bit of a storm in a tea cup imo, most passengers do not use the loo on domestic flights.

There was a time when I could go an entire QF32 or QF11 without needing to leave my seat.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Part of the problem on a single aisle is for about an hour of the flight the toilets become unusable. From the start of meal service till the end once trays are cleared and carts out of the aisle. Once this happens you suddenly have built up need for the toilets.

Going to the bathroom is a basic human right. People shouldn't have to plan their bathroom usage around airlines not providing sufficient toilets and blocking access to them for extended periods of time.

There have been no complaints about the 737 which has a 1:81 toilet ratio.

Is the 1:90 gonna make *that* much if a difference? Really?

And it’s going down to 1:66.

 

[MELso]

My view from the MEL J lounge (sadly won’t be on it). First sighting for me in the wild.

 

[anat0l]

There have been no complaints about the 737 which has a 1:81 toilet ratio.

Is the 1:90 gonna make *that* much if a difference? Really?

And it’s going down to 1:66.

It's blowing up heaps on social media.

Many of them comparing to JQ et al (i.e. LCCs where any toilets can be used by any passenger), lots toeing the "Business fat cats getting their private toilet while everyone in Economy getting utterly <insert word here>" line. The prospect of waiting a mere year or over isn't comforting (pun intended) on any level to any one. I don't know if I should be surprised or not as the topic of toilet ratio has never really been a hot one for goodness knows how much.

Feels a bit like the story of a student who is an utter failure because they got A grades on everything except one subject is a C (not saying QF have kicked lots of goals here, but that seems like the nature of the stories latching onto the toilet thing). Of course, if a light bulb explodes in a household, someone will spin it into "<expletive starting with the sixth letter of the alphabet> Qantas and all the board" comment and story.

The Asian carriers (well, legacy ones) actually do well in terms of toilet to pax ratio (including in Y), but their toilets actually get used quite a bit. Except in the middle of a sleeping period, I can't remember the last time I tried to use a Y toilet on an Asian carrier and the wait was at least 2 people deep (including the one in the toilet). Maybe Asians have quite different habits to us, or is it a weird case of "build it and they will use"?

I'll be honest and say I'm curious to see how it really goes down with the 180 Y pax using 2 toilets (assuming the front toilet will be policed). I'm sure if it turns into a farce then we will hear about it and QF will be dumb to ignore it, but if you genuinely don't really hear much about it, then no one is going to apologise for or backtrack on making such a noise about it all. Not that anyone is expected to.

 

[Chrizztofa]

It's blowing up heaps on social media.

Many of them comparing to JQ et al (i.e. LCCs where any toilets can be used by any passenger), lots toeing the "Business fat cats getting their private toilet while everyone in Economy getting utterly <insert word here>" line. I don't know if I should be surprised or not as the topic of toilet ratio has never really been a hot one for goodness knows how much.

Feels a bit like the story of a student who is an utter failure because they got A grades on everything except one subject is a C (not saying QF have kicked lots of goals here, but that seems like the nature of the stories latching onto the toilet thing).

The Asian carriers (well, legacy ones) actually do well in terms of toilet to pax ratio (including in Y), but their toilets actually get used quite a bit. I can't remember the last time I tried to use a Y toilet on an Asian carrier and the wait was at least 2 people deep (including the one in the toilet). Maybe Asians have quite different habits to us, or is it a weird case of "build it and they will use"?

My gut feel is that Qantas PR bit off more than they can chew, trying to sell this as a "gamechanger" aircraft (and maybe seeking a PR win after the 'bundle of rights' and cyber debacles).

If they had quietly entered service to replace the B737s I don't think the blowback would be as severe. Earlier press releases when the aircraft were initially ordered suggest they were primarily Golden Triangle replacements (with extra capacity) with only occasional references to their range.

It seems they've only more recently tried to position the XLR as capable of opening up new long-thin routes...creating a disconnect between QF's marketing of opening up new routes and the reality of one of the worst toiletax ratios in the industry (and while 1:81 to 1:90 may not seem much, who is to say that if there was no blowback they would try 1:100 in the future?). The average passenger probably doesn't realise that the longer range flights will (hopefully) be operated with a less dense configuration with lie-flat J seats.

 

[SYD]

Part of the problem on a single aisle is for about an hour of the flight the toilets become unusable. From the start of meal service till the end once trays are cleared and carts out of the aisle. Once this happens you suddenly have built up need for the toilets.

Going to the bathroom is a basic human right. People shouldn't have to plan their bathroom usage around airlines not providing sufficient toilets and blocking access to them for extended periods of time.

From memory, one of the configs mentioned up thread have the 3rd whY loo behind the J cabin - which obviously make sense.

 

[RooFlyer]

There have been no complaints about the 737 which has a 1:81 toilet ratio.

Is the 1:90 gonna make *that* much if a difference? Really?

And it’s going down to 1:66.

Apparently it will make a difference, as the airline has realised the error of the first iteration and is now going for the three at the back, even before the latest brouhaha. Not been known to spend a dollar on customers without it really being necessary.

The ratio on these first three will be unchanged for about 2-3 years and then, I wouldn't mind betting that the 'upgrade' for the early version is quietly forgotten "people have flown on the 2 toilet versions for years, and lived, so we'll just continue to use them on the short domestic routes".

 

[anat0l]

There have been no complaints about the 737 which has a 1:81 toilet ratio.

Is the 1:90 gonna make *that* much if a difference? Really?

And it’s going down to 1:66.

Let's take a more pragmatic view of this. The only thing absolutely worth conceding here is that the toilet ratio is worse for Economy passengers. That's it.

Is it actually worse for Y passengers? What are the effects - people wait longer, toilets are on average smellier, increase of risk of urinary diseases across people who regularly fly QF?

No one is honestly tracking all of this, e.g. the average wait time of a passenger in any type of aircraft. Maybe QF don't really want to do it either. But none of the accusers have honestly and practically laid out that this will lead to a drastically more uncomfortable toilet experience for all Y passengers (maybe all J passengers if you want to be strict, since they go from 12 pax to 1 toilet to 20 pax to 1 toilet). QF have certainly increased the risk of dissatisfaction - especially if and when these aircraft fly routes longer than about 2 hours - but I don't think anything but experience is going to tell whether it practically translates to a material discomfort or dissatisfaction. (Of course, those who realise this may decide to change their toilet habits to avoid using the aircraft toilet, which masks whether QF actually were OK or not in making this design decision).