QF at least occasionally 'wastes' its A333s on domestic routes

[Berlin]

Two unrefurb 332s - EBG and EBL. Mostly dedicated to SYD-PEK and the QF5/6 SYD-SIN as well as some SYD-MEL, but occasionally end up through the network
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-ebg
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-ebl

Thanks for that info- I thought there are still some few floating around. Anyone know why the heck they'd leave two aircraft untouched? It's scaring me generally to book any QF A330 flights as I've ended up on those old ones several times, would have been the SIN one from memory.

 

[oz_mark]

Thanks for that info- I thought there are still some few floating around. Anyone know why the heck they'd leave two aircraft untouched? It's scaring me generally to book any QF A330 flights as I've ended up on those old ones several times, would have been the SIN one from memory.

At the time the refurbs were planned, they were going to return the two aircraft back to the lessors. Changed their mind and kept them.

 

[Mattg]

Thanks for that info- I thought there are still some few floating around. Anyone know why the heck they'd leave two aircraft untouched? It's scaring me generally to book any QF A330 flights as I've ended up on those old ones several times, would have been the SIN one from memory.

They're the only suitable aircraft for the SYD-PEK route as the A333s don't have the range (with a full payload) and the refurbished A332s don't have crew rest areas.

They're used pretty much exclusively on QF5/6, QF107/108 and occasionally QF117/118. There's almost zero chance of getting one of these planes on international flights out of BNE/MEL, and very little chance you'd get one on any other international flight out of SYD.

 

[Berlin]

At the time the refurbs were planned, they were going to return the two aircraft back to the lessors. Changed their mind and kept them.

Thank you- that explains it!

 

[Berlin]

They're the only suitable aircraft for the SYD-PEK route as the A333s don't have the range (with a full payload) and the refurbished A332s don't have crew rest areas.
They're used pretty much exclusively on QF5/6, QF107/108 and occasionally QF117/118. There's almost zero chance of getting one of these planes on international flights out of BNE/MEL, and very little chance you'd get one on any other international flight out of SYD.

Thanks a lot, then for me it's really only the SIN route that's the issue!

 

[JohnK]

Not a fan of the A333 internationally and try to avoid where possible to the point where I'll do BNE-SIN-BKK on EK and 3K rather than SYD-BKK.

In my opinion the A330 (whichever variant) would be perfect for domestic operations between SYD-BNE-MEL just like the 767s used to be many years ago.

Patiently waiting to see where the 787s fit in to QF's international operations.

 

[Berlin]

In my opinion the A330 (whichever variant) would be perfect for domestic operations between SYD-BNE-MEL just like the 767s used to be many years ago.

In my opinion those old A330s would have been perfect to carry the cheapies on Jettrash over to Bali. Just sayin...

 

[RichardMEL]

In my opinion those old A330s would have been perfect to carry the cheapies on Jettrash over to Bali. Just sayin...

which they did....

I don't quite know why the hate for the 330. Even in Y, the 2-4-2 config (IIRC) is better for both couples and families travelling, and the J suites are a product that's up there with the competition if not beating some of the older "regional" J products. If you're up against a 777 (for example) Y could be 3-3-3 or even 3-4-3 in the nasty config (eg: EK in parts).

As for just using the higher capacity 330's on ONLY domestic runs... sure, and they are, but these aircraft were mostly designed for medium/longer haul missions, and lots of short domestic hops also use up the cycles of these planes so I figure there's also a cost in that with maintenance and so on. Really though the real reason you have say 10xday 73H(or whatever it is) on MEL-BNE is for schedule coverage. Same capacity could be had with far less 330's flying it, but then you lose schedule advantage so that's going to be a factor too. You can put them on busier MEL-SYD and v.v. because the capacity is needed, and they can do a rotation or so between PER or other turns.

my 2 cents.

 

[Berlin]

I don't quite know why the hate for the 330.

I can tell you why I hate them Keep in mind I am comparing to a rather new Emirates A380 or a brand new 787 that could be flying many of those routes if it wasn't used for cheap fares on Jetstar instead. I'm not thinking about the cheap seats in the back as luckily I haven't had to endure these so I can't tell.

First off, they're older planes, feeling rattly and rusty (I'm exaggerating a bit here, I am well aware ) and generally meh as in no wow factor whatsoever. Case in point those disgusting old bathrooms, brrrr.

And then those new staggered seats in J- I am really not the biggest fan, I've seen many more comfortable staggered seating solutions though generally this setup is the way to go in my eyes.

 

[mannej]

Rattly and rusty?

Some short memories compared to the 767s in their final few years...

 

[Berlin]

Rattly and rusty?

Some short memories compared to the 767s in their final few years...

Yep, they were even more of a disgrace. Which doesn't make those old A330 fancy and sparkling new.

 

[RichardMEL]

Remember folks the fitout of cabins can vary wildly per carrier (so I can understand your preference for an EK 380, though I find those tiny J lavs right at the back behind the bar earea ahead of the galley to be loathsome).

I'd also note several operators' 787 lavs are horribly tiny (just try UA and NZ is not great, even with the piped muzak)

sadly the new rage in aircraft lavs, even for ULH ops seems to be micro, despite the fact most of us are ending up a bit more macro in size

anyway each to their own.

Remember those 330's replaced the even more rattling and rusty 767's on many Asian routes......

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Remember those 330's replaced the even more rattling and rusty 767's on many Asian routes......

I quite liked the 767s ... especially with the single column of window seats in J.

 

[jb747]

They rattled when new. Great aircraft though.

 

[JohnK]

I don't quite know why the hate for the 330.

Because they are awful compared to economy on 747s and A380. The 777 is not fantastic but I'd prefer that too.

As for domestic the 737s are awful. Went down the back to use bathroom from row 4 the other day. The cart went out to collect rubbish. As I got out another person came down to use bathroom. It was awfully cramped back there waiting for cart to return. Awful aircraft and just about tolerable if you stay put. Walking back up the aisle to row 4 there's not a single shoulder in their seat. Everyone is leaning out into the aisle and I'm not a small person.

The 737 should not have more than 5 seats across which I believe is the original configuration. The A320 is not much better and I would avoid either aircraft for any flight more than 2 hours. In fact even 2 hours is too long as I have done BNE-MEL/ADL a few times.

The 767 was perfect. I believd the A330 would serve a very similar purpose and in theory would help leep costs down? Why do you need to schedule a flight every hour?

 

[oz_mark]

Why do you need to schedule a flight every hour?

On Business heavy routes, frequency is important. It's why Canberra gets so many Q400s.

 

[RichardMEL]

I quite liked the 767s ... especially with the single column of window seats in J.

Absolutely. The 330 J suites at least give one those single seats on both windows, which is a win over the older config (not to mention the suite design, and lie flat bed).

btw the days of 5 across on the 737 in Y probably ended around the time the 737-200 was introduced

JohnK makes some reasonable points, but they are also subjective. I agree, for example, the J suites in the 330 (QF config) are poor for companions traveling together (unless they don't want to interact ! ) but for singletons they are pretty good. We all have our specific needs and preferences (the lav situation suchs for all).

Let's also remember that it's unfair to tar an aircraft type (such as the 330 or 777) with a single brush is unfair given each carrier can make or break it with the seating, galley, lav(etc) config they choose to deploy. For example, Nobody would think the JQ 787s, specially in Y are very good in any way shape or form (if you find someone, let me know.. I'll meet them at the Tiger Lounge to disccuss !). This doesn't make the 787 per se a bad aircraft (OTOH, issues such as the poor dimming of the windows are a universal "feature" of this design and am happy to comment on that aspect of the aircraft).

For years, the 777's 3-3-3 in Y was considered fairly decent by many and it was only EK who had 10 across in some sections.. now more and more carriers are doing this, and it is hell (I was on a UA 777 with 3-4-3 recently, luckily up front, and it looked dire as I entered the cabin). Again, this does not make the 777 a poor aircraft.

Yes, the 330 fills a 767 replacement role in many respects and even has a similar cross section (eg: 2-4-2 in Y, anything from 1-2-1 to 2-3-2 in J depending on carrier and product).

Finally why schedule flights hourly (or less) on some routes? because Schedule demand is king!!! Why on MEL-SYD do you some times have every 15 minutes during peak times? Capacity and schedule. If you're on a business trip and you finish meetings early you don't want to have to wait 2 hours for the next flight to get home.. and by the same token if you finish late, you want to be able to get on the next flight within a reasonable amount of time - and will pay for this via flex fares.

This is exactly why we have aircraft like the 787 and the 330neo these days - even on longer routes, say Australia to Asia if you can offer 3 flights a day say morning, afternoon and evening vs 1 A380 or 747 size aircraft, you offer the public so many more options - specially for those connecting to different places (eg: SYD-SIN-Europe vs SYD-SIN-India/China).

Why does QF deploy the 737 on trans tasman routes? Schedule and matching capacity more closely to demand. Not to mention these aircraft are far more efficient at the missions than larger longer haul aircraft.

 

[Melburnian1]

Getting back to the original topic (after some interesting comments, and I agree frequency for any public transport is important, and RichardMEL's example of TransTasman morning, afternoon and evening departures is relevant), it is regrettable that QF's refurbishment created differences.

It's not apparent to me why some QF refurbished aircraft have larger IFE monitors in economy class than others. This smacks of cutting corners. QF lost an ideal opportunity to standardise its aircraft cabins.

 

[njba]

The 737 should not have more than 5 seats across which I believe is the original configuration. The A320 is not much better and I would avoid either aircraft for any flight more than 2 hours. In fact even 2 hours is too long as I have done BNE-MEL/ADL a few times.

That is an incredible thought and I'd love to see it. It's quite fun to travel on the 717s for this seating config.

 

[oz_mark]

Getting back to the original topic (after some interesting comments, and I agree frequency for any public transport is important, and RichardMEL's example of TransTasman morning, afternoon and evening departures is relevant), it is regrettable that QF's refurbishment created differences.

It's not apparent to me why some QF refurbished aircraft have larger IFE monitors in economy class than others. This smacks of cutting corners. QF lost an ideal opportunity to standardise its aircraft cabins.

Aren't they more or less keeping the economy screens they aircraft were delivered with?