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

[Melburnian1]

AFF's QF A333 refurbishment tracker thread initiated if I recall by moa999 has been wildly successful with hundreds or more contributions and many tens of thousands of pageviews.

The QFi A333s from VH-QPA to VH-QPJs are mostly used on international routes as intended, but there are insufficient for all the Asian routes.

It's the little things in the A333s like cloth-covered seats (better) and the larger IFE screens in Y that make a difference.

Flight numbers that mostly or always miss out include QF5/QF6 between Sydney and Singapore (which on Friday 28 July is cancelled in both directions), QF19/20 between Sydney and Manila (which appears to be currently operating six days a week not the previous five) and QF41/42 between Sydney and Jakarta. For other reasons (insufficient crew rest facilities and a too small galley), I gather that QF107/QF108 between Sydney and Beijing/ Peking also miss out.

Yet on 28 July FR24 informs us that VH-QPE is operating QF581, the scheduled 0925 hours SYD - PER and its return QF582, the 1340 hours ex PER back to SYD where it should arrive if punctual at 1950 hours tonight.

While there may well be a good reason for its domestic use, on the face of it this is a waste when an A332 would normally be available for the Perth run.

The A333s have 26 extra Y seats.

Why won't QF provide an A333 at least some of the time to Manila and on the second Sydney - Singapore daily, and perhaps occasionally for the shorter flight to Jakarta to give passengers the best 'equipment' available? All these flights are of a longer duration than SYD - PER.

 

[Boof1]

What makes you think it's a waste? There is so many variables here at play:

- Maybe the load on one or both of the PER services needs an A333?
- Maybe they are down an A332 due maintenance but have a load greater than a 73H?
- Maybe they have a lot of freight to haul in the extra container space?

The assumption that the Asian routes miss out on the A333's negates to include that MNL & CGK don't always need the extra capacity, and there are some range implications (from memory, don't quote me) for the PEK services hence they mostly get the A332's in the old config (EBG and EBL) or an A333 with seats blocked.

There is more to this than just wastage and routes missing out...

 

[RichardMEL]

It's not a waste if the extra capacity is utilised. That's an extra 26Y seats. Maybe Manilla doesn't see the demand, domestic routings to fit maintenance/check requirements, or for capacity reasons (I've enjoyed the odd 333's on SYD-MEL routings that turn to international runs, and why not? capacity on a peak sector as a repositioning flight.)

In the past QF used to route international 767's in a similar way with some domestic runs thrown in. I see this as no different.

While it may be disappointing from a pax point of view that the product is a bit different, QF can route the equipment wherever it likes or sees the best fit for, while juggling various logistical requirements too.

 

[Mattg]

There are various reasons that the A333s may be used on domestic flights. Sometimes they're positioning flights, e.g. the aircraft will arrive on an international flight into SYD, fly passengers to MEL, then depart MEL for another international destination. Other times it might just be to improve fleet utilisation. For example, an aircraft might arrive in SYD at 6am from SIN, then fly to PER and back during the day. The same aircraft could then operate to HNL that evening. I don't see this as a "waste" as it saves the plane from sitting on the ground all day.

 

[Melburnian1]

Many of the above justifications may be valid, but my basic premise is that the longer the route, the more claim it has on the 'best' aircraft available in terms of passenger comfort. The 'disappointment' of which RichardMEL speaks was my basic point.

With routes like SYD - MNL, QF has recently upped frequency, so unless QF is irrational, the route must be doing well in seat utilisation factors. It's true that for a particular day's flight the frequency rise does not always prove the need for 26 extra seats, but if one adds 300 weekly seats in round figures to a route that previously had capacity for about 1500 passengers each way, there must be previously unserved demand.

Boof1, yes, from what I recall, the SYD - PEK route is a special case as you and I both noted above due to its length which is why the two unrefurbished A332s continue to operate it (most days.)

It's odd that the size of the IFE monitors in Y were not standardised at 11 inches for all the aircraft (A333s or some A332s) intended for us on QFi routes. Nor have all the seats become cloth-covered, which is far more comfortable and one would have thought durable than real or fake leather.

 

[Mattg]

It is true that the A333s are slightly nicer than the A332s. In J, the A333s have one extra toilet and cloth seat covers. In Y, better IFE. But QF doesn't have enough A333s to cover all of its international routes.

Consider the international routes served by Qantas using A330s:

1. QF81/82 SYD-SIN (daily)
2. QF5/6 SYD-SIN (daily)
3. QF51/52 BNE-SIN (daily)
4. QF35/36 MEL-SIN (daily)
5. QF37/38 MEL-SIN (3x weekly)
6. QF41/42 SYD-CGK (4x weekly)
7. QF19/20 SYD-MNL (6x weekly)
8. QF23/24 SYD-BKK (daily)
9. QF3/4 SYD-HNL (5x weekly)
10. QF29/30 MEL-HKG (operated by A330s 4x weekly)
11. QF97/98 BNE-HKG (daily)
12. QF117/118 SYD-HKG (daily)
13. QF129/130 SYD-PVG (daily)
14. QF61/62 BNE-NRT (daily)
15. QF79/80 MEL-NRT (daily)
16. QF107/108 SYD-PEK (daily)

To service all of these routes with A330-300s would require at least 15 aircraft. Qantas has only 10.

In any case, as I said above, I wouldn't read too much into QF using an A330-300 on a domestic flight occasionally.

 

[mannej]

It is true that the A333s are slightly nicer than the A332s. In J, the A333s have one extra toilet and cloth seat covers. In Y, better IFE. But QF doesn't have enough A333s to cover all of its international routes.

Consider the international routes served by Qantas using A330s:

1. QF81/82 SYD-SIN (daily)
2. QF5/6 SYD-SIN (daily)
3. QF51/52 BNE-SIN (daily)
4. QF35/36 MEL-SIN (daily)
5. QF37/38 MEL-SIN (3x weekly)
6. QF41/42 SYD-CGK (4x weekly)
7. QF19/20 SYD-MNL (6x weekly)
8. QF23/24 SYD-BKK (daily)
9. QF3/4 SYD-HNL (5x weekly)
10. QF29/30 MEL-HKG (operated by A330s 4x weekly)
11. QF97/98 BNE-HKG (daily)
12. QF117/118 SYD-HKG (daily)
13. QF129/130 SYD-PVG (daily)
14. QF61/62 BNE-NRT (daily)
15. QF79/80 MEL-NRT (daily)
16. QF107/108 SYD-PEK (daily)

To service all of these routes with A330-300s would require at least 15 aircraft. Qantas has only 10.

In any case, as I said above, I wouldn't read too much into QF using an A330-300 on a domestic flight occasionally.

Isn't the IFE in the newer 332's the same as what is in the 333's?

Both EBL and G have stuck mainly to the 107/8 over the last month as what QF has suggested it would.

I do think a standardized A330 product would have been great, but for purposes of fleet utilisation don't think it's wasted on a PER run occasionally.

 

[sudoer]

my basic premise is that the longer the route, the more claim it has on the 'best' aircraft available in terms of passenger comfort

I see where you're coming from, but I think it's pretty evident that Qantas prioritises yield optimisation heavily over passenger comfort.

No doubt their algorithms assign A333s to the occasional domestic route for a reason - be it capacity requirements, repositioning, maintenance, etc - without much care for how big the IFE screens are, or whether the seats are cloth instead of leather, on other long-haul flights.

 

[RichardMEL]

Well if you don't like the a/c offered on a particular route then you can always find another carrier/product that meets your needs

Airlines will put the best product for THEM on any particular route at any particular time (eg: 737's on transcon's) and those are business decisions.. just as it's a customer's decision to fly with them or another carrier for whatever reasons - price, product, FFP, aircraft, schedule, etc

 

[jb747]

As the 333 is actually the shorter legged of the two variants, it could be argued that the 332s should be totally international, and the 3s domestic.

It is, of course, never that simple, and you don’t have anywhere near enough information to know whether something is wasted or not. The perfect aircraft for a given service will be a moving target.

 

[flychrisfly]

I think competition on the route would also affect the selection of aircraft. I believe the perception is that QF is far superior to PR, for example, so need need for the most premium of hard products on this route. Probably not true on all routes but a factor nonetheless.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

There are various reasons that the A333s may be used on domestic flights. Sometimes they're positioning flights, e.g. the aircraft will arrive on an international flight into SYD, fly passengers to MEL, then depart MEL for another international destination.

Other times it might just be to improve fleet utilisation. For example, an aircraft might arrive in SYD at 6am from SIN, then fly to PER and back during the day. The same aircraft could then operate to HNL that evening. I don't see this as a "waste" as it saves the plane from sitting on the ground all day.

Brother got QPF last Wed 26 Jul SYD/MEL/SYD on QF409/454 before it operated QF3 SYD/HNL.

Having one 333 flight instead of two 738 flights could be beneficial in times such as single runway ops due to high winds when there's not enough slot times available and ATC make airlines cancel flights.

 

[Happy Trails]

It's not wasted if I'm on the flight

 

[Melburnian1]

I think competition on the route would also affect the selection of aircraft. I believe the perception is that QF is far superior to PR, for example, so need need for the most premium of hard products on this route. Probably not true on all routes but a factor nonetheless.

If you're referring to MNL - SYD, PR is just about to start operating completely refurbished A333s (already commenced to MEL) that have J suites, probably a bigger IFE screen in Y and fares significantly below QF's. So the perception may quickly change once word gets around, but I don't know if these refurbished birds will be on every PR MNL - SYD flight as some are day flights and at times during each week the airline requires two aircraft (one northbound, the other southbound.)

I have heard that PR may go (to use an overused term) 'double daily' on SYD - MNL but perhaps that's a bit like all the CA or QR 'maybes': believe it when one sees it.

The refurbished PR A333s look pretty good (not that I've been on them yet):

The Exciting Centennial of Philippine Aviation: Ready For Hawaii Flight

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Philippine_Airlines/Philippine_Airlines_Airbus_A330_V3.php

A bit like QF with its A333s, PR seems to be refurbishing one aircraft a month.

What about CGK - SYD? Surely GA is already considered very competitive due to the aircraft it may use (although again there are a limited number of these):

https://www.ausbt.com.au/garuda-gets-new-business-class-for-airbus-a330s

And on SYD - SIN QF is up against SQ, which routinely is regarded above QF in passenger perceptions (although even SQ has a variety of aircraft and some are clearly not as modern as others in the cabin.)

That said, QF has Australian government contracts locked up and smaller airlines like GA, PR, TR and even if I recall carriers like JL, KE and NH do not, so that alone gives QF what some might consider an unfair advantage. Public servants can still book these non-listed airlines but it may be more complicated to do so, so I doubt many would.

 

[sudoer]

That said, QF has Australian government contracts locked up and smaller airlines like GA, PR, TR and even if I recall carriers like JL, KE and NH do not, so that alone gives QF what some might consider an unfair advantage. Public servants can still book these non-listed airlines but it may be more complicated to do so, so I doubt many would.

I think most tax payers would like to see their dollars spent with Australian airlines wherever possible - I don't consider this unfair or anti-competitive. I'm sure all the airlines you've listed have contractual arrangements with their home governments too.

 

[Melburnian1]

I think most tax payers would like to see their dollars spent with Australian airlines wherever possible - I don't consider this unfair or anti-competitive. I'm sure all the airlines you've listed have contractual arrangements with their home governments too.

Free trade not protectionism has always benefited island nations like Oz.

If QF's fares (and quality) are not competitive, why shouldn't travellers (including in government) have free choice?

Or, to turn the discussion around, do you consider that it's good that this week mainland China slapped a ban on six Australian abattoirs exporting from Oz, perhaps in retaliation for comments our government made about the South China Sea and mainland China's incursions there? Should Australian architects, solicitors and real estate agents be prohibited from selling their 'products' to anyone overseas?

Should you or I have to travel only on Australian-domiciled airlines? That would be massively unfair.

Australian groups like farmers can't demand good access for our goods and services overseas if we don't recognise the right of others (subject to the usual health and safety concerns, and assured non-importation of pests and diseases) to enjoy that with Australia. Trade is a two way street.

 

[Mattg]

And sure enough, VH-QPE is now en-route to HNL as QF3...

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Given the fares in J for PER-SYD I doubt anyone monitoring Qantas revenues would regard it as a "waste".

 

[Berlin]

Slightly off the original question but still relevant in this context- are there still any non-refurbished A330s around or are they all done now? And if there are, which routes do I have to fear ending up on them? I find them entirely insufficient for a route like SYD-SIN and hence I really hesitate ever booking QF for these legs...

 

[moa999]

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