Jfazzer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 157 posts, RR: 8 Posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
Now that the Airbus A330 has been in service for a couple of months with this previously all-Boeing operator, does anyone know how well the type is performing for them and whether it has achieved what was asked of it?
Stefandotde From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
Have heared that they are not very satisfied. But doesn't depend on plane, it depends on route they are using that plane.
QF will bring their 330 to interconti-routes and their 767 will fly inner-australian routes.
StarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2595 times:
All that I ever read on a.net were rumours. No facts or numbers.
Apparently it takes them too long to turn the A330 around so they are shifting them from the PER-SYD and MEL-SYD flights to transtasman.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2495 times:
Good points, the A330 is certainly a good airliner (even the most die-hard Boeing fan will agree on this point) but is QF happy with the A330 on its domestic Austalian routes? I, nothing more than an observer, thought that the A330 was an odd choice for Australian domestic services, 1 hours jumps between Sydney and Brisbane and even 4 hour segments between Perth and the Australian east coast is really not what the A330 (in either version) is optimized for.....those routes would be better served by the A321-200 (or a 739); above it states that QF will try the A330 out on the trans-tasman routes, these 3-4 hour segments may work out better, but unless and until QF starts flying the A330 on its "lighter" routes out of Australia to Japan and the Far East (say MEL to HKG or ADL to SIN or CNS to NRT), I do not think that QF can make a fair assessment of the A330s performance.
Pilottim747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1607 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2425 times:
I agree with Dutchjet. I think QF's discontent (although still a rumor) is stemming from the routes they're using the A330 on. It doesn't make sense to use it for these short hops along the eastern coast. The A330 might work with the SYD-PER routes and trans-Tasman services much better. They might expand it into Asian routes but that might take some time.
Aviation Photographers & Enthusiasts--Coordinate your life.
Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2178 times:
I do not understand... How can an airline expect to turnaround a much bigger plane, with more passenger capacity and thus more baggage, more cargo and with a possibly larger tank to refuel at the same time as a B763.
Even with dual airbridges, only passengers will disembark slightly faster but that wouldn't make much difference. Is this the end to A332 CityFlyer services?
Hopefully they can serve QF well on the transtasman route.
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1546 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
This is a much bigger issue than it may appear. Whilst not doubting the capability of the 330, there are many who believe it was the wrong choice for Qantas. This is all tied up with the 380/777/764 v 380/330 debate. The 330 is much more capable than a 764. but it is more aircraft than Qantas needed, and the 777 seems tailor made for Qantas.
I would love to know how this decision was made internally within Qantas.
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
I think I pretty much know the story of how the 330 got it's way to QF.
In early 2000 QF were on the verge of signing with Boeing/GE for 18+12 772ER/LR with an announcement of 772LR launch customer status at Farnborough 2000. The original 300 seat RFP from QF to the manufacturers was for a long range aircraft(772ER/LR v 343/345/6). There is no doubt in my mind that the 777 was the technically preferred type at QF(and still is in many people's mind).
Around May 2000 SQ ordered the 380 and this changed the whole fleet planning philosophy at QF and this is where Leahy got very creative and clever. QF needed and wanted the 380 and were convinced they needed a 2nd Airbus type for training and career pathway purposes(promotion/demotion). The 320/738 decision had not been made at this stage and was only made when AN failed in 2001 and AA 738s became available at very favourable terms. So, Airbus "pincered "the 777 from below with the 330 and from above with the 380.
The 380 basically meant QF went with the hub and spoke system and rejected the opening up of new city pairs route system. Of course, Airbus had to come up with a strategy of how the 330 could beat the 777. There was only one way. That being, QF buying paper reduced weight 332s initially and using them on trunk domestic routes. No doubt the lighter 332s would perform this role better than the 777. Airbus also offered the A330/380 combination at a very generous discount as a QF order was vital for the manufacturer.
So, the main reason for buying the 332s(according to CEO Dixon) was for the CityFlyer trunk domestic routes. We all know what an abject failure they have proved here and QF technically knows that it prefers the 777 on routes above 2500nm.
IMO they made a big mistake here and probably bought the wrong aircraft for the wrong reasons. If they wanted 2 Airbus types, then they should have ordered the 32X family as a 733/4 replacement.
No doubt however, that the 380 was a good purchase and bought for all the right reasons, and will serve the airline really well.
Personally, I don't think the 330 future at QF is that bright and I still think that it is reasonably probable that the airline will order 7E7/777 or both at some stage in the next 2-3 years and that they will keep enough of a 330 subfleet to operate them as a viable niche.
What is very much in doubt at QF is the 330 options(they are believed to have 26 options/purchase rights). I wouldn't be surprised at all to see no more than the 13 firmly ordered 330s operate for QF.
Justplanesmart From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 720 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1617 times:
As much as I dislike the "Dreamliner" name, I doubt any airline executive gives a hoot what Boeing decides to call the plane. The carrier can always market a plane how they wish: Singapore Airlines' "Megatops" and "Celestars", Crossair's "Concordinos" and Jumbolinos", PSA with their "Smiliners" (all of which make me cringe just as much as "Dreamliner").