747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:51 am

For over ten years now, all QF transpacific flights that was non-stop to LAX, has been 747s. Now I am reading that QF is drown grading to an A332, this do not make since. If the routes could not handle 747s any more why QF did not order 777 for it. An A332 is just to small for a flight this long, QF is going to lose passengers to NZ if they do this, also there pilots will not be happy about this. QF is making a big mistake by putting A332 in place of 747 on the AKL-LAX route.
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:55 am

The A332 is a very capable plane. What does size have to do with anything - you still only get one seat...
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
User avatar
hummingbird
Posts: 1141
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:45 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:57 am

This thread may help you.

RE: Qantas 332 AKL-LAX From March 08 (by QantasHeavy Jul 16 2007 in Civil Aviation)
The sky is the limit, but never stop grasping until you get the glory cloud..
 
B742
Posts: 3562
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:48 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:58 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 1):
The A332 is a very capable plane. What does size have to do with anything - you still only get one seat...

Very true. And to be honest a large percentage of the passengers do not care or even know what aircraft they are flying on.

Rob!  wave 
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6208
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:03 am

And of the few who do, many will probably appreciate the fact that there are less passengers on board (makes boarding and deplaning easier) and the 2-4-2 configuration in economy over the 3-4-3 config of the 747s. Ptich, if I am not mistaken, is 31 inches in both types.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
upperdeckfan
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:59 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:07 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
QF is going to lose passengers to NZ if they do this

Do you think people are going to switch airlines because of type of a/c? Really?

IMO, leisure and VFR choose airline based on rates, while business travelers and companies do it mainly on quality of service and/or corporate rates.

AFAIK, A332 being deployed by QF on AKL-LAX are brand new so it's likely more an upgrade than a downgrade.
744,742,741,772,773,762,732,735,738,752,727,717,DC10,DC9,M82,M87,319,320,321,343,346,L1011,CRJ2,CRJ9,E190,ATR42,DSH8,
 
A388
Posts: 7173
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:11 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 1):
The A332 is a very capable plane.

 checkmark  Correct. As mentioned in the other thread this also allows QF for more efficient planning during the low season during this time of the year.

A388
 
Someone83
Posts: 2934
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:16 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
An A332 is just to small for a flight this long

I didn't know "small" aircrafts couldn't fly long flights. Well, I learn something new everyday. Have you called QF telling them about their mistake, obviously they weren't aware of that this plane couldn't fly this route  Yeah sure
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
An A332 is just to small for a flight this long, QF is going to lose passengers to NZ if they do this, also there pilots will not be happy about this. QF is making a big mistake by putting A332 in place of 747 on the AKL-LAX route.

I don't think QF's pilots really care and if I remember correctly, this was done because QF is reapportioning their widebody capacity, not necessarily because the route can't support it.
PHX based
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18971
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:41 am

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 4):
and the 2-4-2 configuration in economy over the 3-4-3 config of the 747s. Ptich, if I am not mistaken, is 31 inches in both types.

Means a lower chance (25% vs. 40%) of winding up in a middle seat, and many economy class passengers travelling in pairs like the ability to have 2 seats to themselves rather than sharing with a stranger. And even if you're alone, if you prefer window seats you only have 1 person to bother when you want to leave your seat rather than 2 on a 747.
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:59 am

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 7):
Have you called QF telling them about their mistake, obviously they weren't aware of that this plane couldn't fly this route

 rotfl 
I can just imagine that phonecall now......  Smile
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
 
airnewzealand
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 6:00 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:02 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Now I am reading that QF is drown grading to an A332, this do not make since.

Makes alot of sense when you work within the airline!

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
If the routes could not handle 747s any more why QF did not order 777 for it.

AKL-LAX can handle 744 fine...All year round. QF want to open up new routes, and use the aircrafts where they can generate profits GREATER than AKL-LAX.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
An A332 is just to small for a flight this long

Says who or whom?? You? Let me tell you the aircraft is alot more comfortable for pax in reagrds to amenities offered on the aircrafts. The Aircraft has TWO aisles...Skybeds, PTV's with AVOD...whats the differences between a 744 and 332 to the NORMAL passenger?? Explanaion would be fantastic!

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
QF is going to lose passengers to NZ if they do this

Funny comment...

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
there pilots will not be happy about this

Actually pilots ar VERY happy regarding this decision...want to know why? 744 pilots now have more choice...Airbus 330 pilots now have a new destination, and the company on the whole is finally growing again.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
QF is making a big mistake by putting A332 in place of 747 on the AKL-LAX route.

Dont think so!
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:08 am

On that note there has been a QF 743 here at LAX pretty consistently for the past two weeks
Go big or go home
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:09 am

Quoting Airnewzealand (Reply 11):
Says who or whom?? You? Let me tell you the aircraft is alot more comfortable for pax in reagrds to amenities offered on the aircrafts. The Aircraft has TWO aisles...Skybeds, PTV's with AVOD...whats the differences between a 744 and 332 to the NORMAL passenger?? Explanaion would be fantastic!

No, no! It's a smaller plane, it must be rubbish in comparison!  Yeah sure  Big grin
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:39 am

[quote=Airnewzealand,reply=11]Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Now I am reading that QF is drown grading to an A332, this do not make since.

Makes alot of sense when you work within the airline!

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
If the routes could not handle 747s any more why QF did not order 777 for it.

AKL-LAX can handle 744 fine...All year round. QF want to open up new routes, and use the aircrafts where they can generate profits GREATER than AKL-LAX.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
An A332 is just to small for a flight this long

Says who or whom?? You? Let me tell you the aircraft is alot more comfortable for pax in reagrds to amenities offered on the aircrafts. The Aircraft has TWO aisles...Skybeds, PTV's with AVOD...whats the differences between a 744 and 332 to the NORMAL passenger?? Explanaion would be fantastic!

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
QF is going to lose passengers to NZ if they do this

Funny comment...

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
there pilots will not be happy about this

Actually pilots ar VERY happy regarding this decision...want to know why? 744 pilots now have more choice...Airbus 330 pilots now have a new destination, and the company on the whole is finally growing again.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
QF is making a big mistake by putting A332 in place of 747 on the AKL-LAX route.

Dont think so!




Let's not forget the extra time in the air. A332 are slower than 747s.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6208
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:53 am

Dude, seriously, what is your point? QF is not mistaken to have A332s do MEL-AKL-LAX. Seems to me you have gotten a lot of very clear and explanatory responses. You think that an extra half hour in the air matters when the flight is already more than 10 hours? Whatever the difference in flight duration is due to the A332 average speed versus the 744ER average speed, is going to be irrelevant and practically negligible.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:17 am

Something got mixed up in the above post. Happened often recently.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
If the routes could not handle 747s any more why QF did not order 777 for it.

Because they had A332 available. Furthermore you don't determine today that a given route is not viable anymore with the current airplane, then order a smaller one and get it tomorrow.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
An A332 is just to small for a flight this long

How exactly does the size of an airplane relate to the length of the route it is flying? Or asked otherwise what could happen if you happen to be trapped in an airplane too small for the route? Wait, you could possibly .... ehmm ... yaa ... *shrug* (?)

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
QF is going to lose passengers to NZ if they do this

Apparently they already lost them, otherwise there was no no need to switch equipment to A330s.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
also there pilots will not be happy about this

What a shame. Next time I am on that flight I think I will stop by at the cockpit and give them a hug. The world is so bad.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
QF is making a big mistake by putting A332 in place of 747 on the AKL-LAX route.

Did you consider giving them a call? I mean it doesn't bear thinking about if they really did a mistake!


Seriously the first thing I thought about was ETOPS, but it seems that it works just fine.
 
JRDC930
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:36 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:23 am

What about capacity ? Is the AKL-LAX route not doing well? Guess its not as popular as i thought.
U.S. Legacy carriers,STILL leaders in lowering industry standards...
 
*HighFlyah*
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2000 4:27 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:30 am

Why does QF even fly AKL-LAX? It doesn't make sense. NZ isn't silly enough to fly SYD-LAX.
 
VHVXB
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:54 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:35 am

Quoting JRDC930 (Reply 17):
What about capacity ? Is the AKL-LAX route not doing well? Guess its not as popular as i thought.

yes there will be a drop in capacity in 20J/155Y but for only 3 days a week. AKL-LAX is doing well, if it wasn't QF would not keep this service. Like Airnewzealand said the main reason for removing the B744 off that route for 3 days is to increase services else where i.e. BNE-LAX daily and SYD-JNB 6 weekly
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:36 am

Quoting *HighFlyah* (Reply 18):
Why does QF even fly AKL-LAX? It doesn't make sense. NZ isn't silly enough to fly SYD-LAX.

The tail does not wag the dog.
 
fllcontinental
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:14 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting Airnewzealand (Reply 11):
Says who or whom?? You? Let me tell you the aircraft is alot more comfortable for pax in reagrds to amenities offered on the aircrafts. The Aircraft has TWO aisles...Skybeds, PTV's with AVOD...whats the differences between a 744 and 332 to the NORMAL passenger?? Explanaion would be fantastic!

Ones got 2 engines ones got 4.  Wink  Big grin  Yeah sure
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18971
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:29 am

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 20):
Quoting *HighFlyah* (Reply 18):
Why does QF even fly AKL-LAX? It doesn't make sense. NZ isn't silly enough to fly SYD-LAX.

NZ did operate SYD-LAX nonstop for several years starting in 1994. I believe that service ended when Ansett Australia (then 100% owned by NZ) collapsed in 2001 and NZ lost their feeder network in Australia.

Don't forget that QF also operates their own domestic network iin New Zealand so they can feed the AKL-LAX route themselves.
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:08 am

Quoting AA61Hvy (Reply 12):
On that note there has been a QF 743 here at LAX pretty consistently for the past two weeks

I guess the higher density configuration might be part of the reason for that. I believe the remaining four B743's are all configured in 2 class, 450 seat config. One B743 flight would add a fair amount of capacity to the route.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 14):
Let's not forget the extra time in the air. A332 are slower than 747s.

You're clutching at straws here. Depending on winds, you're looking at around 40 minutes of extra flight time. However, look at it from the companies perspective. They now have a free B744 to operate another route where the loads are greater and where the CASM of a B744 will be better than on whatever previous equipment was operating (not necessarily an A330).

Also, factor in fast turn around times in AKL / LAX / MEL on the A330 as well as the ability to have another A330 positioned in the MEL base for maintenance (where it can fit in the hangar for daily inspections, AD's etc.) and you have a very well planned decision.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 16):
Seriously the first thing I thought about was ETOPS, but it seems that it works just fine.

I thought of that also. By available air routes you're pushing the A330 very close to ETOPS boudaries but still well within its capabilities. If I remember correctly, the A332 has an exceptional long range capability and once held the world record for a civil airliner non-stop flight (TLS-MEL direct on delivery).

I think another benefit of the decision is the more comfortable cabin. The A330 has very good comfort levels, as well as being very quiet. For me, that is very important on long haul flights.
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:12 am

Quoting Airnewzealand (Reply 11):
Says who or whom?? You? Let me tell you the aircraft is alot more comfortable for pax in reagrds to amenities offered on the aircrafts. The Aircraft has TWO aisles...Skybeds, PTV's with AVOD...whats the differences between a 744 and 332 to the NORMAL passenger?? Explanaion would be fantastic!

The prestige of riding on a 747. There something about riding on a large plane, for example I happy QF is using an A380 on the SYD-LAX route. Look I am a 747 fan and I believe that if you going to replace a 747, replace it with a worthy plane. A380 is a worthy replacement for a 747 and 777 300ER is an almost worthy replacement for a 747, but not an A332!

I finally forgiven A330s for replacing Aer Lingus 747s, now this happen. Well it could be worst, they could have replace the 747s with 767s on this route.
 
qantas787
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:59 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:26 am

Gee 747400sp are you surprised by the vehemence of the responses you are getting? Their not beating around the bush are they? Actually for what it's worth I'm on your side. The last time I rode a QF332 down from HKG in YC it was one of the most uncomfortable seats I've ever had the displeasure to sit in.
G'day
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:26 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 24):
Look I am a 747 fan and I believe that if you going to replace a 747, replace it with a worthy plane. A380 is a worthy replacement for a 747 and 777 300ER is an almost worthy replacement for a 747, but not an A332!

Are you thinking at all about what you're posting? You cannot seriously argue that an airliners decision for replacing an aircraft on a specific route should be based on the 'prestige' of riding in a larger plane. That is an absolutely absurd argument.
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
nzrich
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:51 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:31 am

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 23):
I think another benefit of the decision is the more comfortable cabin. The A330 has very good comfort levels, as well as being very quiet. For me, that is very important on long haul flights.

Have to admit its a nice aircraft to fly in .. But on a long haul flight i would take NZ's 34" pitch compared to QF's 31" even thou i do enjoy flying QF as well ..
"Pride of the pacific"
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:32 am

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 7):
I didn't know "small" aircrafts couldn't fly long flights.

I beleive the folks at Airbus might take offense to the 332 being referred to as a "small" aircraft.
 
anstar
Posts: 2868
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:34 am

Well people better get used to it. I'm sure Air NZ will havge 787's on North American routes once they start arriving.

Or, you could jump on one of their 767 AKL-LAX island hopper flights now!
 
Gunships
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:34 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 24):
I finally forgiven A330s for replacing Aer Lingus 747s

Whew!!

Man, are we glad to hear that.

signed,


The Aer Lingus/Airbus Team
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:37 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 24):
The prestige of riding on a 747. There something about riding on a large plane, for example I happy QF is using an A380 on the SYD-LAX route. Look I am a 747 fan and I believe that if you going to replace a 747, replace it with a worthy plane. A380 is a worthy replacement for a 747 and 777 300ER is an almost worthy replacement for a 747, but not an A332!

I finally forgiven A330s for replacing Aer Lingus 747s, now this happen. Well it could be worst, they could have replace the 747s with 767s on this route.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never even flown on QF.

Shoot guys, if all airlines had 16 year old, know-it-all armchair CEOs, we wouldn't have any strife in the industry today!
PHX based
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:42 am

Quoting Nzrich (Reply 27):
But on a long haul flight i would take NZ's 34" pitch compared to QF's 31" even thou i do enjoy flying QF as well ..

I'd take NZ just for the wine.
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:49 am

Quoting Nzrich (Reply 27):
But on a long haul flight i would take NZ's 34" pitch compared to QF's 31" even thou i do enjoy flying QF as well ..

NZ has 32" pitch on the 777s.  Sad
I believe QF is putting 32" pitch on these newer A332s, but I could be mistaken.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 31):
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never even flown on QF.

Well, I have, and I would rather be on anything but the 767s, especially if I was paying for J. The A332 sounds like a good flight if it has the newer cabin product.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:54 am

Does anyone know what the plans are for the JQ A332's when the 787's arrive? I assume they will either stay at JQ or be integrated into the QF system again?
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
avek00
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:54 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 24):
The prestige of riding on a 747.

I love the 747 too, and the 747-400 in particular, but the "prestige" value (i.e., the fare premium specifically attributable to choice of a/c type) for an airline operating it -- ZERO. Nada, none, zip. Note also that many airlines are electing NOT to install their high-end products or latest gadgets (AF, KL, UA, NW, SQ, to name a few) in some or all classes on their 747 fleets -- if you're reasoning was valid, we'd reasonably expect to see those carriers putting their latest and greatest on their 747s first (which is something they're all technically capable of doing).

And in case you haven't noticed, operating on the basis of "prestige" has more or less gone the way of the dinosaurs in the airline business (EK/SQ are limited exceptions to this, and SQ is frankly becoming more real world by the minute as competitive demands require it) -- not just figuratively, but literally, with the "prestigious" likes of Pan Am and TWA (both of whom found out just how prestigious operating a fleet of 747s can really be) nothing but a memory.

[Edited 2007-09-17 03:59:43]
Live life to the fullest.
 
VHVXB
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:54 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:56 am

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 34):
I assume they will either stay at JQ or be integrated into the QF system again?

Either that or they maybe given to Qantas Group's newest acquisition Pacific Airlines
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:57 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
this do not make since.

What DOESN'T make SENSE is the statement above.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
QF is making a big mistake by putting A332 in place of 747 on the AKL-LAX route.

And from what school did you get your degree in airline management?
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:01 am

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 35):
In case you haven't noticed, operating on the basis of "prestige" has more or less gone the way of the dinosaurs in the airline business -- not just figuratively, but literally, with the "prestigious" likes of Pan Am and TWA (both of whom found out just how prestigious operating a fleet of 747s can really be) nothing but a memory.

I'd argue "prestige" has sold more than a few 380s.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):
Well, I have, and I would rather be on anything but the 767s, especially if I was paying for J. The A332 sounds like a good flight if it has the newer cabin product.

I've flown on every model of aircraft QF flies save the 330s and the 743. I didn't have a bad experience on any of my flights, even the 763. I've heard the 330s are on par with the 744s product so I don't see how it's a step down as the OP suggests. It's the same Y and J class, what else is there? Only a handful of 744s have F and I don't think AKL-LAX flew often with F-class equipped aircraft anyway.
PHX based
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:07 am

Quoting 777STL (Reply 38):
I've flown on every model of aircraft QF flies save the 330s and the 743. I didn't have a bad experience on any of my flights, even the 763. I've heard the 330s are on par with the 744s product so I don't see how it's a step down as the OP suggests.

Well my reply was to someone being chastised for saying they wouldn't want to fly the QF 767 transpac, and I agree with that person. The 767 was fine PER-MEL (though as a red-eye, the lack of real J seats was annoying), and for AKL-LAX, the 767 would not be suitable. But the A332 on this route is going to have real J, so that makes it suitable.

That was my only point in the response, not that the 767 is a horrible experience on QF (I love the 767 in general, and it was a nice flight on QF). It's just not a plane QF would want to use long-haul as it isn't outfitted for it, and I wouldn't want to fly it long-haul.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:51 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
An A332 is just to small for a flight this long, QF is going to lose passengers to NZ if they do this, also there pilots will not be happy about this.

Are you kidding me with this statement? Get a grip, or a life - one of the two.
Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2316
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:58 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
An A332 is just to small for a flight this long,

Just like the B763 is too small for Hawaiian Airlines to fly from Sydney to Hawaii?

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 24):
Look I am a 747 fan and I believe that if you going to replace a 747, replace it with a worthy plane. A380 is a worthy replacement for a 747 and 777 300ER is an almost worthy replacement for a 747, but not an A332!

Most professional airline planning department personnel tend to make decisions based on sound economic and strategic procedures, not personal whims and preferences.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:12 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 39):
Well my reply was to someone being chastised for saying they wouldn't want to fly the QF 767 transpac, and I agree with that person. The 767 was fine PER-MEL (though as a red-eye, the lack of real J seats was annoying), and for AKL-LAX, the 767 would not be suitable. But the A332 on this route is going to have real J, so that makes it suitable.

Ahh okay, I was confused, I didn't think I had said anything about the 767. I didn't realize you were comparing the 767 to the 330.
PHX based
 
airnewzealand
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 6:00 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:07 pm

Quoting Qantas787 (Reply 25):
The last time I rode a QF332 down from HKG in YC it was one of the most uncomfortable seats I've ever had the displeasure to sit in.

Qantas has NEVER operated the A332 on HKG flights. Im guessing you are referring to the A333?


In regards to WHY QF are replacing 744 on CERTAIN days with the A332...i will state it again...to GROW the business!!! The A332 fits perfectly on the AKL-LAX route...thus the reason for the substitution (If they had the aircraft, the 744 would stay on the route)! A332 cannot operate to LHR, FRA, JNB, Eastcoast-LAX, SFO... the only substitute IS AKL-LAX.

As someone has mentioned, the A332 will have 32" pitch in some areas of the cabin, much like the 744 have now (much to some peoples amazement!)...
 
qantas787
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:59 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:15 pm

Quoting Airnewzealand (Reply 43):
Qantas has NEVER operated the A332 on HKG flights. Im guessing you are referring to the A333?

You are absolutely correct. My apologies for the indiscretion. Although it doesn't change the comfort factor.
G'day
 
platinumfoota
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:39 am

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:17 pm

Seeing how a 747 has a higher crusing speed than the 332, How much longer will it take for the 332 to go AKL-LAX than the 747?
Never forget United 93
 
vt977
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 5:09 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:50 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):

I agree...QF should use the USS ENTERPRISE on this route with Capt.Picard in command. That would be fun and prestigious.
A conclusion is what you reach when you get tired of thinking.
 
 
vt977
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 5:09 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:33 pm

BTW I have flown the 332 and really liked it.
A conclusion is what you reach when you get tired of thinking.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3694
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Why Is QF Putting A332 On The AKL-LAX Route?

Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:43 pm

Quoting Airnewzealand (Reply 11):
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Now I am reading that QF is drown grading to an A332, this do not make since.

Makes alot of sense when you work within the airline!

Except for the crew not having a decent crew rest and longer flight...  Yeah sure

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 15):
You think that an extra half hour in the air matters when the flight is already more than 10 hours?

11 and 12 hours AKL-LAX, LAX-AKL respectively... add 30 mins to that...pax really start getting restless after about 11 hours on a plane... anything longer than that just gets worse as time goes by.

Quoting *HighFlyah* (Reply 18):
Why does QF even fly AKL-LAX? It doesn't make sense. NZ isn't silly enough to fly SYD-LAX.

Because QF has a domestic feeder operation in New Zealand. New Zealand is kinda en-route to Australia and back in the day it was operationally sensible since older gen 747s couldn't really do Oz-LAX non-stop.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):
I believe QF is putting 32" pitch on these newer A332s, but I could be mistaken.

Really? Be nice but I haven't heard that...

Quoting Airnewzealand (Reply 43):
As someone has mentioned, the A332 will have 32" pitch in some areas of the cabin, much like the 744 have now (much to some peoples amazement!)...

what areas mate?  Wink
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.