Also don't forget there is massive competition between the Gulf and KTM. Especially UAE-KTM and vice versa. The amount of seats to/from UAE to KTM far outstrip QR-KTM. QR can use a very efficient widebody with a consistent product to/from Doha that only EY can match operationally from AUH. But EY is a very different beast compared to QR. Hence the next best is FZ+EK. The more competition the lower the yield. And KTM is a low yield destination. So it's better to fly an efficient widebody and make slightly more pennies. If you can fill it that is.

Why would an airline prefer to use a widebody between Kathmandu and Qatar/UAE/Bahrain if it has narrowbodies in its fleet ?

A narrowbody like an A320 or B737 is more than capable of this journey. I thought narrowbodies had a significantly lower cost per available seat kilometre than widebodies.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Why would an airline prefer to use a widebody between Kathmandu and Qatar/UAE/Bahrain if it has narrowbodies in its fleet ?

A narrowbody like an A320 or B737 is more than capable of this journey. I thought narrowbodies had a significantly lower cost per available seat kilometre than widebodies.

An airline should be using widebodies only on longhaul where a narrowbody lack the fuel range, or where there is a very high number of pax flying in business class - neither applies to the Nepal-MiddleEast route

I mean, thats your opinion and thats fine, but have you shared your feedback with AAB to let him know QR should not be sending a wide body? Just curious.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Why would an airline prefer to use a widebody between Kathmandu and Qatar/UAE/Bahrain if it has narrowbodies in its fleet ?

A narrowbody like an A320 or B737 is more than capable of this journey. I thought narrowbodies had a significantly lower cost per available seat kilometre than widebodies.

What will Qatar use in place of 5 A330-300/ 787-8 daily then? 10-12 A320/737?

The prime reason is high O&D. Qatar has the highest O&D market for Nepalis among all nations except India. So with the high O&D it is easier to offer multiple flights for possible connections. Which is the same concept that EK, QR and EY have with India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc, fair to significant O&D with each of these countries enable them to offer connections to many cities around the world.

A330Inter wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

I think part of the issue is there is a very high Nepalese worker population in Qatar, more so than in other Gulf states, so a lot of the QR traffic is point to point.

Like I said above, 80 plus percent Qatar Airways passengers have some connecting flight so it's not entirely the workers

Not entirely workers but surely having such a large local demand helps to sustain 4 flights / day and in turn offer connectivity to the rest of the world.
In 2019, QR had close to 25% of its KTM route has local traffic, but more importantly, this is a total of 110,000 annual pax.

For comparison, EY had only 20,000 pax on local demand, which is why they only sustain 1 flight now, and had about 80% connecting passengers.
FZ carried 95,000 pax in 2019 on local demand to Dubai, still below QR to Doha. While we can argue that FZ connects well with EK, it becomes a bit challenging for them (FZ+EK) to sell long-haul Nepal to US with a product sub-par with QR. Hence why Qatar so far has been successful in Nepal over the gulf competition.

Is 787 allowed to fly to Nepal? I know there were some restrictions for 777 equipments in the past I think due to runway PCN limitations (I could be wrong), but for any airline to compete with QR there for long-haul they would need a wide-body capable economically to make the route profitable. I guess Etihad couldn't make it work on the A330 due to the lack of local demand to sustain 2x flights a day and connectivity to long haul, but EK has a market out of Dubai that can be a threat to QR

If Emirates start operating to Kathmandu, I believe they can get more passengers to use Emirates as a transit than what Fly Dubai is giving them because the onboard product will be on par with Qatar since FZ is a budget carrier with vastly inferior product when compared to both of them. Maybe 1 or 2 daily FZ 737 flight (to transport the workers who will probably prefer the cheap FZ) and 1 Emirates flight should be able to make them competitive with Qatar.
And yes, the 787 is allowed to fly here and can easily land here. Nowadays due to the pandemic, Qatar is operating 3 daily 787-8/ A320-200 flights and a few 787-9 have also landed here. In the past there were restrictions kept because of frequent runway cracks and once the airport banned wide bodies from flying in Kathmandu too. But since then, planes like 747-8I, AN124, 777-300ER have landed here. A decently loaded 747-8 and AN124 probably can't fly here tho.
Etihad has stopped flying to Kathmandu for now. Instead of them, Air Arabia Abu Dhabi (which Etihad owns around half of) has started flying here.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Why would an airline prefer to use a widebody between Kathmandu and Qatar/UAE/Bahrain if it has narrowbodies in its fleet ?

A narrowbody like an A320 or B737 is more than capable of this journey. I thought narrowbodies had a significantly lower cost per available seat kilometre than widebodies.

You are right that the A320 or 737 can do the journey, but it is a long flight for a narrowbody still, performance and comfort wise.
Performance: you have strong headwinds making some of the GCC-KTM routes weight limited on narrow-body during some months of the year
Comfort: On the local market it barely makes a difference, but as mentioned above there are about 75-80% of the passengers transiting beyond GCC hubs. Let's say to the US, prices of QR, EK, EY are not far from each other, but if you had the chance to fly a widebody vs a narrowbody for 5hrs, chances are you choose the wide-body, especially if you continue with another 15hrs journey to New York or Chicago.
That's why in my opinion QR, in addition to a strong local demand, wins here.
Once EK has a 787 on property, I expect them to replace or complement FZ on the route.

It was also mentioned above, KTM is low yield market as pretty much the whole GCC, wide-body in high-density configuration probably makes more sense than narrow-bodies due to their respective economics. The extra cargo that can be taken on the WB is welcomed to make the extra buccs.

Qatar Airways also has a historical relationship with carrying tourist to Nepal. I don't know if this is still true, but prior to the re-launch of QR when they were flying 747s and even after the rebranding when they had 3 A300s and a few 727s, they were known as the backpacker carrier from Europe to KTM. Since EK didn't fly there, there was no Etihad, and Gulf Air was really struggling with it's identity once Qatar left the consortium. This is over 20 years ago, but Doha was tiny, the airport had a small terminal, and QR only had 5 planes. It might have been related to traffic rights if memory serves.

A330Inter wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Why would an airline prefer to use a widebody between Kathmandu and Qatar/UAE/Bahrain if it has narrowbodies in its fleet ?

A narrowbody like an A320 or B737 is more than capable of this journey. I thought narrowbodies had a significantly lower cost per available seat kilometre than widebodies.

You are right that the A320 or 737 can do the journey, but it is a long flight for a narrowbody still, performance and comfort wise.

Performance penalties on a narrowbody are an issue, but not a big issue. Only when it gets hot (or serious tailwind) will you become performance limited and thus payload restricted. Winter time makes the return to the GCC longer at around just over 5 hours compared to 4 ish in summer. The temp penalty will be offset by the 1hr reduction in fuel burn required.
I suspect EK to start 787/350 ops into KTM and flydubai to give up the prime slot whilst still operating one or two daily rotations to complement EK on the lower yielding market segment. I've seen flydubai during peak times with up to five daily rotations. Currently one going up to three for the summer season. But nothing about tomorrow is even certain these days.

What's the latest on the new KTM airport?

I flew Qatar to KTM (routing JFK > DOH > KTM) back in October 2018 to do a backpacking trip. On both arrival and departure I noticed just a handful of narrowbodies, but every area of the airport was crammed with people. Baggage claim was chaos with mounds of luggage scattered about, and there was only one ATM machine that I could see, which happened to be broken. It occurred to me that this airport couldn't handle more planes than what I observed. My arrival and departure were just two points in time of course, so not conclusive.

Also, if I'm not mistaken widebodies were not flying to KTM on account of the runway trending to sub-par condition. I had been hoping for an A330 on one or both of my DOH legs, but Qatar had not flown the A330 to KTM for some time at the point when I went. Maybe this has all changed now. What's the status of a new runway going in?

I'll reiterate and add to the points already mentioned above by several posters.

1.

eta unknown wrote:

I think part of the issue is there is a very high Nepalese worker population in Qatar, more so than in other Gulf states, so a lot of the QR traffic is point to point.

Not sure about the "more so than in other Gulf states" part, but Qatar does indeed have a high Nepalese worker population.

2.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Why would an airline prefer to use a widebody between Kathmandu and Qatar/UAE/Bahrain if it has narrowbodies in its fleet ?

A narrowbody like an A320 or B737 is more than capable of this journey. I thought narrowbodies had a significantly lower cost per available seat kilometre than widebodies.

KTM is a single-runway airport, and pretty busy in terms of aircraft movements pre-pandemic. To allow for more traffic, the airport increased its operating hours till 2am instead of closing at midnight a couple of years ago. New carriers have faced issues getting slots, and as such, if QR wants to carry more traffic, its only option is to increase the the aircraft gauge. Hence the move from mainly A320s a couple of years ago to A330/787 now.
https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/news/21118598/kathmandu-airport-to-be-open-for-21-hours-daily-from-january-1

3. There used to be a telecom tower ~100m tall along one of the secondary flight paths to KTM. Aircraft needed sufficient climb gradient to clear this tower, and from what I understand, narrowbodies took a performance hit -- QR A320s couldn't carry a full payload out of KTM because of this, but its A330s at the time could. QR actually partially funded the shortening of this tower to 45m back in 2011, so its A320s could perform better on flights to DOH.
https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/qatar-airways-helps-lower-nepal-tower

MaverickM11 wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

Qatar Airways consistently has been second in the list of airlines that flew the most passengers from Nepal internationally for years now. They flew multiple wide bodies daily here before pandemic and have planned to fly 5-6 daily 787-8, A330-300 flights to Kathmandu from June 2021 which means daily passenger capacity of more than 2 Qatar A380. This made me think, why haven't other major hub and spoke airlines been able to do the same because almost 90 percent of the people that fly QTR from Nepal are the ones who have to connect somewhere and the rest are foreign workers. The other major hub airlines that fly here are Fly Dubai (Emirates) with 3 737 daily, Turkish with multiple A330-300 flights a week and Etihad with 1 A320 flight daily (all before pandemic), clearly much lower than what Qatar Airways did. So, why haven't they been able to challenge the dominance of Qatar Airways in Kathmandu?

The other airlines are constrained by profitability

That is the perfect reply!

Avgeek21 wrote:

Also don't forget there is massive competition between the Gulf and KTM. Especially UAE-KTM and vice versa. The amount of seats to/from UAE to KTM far outstrip QR-KTM. QR can use a very efficient widebody with a consistent product to/from Doha that only EY can match operationally from AUH. But EY is a very different beast compared to QR. Hence the next best is FZ+EK. The more competition the lower the yield. And KTM is a low yield destination. So it's better to fly an efficient widebody and make slightly more pennies. If you can fill it that is.

Except that's not true at all. Look at the chart I posted above. QR is nearly twice Fly Dubai and EY is a non factor with one flight a day.

Could QR's growth in passenger numbers in 2019 be due to the blockade? Could those be the re-routed Nepalese O&D passengers who used to fly on FZ or Air Arabia in the past and who had no other choice but to fly on QR nonstop? I wouldn't be surprised if transfer flights on those airlines were more affordable than a nonstop stop flight on QR, those tend to be quite expensive.

Btw don't forget that FZ planes (with the exception of MAX) do not have IFE. I believe that is due to the company who initially made them going bankrupt. That also works in QR's favor.

Blerg wrote:

Could QR's growth in passenger numbers in 2019 be due to the blockade? Could those be the re-routed Nepalese O&D passengers who used to fly on FZ or Air Arabia in the past and who had no other choice but to fly on QR nonstop? I wouldn't be surprised if transfer flights on those airlines were more affordable than a nonstop stop flight on QR, those tend to be quite expensive.

Btw don't forget that FZ planes (with the exception of MAX) do not have IFE. I believe that is due to the company who initially made them going bankrupt. That also works in QR's favor.

I was on a FZ 737-800 with the sky interior and there was IFE which you had to pay to use

Aseem747 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Could QR's growth in passenger numbers in 2019 be due to the blockade? Could those be the re-routed Nepalese O&D passengers who used to fly on FZ or Air Arabia in the past and who had no other choice but to fly on QR nonstop? I wouldn't be surprised if transfer flights on those airlines were more affordable than a nonstop stop flight on QR, those tend to be quite expensive.

Btw don't forget that FZ planes (with the exception of MAX) do not have IFE. I believe that is due to the company who initially made them going bankrupt. That also works in QR's favor.

I was on a FZ 737-800 with the sky interior and there was IFE which you had to pay to use

Interesting, when was that? The ones they have been sending to Belgrade have not had any IFE for years.

Blerg wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Could QR's growth in passenger numbers in 2019 be due to the blockade? Could those be the re-routed Nepalese O&D passengers who used to fly on FZ or Air Arabia in the past and who had no other choice but to fly on QR nonstop? I wouldn't be surprised if transfer flights on those airlines were more affordable than a nonstop stop flight on QR, those tend to be quite expensive.

Btw don't forget that FZ planes (with the exception of MAX) do not have IFE. I believe that is due to the company who initially made them going bankrupt. That also works in QR's favor.

I was on a FZ 737-800 with the sky interior and there was IFE which you had to pay to use

Interesting, when was that? The ones they have been sending to Belgrade have not had any IFE for years.

Departed from Dubai in Jan 19, 2020 and arrived in KTM in Jan 20, 2020

Blerg wrote:

Could QR's growth in passenger numbers in 2019 be due to the blockade? Could those be the re-routed Nepalese O&D passengers who used to fly on FZ or Air Arabia in the past and who had no other choice but to fly on QR nonstop? I wouldn't be surprised if transfer flights on those airlines were more affordable than a nonstop stop flight on QR, those tend to be quite expensive.

Btw don't forget that FZ planes (with the exception of MAX) do not have IFE. I believe that is due to the company who initially made them going bankrupt. That also works in QR's favor.

Not a wrong assumption but the reverse also works against QR, all the traffic they were getting from KSA, BAH and even maybe UAE to Kathmandu was now blocked for them. I think it equates over the 3 year timeframe of the blockade

Anyway for sure QR benefits from the larger Nepalese community in Doha than in other Gulf states. More demand helps the economics of the wide-body operations and once you have that capacity you can get a stronger hold of the market given that there isn't really a comparible competiton in temrs of product (yet)

Antarius wrote:

Avgeek21 wrote:

Also don't forget there is massive competition between the Gulf and KTM. Especially UAE-KTM and vice versa. The amount of seats to/from UAE to KTM far outstrip QR-KTM. QR can use a very efficient widebody with a consistent product to/from Doha that only EY can match operationally from AUH. But EY is a very different beast compared to QR. Hence the next best is FZ+EK. The more competition the lower the yield. And KTM is a low yield destination. So it's better to fly an efficient widebody and make slightly more pennies. If you can fill it that is.

Except that's not true at all. Look at the chart I posted above. QR is nearly twice Fly Dubai and EY is a non factor with one flight a day.

No it's not. QR is twice the size cause they have 1/4th of the competition. flydubai has to share UAE traffic with at least 5 other airlines, of which 3 fly to DXB too. So less pax all together. QR can fly an efficient widebody too and that also attracts a different premium clientele. Once flydubai gets the MAX KTM and RNP-AR certified it will be more favourable to flydubai. (and EK)

Avgeek21 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Avgeek21 wrote:

Also don't forget there is massive competition between the Gulf and KTM. Especially UAE-KTM and vice versa. The amount of seats to/from UAE to KTM far outstrip QR-KTM. QR can use a very efficient widebody with a consistent product to/from Doha that only EY can match operationally from AUH. But EY is a very different beast compared to QR. Hence the next best is FZ+EK. The more competition the lower the yield. And KTM is a low yield destination. So it's better to fly an efficient widebody and make slightly more pennies. If you can fill it that is.

Except that's not true at all. Look at the chart I posted above. QR is nearly twice Fly Dubai and EY is a non factor with one flight a day.

No it's not. QR is twice the size cause they have 1/4th of the competition. flydubai has to share UAE traffic with at least 5 other airlines, of which 3 fly to DXB too. So less pax all together. QR can fly an efficient widebody too and that also attracts a different premium clientele. Once flydubai gets the MAX KTM and RNP-AR certified it will be more favourable to flydubai. (and EK)

Widebodies are not more efficient on stage lengths like this. I think this is just an opinion post that isn't grounded in facts.

Antarius wrote:

Avgeek21 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Except that's not true at all. Look at the chart I posted above. QR is nearly twice Fly Dubai and EY is a non factor with one flight a day.

No it's not. QR is twice the size cause they have 1/4th of the competition. flydubai has to share UAE traffic with at least 5 other airlines, of which 3 fly to DXB too. So less pax all together. QR can fly an efficient widebody too and that also attracts a different premium clientele. Once flydubai gets the MAX KTM and RNP-AR certified it will be more favourable to flydubai. (and EK)

Widebodies are not more efficient on stage lengths like this. I think this is just an opinion post that isn't grounded in facts.

Well, I don't think we can just say that widebodies are not more efficient on stage lengths like this because we don't know what kind of revenue QR has and if they might need the extra space for cargo. There are many different variable that we need to take into account before making such definite statements.

Blerg wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Avgeek21 wrote:

No it's not. QR is twice the size cause they have 1/4th of the competition. flydubai has to share UAE traffic with at least 5 other airlines, of which 3 fly to DXB too. So less pax all together. QR can fly an efficient widebody too and that also attracts a different premium clientele. Once flydubai gets the MAX KTM and RNP-AR certified it will be more favourable to flydubai. (and EK)

Widebodies are not more efficient on stage lengths like this. I think this is just an opinion post that isn't grounded in facts.

Well, I don't think we can just say that widebodies are not more efficient on stage lengths like this because we don't know what kind of revenue QR has and if they might need the extra space for cargo. There are many different variable that we need to take into account before making such definite statements.

Typically they aren't. Many variables come into play that can make a widebody more profitable, but that doesn't mean it is more efficient.

My point was to challenge the earlier definitive statement that QR is successful because they fly an efficient widebody.

There is a lot of cargo going into Kathmandu, dont forget it is a land locked country with some extremely big neighbours (heavy duty politics)

I remember that around 2008-2012, Qatar Airways seemed to be doing pretty well in KTM. In comparison, flydubai wasn't even flying to KTM during that period. Only Air Arabia had flights to KTM from SHJ. Don't know the extent of (Royal) Nepal Airlines' UAE operations around that time.
In the second decade of the 21st century, a lot more Nepali workers seemed to be present in the UAE compared to the beginning of the 2000s. Perhaps Qatar had a bigger Nepali population to begin with.

Antarius wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Widebodies are not more efficient on stage lengths like this. I think this is just an opinion post that isn't grounded in facts.

Well, I don't think we can just say that widebodies are not more efficient on stage lengths like this because we don't know what kind of revenue QR has and if they might need the extra space for cargo. There are many different variable that we need to take into account before making such definite statements.

Typically they aren't. Many variables come into play that can make a widebody more profitable, but that doesn't mean it is more efficient.

My point was to challenge the earlier definitive statement that QR is successful because they fly an efficient widebody.

Which is why we shouldn't replace one definitive statement with another definitive statement. Especially not when there are many shorter routes operated by widebody aircraft. Some that come to mind are:

BEY-LCA ME A330
IST-GYD TK A330
IST-ATH TK B789/B77W/A333
IST-OTP TK A333

And pretty much all of EK's regional routes.

Like I said, when looking at those things we need to take into account many different factors.

Blerg wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Could QR's growth in passenger numbers in 2019 be due to the blockade? Could those be the re-routed Nepalese O&D passengers who used to fly on FZ or Air Arabia in the past and who had no other choice but to fly on QR nonstop? I wouldn't be surprised if transfer flights on those airlines were more affordable than a nonstop stop flight on QR, those tend to be quite expensive.

Btw don't forget that FZ planes (with the exception of MAX) do not have IFE. I believe that is due to the company who initially made them going bankrupt. That also works in QR's favor.

I was on a FZ 737-800 with the sky interior and there was IFE which you had to pay to use

Interesting, when was that? The ones they have been sending to Belgrade have not had any IFE for years.

AFAIK, it depends on the fare you book. The cheapest fares are full low cost as we know it in Europe. The other more flexible fares include stuff like meals, and are similar to legacy airlines. If you book through Emirates, they provide something similar to Emirates own service. Its a fairly intelligent way of catering to all kinds of passengers at the same time.

Anyone know more details re: Thales retrofit on 788's? Will this reduce the size of (or eliminate) the relatively large boxes under seats in Y? Time frame for installation fleetwide? Great improvement nevertheless.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

MIA will be QR’s least served US destination. That tells anyone all they need to know about how little MIA means to QR. Even with their partner AA having a massive hub with tons of connections. The fact ATL will see more service and no AA partner is impressive.



So Atlanta suspension will be extended huh MAH4546? Riiiight.....

Yes, the Atlanta extension was indeed extended. Atlanta was to resume March 28th. It is now resuming. June 1st. Thanks for pointing out that I was correct, not only was I correct that Miami was never going to suspended, but I was also correct that the suspension of Atlanta would be extended.

Unlike every other destination, Miami has literally no feed with limited open borders, so it’s not a surprise it’s at 3w for the time being. Also, while all airports have of course seen international service be decimated, Miami maintains far more long haul links than others, including places like Atlanta, where Qatar’s can capture more demand simply off lack of competition. But, honestly, Miami will probably boost to 4-5x weekly fairly quickly, I’d bet even sooner than July, as Qatar continues to adjust schedules on a rolling, monthly basis.

Miami has more nonstop flights a week to Doha than Orlando has to London. That’s all the story you need to know about the strength of Miami right now compared to its peers. Makes you question how unimportant and poor performing a market for British Airways and Virgin Atlantic Orlando must be, but that’d be for another thread.

Huh?? QR was always selling ATL all the way thru May 31st and now announces an official restart and upgrade to the ATL route starting June 1st. I even posted about this two weeks ago much to your dismay...

clrd4t8koff wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Not official at all. Should be back in GDS at months end. Atlanta suspension will be extended in exchange. In addition, from March 28th onwards Qatar will extend its codeshare partnership with AA to include MIA international flying.

For whatever reason, Qatar has been filing many destinations on a two month rolling basis. It cleared the April/May default schedule (which was the summer 2020 schedule) and it won’t file final April/May for a few more weeks.

I remember you claimed that Qatar would never return to MIA, and that El Al would not either. MIA has kept all three of its Middle East region airlines - El Al, Qatar, and Turkish - through the pandemic. As you know, there haven’t been other airlines from Asia providing passenger service to Miami, neither pre-COVID nor in the entire history of the airport. So please let me know, what Asian airline are you referring to?

If Qatar flying to Miami during COVID makes somebody upset, then what Emirates is looking to do with its Florida service in the next year will not sit well with those people.

No, I never claimed LY would never return to MIA. Yes, I did claim QR wouldn't return. I'll admit to being half wrong about that. With the exception of extremely spotty and intermittent service which has been removed from the schedules yet again starting in April they really haven't returned.

So, if QR cleared the April/May default schedule then why is ATL flights for sale again April/May and MIA removed?

Sources - qatarairways.com
Source (Google Flights) - https://www.google.com/travel/flights/s ... QAFIAZgBAg

Your comment about MIA having more service to DOH than MCO does to the UK is laughable. MIA-DOH is a FRACTION of the MCO-UK market. Nobody is flying MIA-DOH. Travelers going MCO-UK are local markets not connecting. Did you question how little value BOS & SFO - London were when both BA & VS cut them for a while? What is your point?? It’s baseless....

On top of that who cares ATL gets the 77L and MIA the 77W
Both are Qsuites.
77L with 259 seats x 4 weekly flights = 1,036 seats
MIA 77W with 354 seats x 3 weekly flights = 1,062 seats

ATL wins still with frequency. They both have the same J cabin
Capacity.

1) correct. And as I said, QR would remove ATL from GDS during the April/May time frame and add back Miami. Exactly what I claimed would happen, happen.

2) there is no service whatsoever at this moment between Orlando and London (or Europe for that matter). There are two flights a week between Miami and Doha. So not sure how you are arguing otherwise? Or are airlines operating secret nonstop flights between Orlando and London? Using the logic you have in place, I can only reach the conclusion that Orlando-Europe is a horrible performing market fit everybody that flies it. Orlando will soon be approaching an entire year with zero flights to Europe while Miami has maintained a very healthy network to Europe and the Middle East through the pandemic.

According to QR's website, Zagreb was further reduced to one week. Flights were supposed to be 1x until 17.02 but now they seem to be like that until the end of March. Sarajevo and Skopje are cancelled until winter 2021. Belgrade remains as 3 weekly until June.

Has anything been revealed on the cabin of the upcoming A321neo? In 2019 it was revealed that they would be getting new seats in both business and economy. Has any seat been announced yet?

VSMUT wrote:

Has anything been revealed on the cabin of the upcoming A321neo? In 2019 it was revealed that they would be getting new seats in both business and economy. Has any seat been announced yet?

Nothing other than business class is single aisle

acavpics wrote:

I wonder how long it will be before QR planes are allowed in Saudi and UAE airspace again.

There are seven of them in Saudi Airspace right now: inbound from Houston, Dallas, New York, Miami, Jeddah, Madrid and Athens. Seems like they're making up for lost time.

Opus99 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Has anything been revealed on the cabin of the upcoming A321neo? In 2019 it was revealed that they would be getting new seats in both business and economy. Has any seat been announced yet?

Nothing other than business class is single aisle

sorry meant business class has direct aisle access.

acavpics wrote:

Will ATL and BOS ever go back to daily?

I'm surprised that IAH is going back to daily soon (March). Pre-COVID, IAH had the worst load factors of all their US flights (IAD was occasionally lower).

IAH has massive VFR traffic, may be higher than ORD or LAX (next only to New York area, SFO area, IAD area and on par with DFW) to South Asia and SE Asia destinations, especially India. That is enough to sustain, the business traffic was never that big on this route and now it does not even matter to QR.

This may or may not be the right thread to ask this, but here goes:
Are the Q-Seats (and service) equal on various QR aircraft, or is it indeed better on the A350-1000? I'm planning a trip for next January and want to get the best for my AAdvantage mileage award travel. Originating in MFR, I can connect via LAX to the -1000, but it's a long layover and there is only one connecting option. Same on the return. No fallback plans. I have better options via SEA but that currently shows on the -900. Will it be as good? And can I be sure they'll have the Q-seat configuration rather than the 2-2-2 standard C class (assuming some of the fleet is still not yet reconfigured)? How about the 77W, if it changes back to that?

Wingtips56 wrote:

This may or may not be the right thread to ask this, but here goes:
Are the Q-Seats (and service) equal on various QR aircraft, or is it indeed better on the A350-1000? I'm planning a trip for next January and want to get the best for my AAdvantage mileage award travel. Originating in MFR, I can connect via LAX to the -1000, but it's a long layover and there is only one connecting option. Same on the return. No fallback plans. I have better options via SEA but that currently shows on the -900. Will it be as good? And can I be sure they'll have the Q-seat configuration rather than the 2-2-2 standard C class (assuming some of the fleet is still not yet reconfigured)? How about the 77W, if it changes back to that?

I had read that the SEA-DOH flight will eventually change to the 789...and not the A359.

Wingtips56 wrote:

This may or may not be the right thread to ask this, but here goes:
Are the Q-Seats (and service) equal on various QR aircraft, or is it indeed better on the A350-1000? I'm planning a trip for next January and want to get the best for my AAdvantage mileage award travel. Originating in MFR, I can connect via LAX to the -1000, but it's a long layover and there is only one connecting option. Same on the return. No fallback plans. I have better options via SEA but that currently shows on the -900. Will it be as good? And can I be sure they'll have the Q-seat configuration rather than the 2-2-2 standard C class (assuming some of the fleet is still not yet reconfigured)? How about the 77W, if it changes back to that?

It will not be moved to a 2-2-2. Ive done qsuite on both the 35K and the 77W not much difference pretty much equal.

But some notable differences
A35K has taxi cam so nice touch
A35K is quieter (negative for me because I love the GE90 sound) and better air quality.

900 most of them are still in the 1-2-1 super diamond (only 11 or so have qsuite) QR is fairly consistent at sending qsuite enabled 359s to the states but there is the odd day when they don’t.

About 70% of the 300ERs have them so if you see a 300ER on it there’s about a 95% chance it will be qsuite. 300ERs that are not enabled with qsuite handle either cargo or regional routes around the gulf etc.

The 900 I’m sure will be as good as the 1000. It’s just a smaller plane that’s all. (35K benefits listed above apply to the 359 as well)

You’re safe going with SEA. QR is very consistent at sending qsuite enabled jets to the states

But do take note. The route will most likely switch to the 787-9. That will have a new form of qsuite but not this current iteration (arguably not as impressive) but let’s see

Thanks, both. For 15+ hours, quieter and better air works for me. (I do miss the buzz of the DC-10.)

So the 789 Q-suite is still an unknown? The return leg CAI-DOH I've been looking at shows one option as a 789, so perhaps I'll get to try whatever that turns out to be. (CAI just reappeared in QR's web this week, as did MS, as the snit between Qatar and neighbor countries is settling out. Too soon to book and confirm yet.)

Antarius wrote:

Air India flies several flights a day. CX/KA had a daily a333 as well.

air India flights to Nepal cater heavily to India Nepal traffic. Nepal has many hindu shrines that are a must visit for many Indians.

Subramanian

Wingtips56 wrote:

Thanks, both. For 15+ hours, quieter and better air works for me. (I do miss the buzz of the DC-10.)

So the 789 Q-suite is still an unknown? The return leg CAI-DOH I've been looking at shows one option as a 789, so perhaps I'll get to try whatever that turns out to be. (CAI just reappeared in QR's web this week, as did MS, as the snit between Qatar and neighbor countries is settling out. Too soon to book and confirm yet.)

What dates are you looking at for CAI? I’m trying to see when the 789s are coming in to service

Wingtips56 wrote:

This may or may not be the right thread to ask this, but here goes:
Are the Q-Seats (and service) equal on various QR aircraft, or is it indeed better on the A350-1000? I'm planning a trip for next January and want to get the best for my AAdvantage mileage award travel. Originating in MFR, I can connect via LAX to the -1000, but it's a long layover and there is only one connecting option. Same on the return. No fallback plans. I have better options via SEA but that currently shows on the -900. Will it be as good? And can I be sure they'll have the Q-seat configuration rather than the 2-2-2 standard C class (assuming some of the fleet is still not yet reconfigured)? How about the 77W, if it changes back to that?

In addition to what's already been mentioned, the A350-1000 has fewer lavatories than the 777 in business class so there tends to be more waiting for a lav.

The exterior camera view on the A350 IFE is really neat though, especially during windy landings.

Opus99 wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Thanks, both. For 15+ hours, quieter and better air works for me. (I do miss the buzz of the DC-10.)

So the 789 Q-suite is still an unknown? The return leg CAI-DOH I've been looking at shows one option as a 789, so perhaps I'll get to try whatever that turns out to be. (CAI just reappeared in QR's web this week, as did MS, as the snit between Qatar and neighbor countries is settling out. Too soon to book and confirm yet.)

What dates are you looking at for CAI? I’m trying to see when the 789s are coming in to service

I partially misremembered: it's showing 1x788 and 2x77W next January (not 789). Of course this far out, and with newly reinstated service, these could be placeholders.

Wingtips56 wrote:

This may or may not be the right thread to ask this, but here goes:
Are the Q-Seats (and service) equal on various QR aircraft, or is it indeed better on the A350-1000? I'm planning a trip for next January and want to get the best for my AAdvantage mileage award travel. Originating in MFR, I can connect via LAX to the -1000, but it's a long layover and there is only one connecting option. Same on the return. No fallback plans. I have better options via SEA but that currently shows on the -900. Will it be as good? And can I be sure they'll have the Q-seat configuration rather than the 2-2-2 standard C class (assuming some of the fleet is still not yet reconfigured)? How about the 77W, if it changes back to that?

Supposedly slightly narrower on the A350 than the 777, but still lavishly wide. The A350 is as mentioned above way quieter.

You can never be completely sure of Qsuites on Qatar Airways. They readily swap aircraft and configurations for operational reasons. I've had almost all Doha-Europe flights swapped, although those flights are so short it doesn't really matter. I've had a Qsuite 777-300ER downgraded to the old configuration, A350-1000 Qsuite to A350-900 Qsuite to A350-900 old config, A350-1000 Qsuite to 777-300ER old config. They attempt to focus Qsuite equipped aircraft on longer routes, but it is never completely safe.

The A350-1000 is the safest bet for Qsuite, they all have them. Thereafter it is the 777-300ER, most of those are Qsuite equipped. Then it is the A350-900, of which only 11 have it, and finally the 787-8, A320 and A380 which don't have Qsuites.

Opus99 wrote:

A35K is quieter (negative for me because I love the GE90 sound) and better air quality.

The A350 is not a slouch in that department. The sound of rushing air in the 777s air ducts is not worth listening to for 15 hours anyway.

VSMUT wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

This may or may not be the right thread to ask this, but here goes:
Are the Q-Seats (and service) equal on various QR aircraft, or is it indeed better on the A350-1000? I'm planning a trip for next January and want to get the best for my AAdvantage mileage award travel. Originating in MFR, I can connect via LAX to the -1000, but it's a long layover and there is only one connecting option. Same on the return. No fallback plans. I have better options via SEA but that currently shows on the -900. Will it be as good? And can I be sure they'll have the Q-seat configuration rather than the 2-2-2 standard C class (assuming some of the fleet is still not yet reconfigured)? How about the 77W, if it changes back to that?

Supposedly slightly narrower on the A350 than the 777, but still lavishly wide. The A350 is as mentioned above way quieter.

You can never be completely sure of Qsuites on Qatar Airways. They readily swap aircraft and configurations for operational reasons. I've had almost all Doha-Europe flights swapped, although those flights are so short it doesn't really matter. I've had a Qsuite 777-300ER downgraded to the old configuration, A350-1000 Qsuite to A350-900 Qsuite to A350-900 old config, A350-1000 Qsuite to 777-300ER old config. They attempt to focus Qsuite equipped aircraft on longer routes, but it is never completely safe.

The A350-1000 is the safest bet for Qsuite, they all have them. Thereafter it is the 777-300ER, most of those are Qsuite equipped. Then it is the A350-900, of which only 11 have it, and finally the 787-8, A320 and A380 which don't have Qsuites.

Opus99 wrote:

A35K is quieter (negative for me because I love the GE90 sound) and better air quality.

The A350 is not a slouch in that department. The sound of rushing air in the 777s air ducts is not worth listening to for 15 hours anyway.

oh certainly not, but for me I can listen to that sound for 24hrs, that being said it does not affect my ability to have a good sleep or enjoy the flight compared to an A35K

hohd wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Will ATL and BOS ever go back to daily?

I'm surprised that IAH is going back to daily soon (March). Pre-COVID, IAH had the worst load factors of all their US flights (IAD was occasionally lower).

IAH has massive VFR traffic, may be higher than ORD or LAX (next only to New York area, SFO area, IAD area and on par with DFW) to South Asia and SE Asia destinations, especially India. That is enough to sustain, the business traffic was never that big on this route and now it does not even matter to QR.

Not sure what you mean by business traffic? Most of IAH international flights are premium heavy, that is why IAH attracts more international carriers as well. QR had lot of people traveling for the energy/medical sector, not sure how the loads are now with the pandemic going on. Plus wealthy diaspora of VFR traffic.

When will Qatar bring back A330-300 to service?

Aseem747 wrote:

When will Qatar bring back A330-300 to service?

They’re not coming back into service

Wingtips56 wrote:

This may or may not be the right thread to ask this, but here goes:
Are the Q-Seats (and service) equal on various QR aircraft, or is it indeed better on the A350-1000? I'm planning a trip for next January and want to get the best for my AAdvantage mileage award travel. Originating in MFR, I can connect via LAX to the -1000, but it's a long layover and there is only one connecting option. Same on the return. No fallback plans. I have better options via SEA but that currently shows on the -900. Will it be as good? And can I be sure they'll have the Q-seat configuration rather than the 2-2-2 standard C class (assuming some of the fleet is still not yet reconfigured)? How about the 77W, if it changes back to that?

I flew the Qsuites on the A350-900 in December and on the Boeing 777-300ER in January.

First and foremost, the on board service is as good in business class on every flight as it is on another. Whether it's Qsuite or not, the Qatar cabin crew give the same service and the same is available on board. They are -always- impeccable, which is remarkable because they actually ARE better than any other airline I've flown from a cabin service perspective. It's not just dine on demand, it's the fact that if you are asleep and wake up, they are there within minutes asking you if you want anything. It's very very good service.

For the Qsuites, they are the same on the A350 and 777. Identical, I found. The only difference is that the 777 has Boeing overhead bins while the A350 has more modern looking ones.

Even the bathrooms on both aircraft types (and the 787 for that matter) are identical in their look and what is inside.

The 787-8 has the older business seats, but they are 1-2-1. I actually liked the really old 2-2-2 seats as they are very, very spacious. That being said, there is plenty of room in a Qsuite too, so you'll have a good time. I reviewed my recent flights - they're here - just scroll down to Qatar Airways - https://travelupdate.com/index-flight-detective-reviews/ . Hope that helps!

iadadd wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Will ATL and BOS ever go back to daily?

I'm surprised that IAH is going back to daily soon (March). Pre-COVID, IAH had the worst load factors of all their US flights (IAD was occasionally lower).

Are you sure about IAD ? It was one of the first US destinations to get the high density cabin when QR began retrofitting 777s from 9 abreast to 10 abreast, and one of the first to get QSuite. Seems like an important market to me

Just anecdotal

When I flew QR right just before pandemic the 777-300ER both ways was at capacity

I flew in 12/20-1/21 - A35K was about 35% capacity.

I like B777-300ER, but I wish they continue with A350 to IAD

Opus99 wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

When will Qatar bring back A330-300 to service?

They’re not coming back into service

I just checked their website and they have planned to fly 1 A330-300 along with 3 787-8 to Kathmandu starting from June 1st 2021.
https://booking.qatarairways.com/nsp/vi ... selLang=EN