It seems that Qantas is receiving quite a bit of flack for it's attempt at creating temporary rest areas for crew on the BNE to LAX route, while it is waiting to receive and install curtains etc.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/qantas-a ... 1c8b3a2e93

QF really needs some more 787s it looks like, although they have 11 in the fleet. Where are they currently operating?

Why are the A332s being put on this route instead of a 789? How does the A332 have the range?

ikolkyo wrote:

QF really needs some more 787s it looks like, although they have 11 in the fleet. Where are they currently operating?

I'm surprised they haven't tried to get more, even with the A380s coming back there seems to be a shortage of long haul metal/plastic.

From what I can see the 787s are doing SYD and MEL to LHR via DRW, SYD-DFW, SYD-YVR, SYD-JNB, MEL-LAX and the odd SYD-LAX between A380 flights.

Using the A332s on TPAC routes looks a little 'needs must', though they do have the legs for it.

They used to use the 332 transpacific after the 743 was retired, I guess they have been reconfigured a number of times since

zeke wrote:

They used to use the 332 transpacific after the 743 was retired, I guess they have been reconfigured a number of times since

Was for a short period operating AKL-LAX-JFK before QF exited JFK briefly in the 2010s.

OAHU747 wrote:

Why are the A332s being put on this route instead of a 789? How does the A332 have the range?

1, Because the 330-200 is a perfectly capable aircraft for this route. They are in the fleet, and most likely paid for.

2. It just seems QF has been cheap and hasn't installed a proper crew rest area/compartment on these planes, like other, less penny wise, airlines... No need for a slumber party in the middle of the cabin.

There is nothing wrong with the A330, just a lot wrong with QF's approach here.

dcajet wrote:

OAHU747 wrote:

Why are the A332s being put on this route instead of a 789? How does the A332 have the range?

1, Because the 330-200 is a perfectly capable aircraft for this route. They are in the fleet, and most likely paid for.

2. It just seems QF has been cheap and hasn't installed a proper crew rest area/compartment on these planes, like other, less penny wise, airlines... No need for a slumber party in the middle of the cabin.

There is nothing wrong with the A330, just a lot wrong with QF's approach here.

I’m not sure it’s “perfectly” capable though is it? Delta’s A332 was frequently weight restricted on SEA-HKG which is shorter. With weaker demand it probably doesn’t matter, but I don’t think it’s ideal.

OAHU747 wrote:

Why are the A332s being put on this route instead of a 789? How does the A332 have the range?

The 787s are fully accounted for, and 3 further 787s are undelivered due to Boeing/FAA delays.

As to range, I’m not sure what the MTOW is now, but the aircraft received an MTOW bump and some modifications (not sure what, but presumably more than a paper exercise) before being used on this route.

I’m not defending Qantas, this set-up is (at best) pathetic, but apparently they will install a more permanent partition around the seats. Supply issues have delayed this.

The fact that Qantas went ahead with this by using New Zealand based crew when the FAAA refused to crew the flight is inexcusable in my opinion. It doesn’t take an expert to see that this is not a suitable crew rest solution, and Qantas should have actually listened to the union’s concerns rather than cut them out.

I also question whether CASA’s regulations need reconsideration. LAX-BNE comes under 14 hours and therefore doesn’t require dedicated crew bunks, but this makes a mockery of fatigue management. Even if it complies with the letter of the rules, it doesn’t comply with the spirit of them.

There was no cabin crew rest (other than 4 blocked economy seats) when they used to operate AKL-LAX (with NZ cabin crew).

There was apparently a bunk MEL issue. Not a completely unusual situation. I’ve operated a flight with a similar issue when Cabin Crew Bunk ventilation was inop.

T54A wrote:

There was apparently a bunk MEL issue. Not a completely unusual situation. I’ve operated a flight with a similar issue when Cabin Crew Bunk ventilation was inop.

?? These aircraft don't have bunks, hence the issue in the first place.

T54A wrote:

There was apparently a bunk MEL issue. Not a completely unusual situation. I’ve operated a flight with a similar issue when Cabin Crew Bunk ventilation was inop.

Not sure what MEL issue the bunk could have when the aircraft involved don’t have bunks. Apparently the proper solution will be fitted curtains to go around the blocked seats which potentially could work depending on how it’s implemented. The current situation of blankets draped over seats is embarrassing for crew and is a terrible brand image for pax.

Don't think any of QFs 333s or 332s have dedicated bunk rests, and curtains around economy seats have been used for a long time for the slightly shorter Asian flights.

From what I understand from other forums the MEL here was that cabin lights couldn't be dimmed - hence the blankets draped over seats.
I'm sure it wasn't great for passengers either.

Also seen a subsequent photo of a Qantas branded swag style tent over the seats.

Think we are more seeing this in the press because the Aus unions refused to do the flight, so Qantas has staffed it the NZ Jetconnect staff (who I believe years ago used to also operate AKL-LAX with similar conditions)

jrfspa320 wrote:

There was no cabin crew rest (other than 4 blocked economy seats) when they used to operate AKL-LAX (with NZ cabin crew).

AKL-LAX is about 2 hours shorter.

OAHU747 wrote:

Why are the A332s being put on this route instead of a 789? How does the A332 have the range?

The A332 certainly have the range for BNE-LAX, in fact I've seen them flying MEL-LAX several times on FR24, that was surprising.

These 332 are ex Jetstar and were repurposed to transcon duties. Hence no crew rest.

OAHU747 wrote:

Why are the A332s being put on this route instead of a 789? How does the A332 have the range?

During the shutdown Airbus worked with Qantas to extend the range of these aircraft. QF had already announced they were planning to use it for BNE-SFO service.

I really feel sorry for the crew.

Question: since Qantas intends to use A332 to fly BNE-SFO/LAX, maybe for a while to come. Couldn't Qantas to convert 3-4 dedicated A332 on these long haul route, taking out 4 rows of middle economy class seats in the back and install a 'crew rest bunk cabin'? I know the argument of taking out 16 Y class seats is bad for business etc etc. But the argument is that the A332 fleet is paid for, and you have to block those seats any way. Couldn't airline executives makes some adjustment here? With today's staff shortage in other airlines, it is time to be nice to your employees for a while. Maybe you have less seats for mileage redemption, maybe sacrifice the flexibility to sell more seats on domestic runs...I really think Qantas has been doing it the wrong way here.

chonetsao wrote:

I really feel sorry for the crew.

Question: since Qantas intends to use A332 to fly BNE-SFO/LAX, maybe for a while to come. Couldn't Qantas to convert 3-4 dedicated A332 on these long haul route, taking out 4 rows of middle economy class seats in the back and install a 'crew rest bunk cabin'? I know the argument of taking out 16 Y class seats is bad for business etc etc. But the argument is that the A332 fleet is paid for, and you have to block those seats any way. Couldn't airline executives makes some adjustment here? With today's staff shortage in other airlines, it is time to be nice to your employees for a while. Maybe you have less seats for mileage redemption, maybe sacrifice the flexibility to sell more seats on domestic runs...I really think Qantas has been doing it the wrong way here.

QF seems to be heading in the wrong direction because when people hear Qantas they think one of the most prestigious airlines. Their recent moves with outsourcing and playing hardball with the Unions whether it's pilots FAs or ground crew may have a detrimental impact on the airline going forward. Every time QF looks to order new aircraft they threaten pilots that they will lose work if they don't agree to concessions which doesn't seem sustainable for a premium airline.

Can’t they forgo a little cargo space and install a cargo hold crew rest module?

Qf648 wrote:

These 332 are ex Jetstar and were repurposed to transcon duties. Hence no crew rest.

Some are. Some were ordered by Qantas, went to Jetstar then back. Think some never went to Jetstar.
But the 333s which were only ever Qantas also don't have a crew rest, just a curtain around a few pairs (not quads) of seats. You can see this in the seat maps.
This has been the case for many years.

JohanTally wrote:

Every time QF looks to order new aircraft they threaten pilots that they will lose work if they don't agree to concessions

So instead you should order billions of dollars worth of aircraft, and then be held to ransom by the pilots?

Seems pretty sensible to try and lock-in costs to match the business case for the aircraft purchase.

a320fan wrote:

T54A wrote:

There was apparently a bunk MEL issue. Not a completely unusual situation. I’ve operated a flight with a similar issue when Cabin Crew Bunk ventilation was inop.

Not sure what MEL issue the bunk could have when the aircraft involved don’t have bunks. Apparently the proper solution will be fitted curtains to go around the blocked seats which potentially could work depending on how it’s implemented. The current situation of blankets draped over seats is embarrassing for crew and is a terrible brand image for pax.

Penny wise, pound foolish

moa999 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Every time QF looks to order new aircraft they threaten pilots that they will lose work if they don't agree to concessions

So instead you should order billions of dollars worth of aircraft, and then be held to ransom by the pilots?

Seems pretty sensible to try and lock-in costs to match the business case for the aircraft purchase.

Collective bargaining is essential for the entire airline industry but IMHO QF is extremely heavy handed in the threats which is why JQ even exists. QF beat down the pilots enough to agree that on ultra long haul flights they only were required one captain and one FO with two SOs which doesn't sound like a premium airline to me personally.

JohanTally wrote:

moa999 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Every time QF looks to order new aircraft they threaten pilots that they will lose work if they don't agree to concessions

So instead you should order billions of dollars worth of aircraft, and then be held to ransom by the pilots?

Seems pretty sensible to try and lock-in costs to match the business case for the aircraft purchase.

Collective bargaining is essential for the entire airline industry but IMHO QF is extremely heavy handed in the threats which is why JQ even exists. QF beat down the pilots enough to agree that on ultra long haul flights they only were required one captain and one FO with two SOs which doesn't sound like a premium airline to me personally.

Their only premium is their name/brand. Everything else is atrocious. and as usual, people would rather blame the pilots while they're "forced" to sleep like dogs in those conditions..

WkndWanderer wrote:

dcajet wrote:

OAHU747 wrote:

Why are the A332s being put on this route instead of a 789? How does the A332 have the range?

1, Because the 330-200 is a perfectly capable aircraft for this route. They are in the fleet, and most likely paid for.

2. It just seems QF has been cheap and hasn't installed a proper crew rest area/compartment on these planes, like other, less penny wise, airlines... No need for a slumber party in the middle of the cabin.

There is nothing wrong with the A330, just a lot wrong with QF's approach here.

I’m not sure it’s “perfectly” capable though is it? Delta’s A332 was frequently weight restricted on SEA-HKG which is shorter. With weaker demand it probably doesn’t matter, but I don’t think it’s ideal.

While these ULH routes were not what Airbus designed for the A330 initially, upgrades and increases in MTOW have given the A332 a totally new profile, Hence why I say the A332 is a perfectly capable aircraft, particularly the highest MTOW versions (242T). I understand QF has worked with Airbus to that end to cover the BNE-LAX route. It is regularly used on routes such as FCO-EZE and NRT-MAD, similar in distance to BNE-LAX, so range is not a problem, although I am not familiar with the DL flight you mention. IIRC their A332 are not the highest MTOW version, and were procured by NW in the early 2000s to cover US to Europe routes, a whole different operation than transpacific ops. KAL uses the A332 regularly to SFO and soon to LAS, but these are higher MTOW versions.

In any case, there is nothing wrong technically with the aircraft, for the purposes of this discussion. It is however, an issue of how QF has configured theirs, which is difficult to believe is the case for a so called "premium" airline.

chonetsao wrote:

I really feel sorry for the crew.

Question: since Qantas intends to use A332 to fly BNE-SFO/LAX, maybe for a while to come. Couldn't Qantas to convert 3-4 dedicated A332 on these long haul route, taking out 4 rows of middle economy class seats in the back and install a 'crew rest bunk cabin'? I know the argument of taking out 16 Y class seats is bad for business etc etc. But the argument is that the A332 fleet is paid for, and you have to block those seats any way. Couldn't airline executives makes some adjustment here? With today's staff shortage in other airlines, it is time to be nice to your employees for a while. Maybe you have less seats for mileage redemption, maybe sacrifice the flexibility to sell more seats on domestic runs...I really think Qantas has been doing it the wrong way here.

But that would cost more than putting a curtain around 4x rows of Y seats.

They have around 1000 crew based in New Zealand, who work for less and willing to fly with lower conditions.
This crew base has been around for years, and QF already used them pre pandemic on long-haul flights. Just they used to be mixed between NZ/AU crew on the flights.

I'm wondering if these crew rest seats are equipped with the proper restraint for lying down?

WkndWanderer wrote:

I’m not sure it’s “perfectly” capable though is it? Delta’s A332 was frequently weight restricted on SEA-HKG which is shorter. With weaker demand it probably doesn’t matter, but I don’t think it’s ideal.

Yes, the aircraft is perfectly capable.

In August of 2021, QF had Airbus bump the MTOW of several of their A332s to 242tonnes (the type was originally ordered at 233T) making them 16hr aircraft, which is way more than enough for LAX-BNE, even with some cargo.

That would also explain why they don't "suffer" in similar vein to DL's 235T aircraft on the shorter SEA-HKG.

moa999 wrote:

Qf648 wrote:

These 332 are ex Jetstar and were repurposed to transcon duties. Hence no crew rest.

Some are. Some were ordered by Qantas, went to Jetstar then back. Think some never went to Jetstar.
But the 333s which were only ever Qantas also don't have a crew rest, just a curtain around a few pairs (not quads) of seats. You can see this in the seat maps.
This has been the case for many years.

I thought the Jetstar 788 had no crew rest either ?

LAX772LR wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

I’m not sure it’s “perfectly” capable though is it? Delta’s A332 was frequently weight restricted on SEA-HKG which is shorter. With weaker demand it probably doesn’t matter, but I don’t think it’s ideal.

Yes, the aircraft is perfectly capable.

In August of 2021, QF had Airbus bump the MTOW of several of their A332s to 242tonnes (the type was originally ordered at 233T) making them 16hr aircraft, which is way more than enough for LAX-BNE, even with some cargo.

That would also explain why they don't "suffer" in similar vein to DL's 235T aircraft on the shorter SEA-HKG.

Those North Pacific winds near Japan can be very strong

LAX772LR wrote:

In August of 2021, QF had Airbus bump the MTOW of several of their A332s to 242tonnes (the type was originally ordered at 233T) making them 16hr aircraft, which is way more than enough for LAX-BNE, even with some cargo.

Is that 242t weight actually confirmed? I know they bumped up the MTOW but never seen to what weight. QF’s newest A332s predate the first 242t A332 by several years, and I’m not sure if the 242t MTOW is retrofittable. I was under the impression they were going to 238t (previous high before 242t).

DaveMetroD wrote:

I'm wondering if these crew rest seats are equipped with the proper restraint for lying down?

I would say they are probably using the same seat belt pack that NZ used for there SkyCouches. NZ has an seatbelt pack, that is given to passengers in these rows allowing them to lie flat, while being locked in.

Polot wrote:

Is that 242t weight actually confirmed? I know they bumped up the MTOW but never seen to what weight. QF’s newest A332s predate the first 242t A332 by several years, and I’m not sure if the 242t MTOW is retrofittable. I was under the impression they were going to 238t (previous high before 242t).

CASA records say 233t

Aircraft information
Aircraft manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Aircraft model: A330-202
Serial: 1258
Registration type: Full Registration
Date first registered: 2 September 2011
Maximum takeoff weight: 233000.00
Year of manufacture: 2011
Country of manufacture: France
Engine manufacturer: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Number of engines: 2 engines
Engine type: Turbofan
Engine model: CF6-80E1A4
Airframe: Power Driven Aeroplane
Propellor manufacturer: AIRCRAFT NOT FITTED WITH PROPELLER
Propellor model: NOT APPLICABLE
Fuel type: Kerosene
Certification
Type certificate: 184
ICAO type designator: A332
Registration holder
Registration holder: WELLS FARGO TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Registration holder commencement date: 22 November 2016
Address 1: 299 South Main Street, Fifth Floor, MAC: U1228-051
Suburb / City: SALT LAKE CITY
State / Territory: UTAH
Postcode: 84111
Country: United States of America
Registered operator
Registered operator: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Registered operator commencement date: 22 November 2016
Address 1: 10 Bourke Rd
Suburb / City: MASCOT
State / Territory: NSW
Postcode: 2020
Country: Australia

From https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/a ... gister/ebs

Qf648 wrote:

These 332 are ex Jetstar and were repurposed to transcon duties. Hence no crew rest.

The A332s being used on BNE-LAX aren’t the ex-Jetstar frames. There are two groups of A332s, the ‘domestic’ aircraft which were delivered with 7-abreast recliner business class (most - but not all - of which went to Jetstar) and the ‘international’ aircraft which were delivered with SkyBed Mk1. Neither were fitted with crew bunks. The latter are the frames being used on this route.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

Is that 242t weight actually confirmed? I know they bumped up the MTOW but never seen to what weight. QF’s newest A332s predate the first 242t A332 by several years, and I’m not sure if the 242t MTOW is retrofittable. I was under the impression they were going to 238t (previous high before 242t).

CASA records say 233t

Aircraft information
Aircraft manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Aircraft model: A330-202
Serial: 1258
Registration type: Full Registration
Date first registered: 2 September 2011
Maximum takeoff weight: 233000.00
Year of manufacture: 2011
Country of manufacture: France
Engine manufacturer: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Number of engines: 2 engines
Engine type: Turbofan
Engine model: CF6-80E1A4
Airframe: Power Driven Aeroplane
Propellor manufacturer: AIRCRAFT NOT FITTED WITH PROPELLER
Propellor model: NOT APPLICABLE
Fuel type: Kerosene
Certification
Type certificate: 184
ICAO type designator: A332
Registration holder
Registration holder: WELLS FARGO TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Registration holder commencement date: 22 November 2016
Address 1: 299 South Main Street, Fifth Floor, MAC: U1228-051
Suburb / City: SALT LAKE CITY
State / Territory: UTAH
Postcode: 84111
Country: United States of America
Registered operator
Registered operator: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Registered operator commencement date: 22 November 2016
Address 1: 10 Bourke Rd
Suburb / City: MASCOT
State / Territory: NSW
Postcode: 2020
Country: Australia

From https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/a ... gister/ebs

I believe that is the original MTOW that they were delivered at.

Edit: or maybe you are right. Searching through it looks like some of their other A332s are 230t. Not sure which specific ones are getting the MTOW bump.

Polot wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

In August of 2021, QF had Airbus bump the MTOW of several of their A332s to 242tonnes (the type was originally ordered at 233T) making them 16hr aircraft, which is way more than enough for LAX-BNE, even with some cargo.

Is that 242t weight actually confirmed? I know they bumped up the MTOW but never seen to what weight. QF’s newest A332s predate the first 242t A332 by several years, and I’m not sure if the 242t MTOW is retrofittable. I was under the impression they were going to 238t (previous high before 242t).

Seen one source that says 238T and another that said 242T, so went with the latter. In retrospect, that was a mistake, because Airbus said in Nov 2014, that no A330s previous to MSN1627 would be eligible for 242T, which none of QF's are.

So it has to be 238T.

zeke wrote:

CASA records say 233t

They were originally delivered at 233T.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Qf648 wrote:

These 332 are ex Jetstar and were repurposed to transcon duties. Hence no crew rest.

The A332s being used on BNE-LAX aren’t the ex-Jetstar frames. There are two groups of A332s, the ‘domestic’ aircraft which were delivered with 7-abreast recliner business class (most - but not all - of which went to Jetstar) and the ‘international’ aircraft which were delivered with SkyBed Mk1. Neither were fitted with crew bunks. The latter are the frames being used on this route.

From memory the ex JQ a332s also don’t have IFE installed in Y?

Funny how some are trying to equate crew seating with being a premium airline.
Don't think it matters one iota to a passenger, and if overall crew treatment came into it, then how do you rank the ME carriers.

Fact is various airlines have used various forms of separated areas for crew forever, including passenger seats.

zkncj wrote:

From memory the ex JQ a332s also don’t have IFE installed in Y?

QF has two configs of the 332 following refurbs in the 2010s.
10 EBA-EBL with no IFE in Economy, rather BYO (was originally provided iPad Minis) and Inflight internet using the NBN Skymuster satellite - these are typically viewed as domestic aircraft
8 EBM-EBV with a 9" Panasonic ex2 IFE screen in Y and no Internet - these are the crossover aircraft with one less J seat for a toilet, and less Y seats for bigger galley.

If you look at the seatmap on the Qantas website for the 332 27J/224Y config, you will see the note against 37A/B and 37J/K denoting these as crew rest seats on the international Asian flights.


As for the history of the aircraft.
EBA-EBD, EBJ, EBK started life with Qantas. Then Jetstar then back to Qantas.
EBE-EBF started with Jetstar, then Qantas
EBG, EBL, EBM-EBV have only flown with Qantas.

So the aircraft being used on this BNE-LAX flight have never flown with Jetstar and are later (2009-2012 deliveries)

moa999 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

As for the history of the aircraft.
EBA-EBD, EBJ, EBK started life with Qantas. Then Jetstar then back to Qantas.
EBE-EBF started with Jetstar, then Qantas
EBG, EBL, EBM-EBV have only flown with Qantas.

So the aircraft being used on this BNE-LAX flight have never flown with Jetstar and are later (2009-2012 deliveries)

Hello moa999 - just a slight correction, EBQ, EBR and EBS actually started life with JQ. They very quickly came back to QF though, initially as domestic birds in the transcon fight with VA in the early-mid 2010s, and then reconfigured to be long-haul international birds subsequently.

LAX772LR wrote:

Polot wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

In August of 2021, QF had Airbus bump the MTOW of several of their A332s to 242tonnes (the type was originally ordered at 233T) making them 16hr aircraft, which is way more than enough for LAX-BNE, even with some cargo.

Is that 242t weight actually confirmed? I know they bumped up the MTOW but never seen to what weight. QF’s newest A332s predate the first 242t A332 by several years, and I’m not sure if the 242t MTOW is retrofittable. I was under the impression they were going to 238t (previous high before 242t).

Seen one source that says 238T and another that said 242T, so went with the latter. In retrospect, that was a mistake, because Airbus said in Nov 2014, that no A330s previous to MSN1627 would be eligible for 242T, which none of QF's are.

So it has to be 238T.

zeke wrote:

CASA records say 233t

They were originally delivered at 233T.

Interesting, didn’t know MTOW could be bumped up like that for the A332. QF doesn’t have the newest A332, so I initially thought they were still at 233T.

AFAIK the longest pre-Covid A332 flight was FCO-EZE on AR. The airline has a subfleet of 4 242T A332s delivered circa 2016 that allowed this route to be done nonstop (before it was on the A343).

QF is also using these A332s on one of its LAX-MEL flights QF7780. The other flight QF94 is on the 789. Would suspect 7780 is some special flight but it seems to be regularly scheduled in FR24.

voxkel wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Polot wrote:

Is that 242t weight actually confirmed? I know they bumped up the MTOW but never seen to what weight. QF’s newest A332s predate the first 242t A332 by several years, and I’m not sure if the 242t MTOW is retrofittable. I was under the impression they were going to 238t (previous high before 242t).

Seen one source that says 238T and another that said 242T, so went with the latter. In retrospect, that was a mistake, because Airbus said in Nov 2014, that no A330s previous to MSN1627 would be eligible for 242T, which none of QF's are.

So it has to be 238T.

zeke wrote:

CASA records say 233t

They were originally delivered at 233T.

Interesting, didn’t know MTOW could be bumped up like that for the A332. QF doesn’t have the newest A332, so I initially thought they were still at 233T.

AFAIK the longest pre-Covid A332 flight was FCO-EZE on AR. The airline has a subfleet of 4 242T A332s delivered circa 2016 that allowed this route to be done nonstop (before it was on the A343).

QF is also using these A332s on one of its LAX-MEL flights QF7780. The other flight QF94 is on the 789. Would suspect 7780 is some special flight but it seems to be regularly scheduled in FR24.

Some aircraft are delivered de-rated, and at cheaper cost to the airline. Also has operationally savings for the airline e.g lower landing fee’s, when an aircraft is going going to be doing short hops it makes sense to reduce the MTOW.

Some increases need additional hardware e.g. AUX Tanks. Others are barely an software license that allows you to bump up the MTOW.

Singapore 777 wrote:

moa999 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

As for the history of the aircraft.
EBA-EBD, EBJ, EBK started life with Qantas. Then Jetstar then back to Qantas.
EBE-EBF started with Jetstar, then Qantas
EBG, EBL, EBM-EBV have only flown with Qantas.

So the aircraft being used on this BNE-LAX flight have never flown with Jetstar and are later (2009-2012 deliveries)

Hello moa999 - just a slight correction, EBQ, EBR and EBS actually started life with JQ. They very quickly came back to QF though, initially as domestic birds in the transcon fight with VA in the early-mid 2010s, and then reconfigured to be long-haul international birds subsequently.

Thanks for that I was thinking JQ had more than 8 A332s but I couldn’t remember which of the newer batch they operated.

voxkel wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Polot wrote:

Is that 242t weight actually confirmed? I know they bumped up the MTOW but never seen to what weight. QF’s newest A332s predate the first 242t A332 by several years, and I’m not sure if the 242t MTOW is retrofittable. I was under the impression they were going to 238t (previous high before 242t).

Seen one source that says 238T and another that said 242T, so went with the latter. In retrospect, that was a mistake, because Airbus said in Nov 2014, that no A330s previous to MSN1627 would be eligible for 242T, which none of QF's are.

So it has to be 238T.

zeke wrote:

CASA records say 233t

They were originally delivered at 233T.

Interesting, didn’t know MTOW could be bumped up like that for the A332. QF doesn’t have the newest A332, so I initially thought they were still at 233T.

AFAIK the longest pre-Covid A332 flight was FCO-EZE on AR. The airline has a subfleet of 4 242T A332s delivered circa 2016 that allowed this route to be done nonstop (before it was on the A343).

QF is also using these A332s on one of its LAX-MEL flights QF7780. The other flight QF94 is on the 789. Would suspect 7780 is some special flight but it seems to be regularly scheduled in FR24.

QF7780 is freight only.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

OAHU747 wrote:

Why are the A332s being put on this route instead of a 789? How does the A332 have the range?

The A332 certainly have the range for BNE-LAX, in fact I've seen them flying MEL-LAX several times on FR24, that was surprising.

I agree. It was like waking up in a new universe where A330s were now flying MEL-LAX...lol. I'm sure real-world ops data with cargo on the MEL-LAX was useful back then, but I'm still baffled by this.

I'm sure keeping capacity down, is enabling higher fares or yields over running A380s

L0VE2FLY wrote:

OAHU747 wrote:

Why are the A332s being put on this route instead of a 789? How does the A332 have the range?

The A332 certainly have the range for BNE-LAX, in fact I've seen them flying MEL-LAX several times on FR24, that was surprising.

I read elsewhere the MEL-LAX A332s flights were cargo-only, based on a 4-digit flight number.