Traveloguy

Does anyone know Qantas's rationale of deploying A330-300s on long haul duty and A330-200s on domestic runs considering 200s are meant to be the long haul model and the 300 the high density shorter haul model?

At a glance, the 200 is meant to go 12,500 km with 253 pax in standard config, and the 300 is meant to go 10,500 km with 295 pax. QF of course fills the 200 with 303 pax and the 300 with 297 (international config). I am guessing that the extra pax on the A330-300s means that QF possibly have weight restrictions on some of their longer routes (e.g. China).

Reference A330-200 specs can be found here:

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...fications.html

Reference A330-300 specs can be found here:

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...fications.html

Interested to hear other's thoughts....

NM

The only route QF operates the A330-300 and is range limited is SYD-BOM where they need to stop in DRW for fuel. Its the extra seating capacity that is required for the international ops.

Remember that one of the "problems" with the A330 from QF's perspective on domestic operations is the long turnaround time compared with the 767-300, and the A330-300 would have an even bigger problem in this regard over the A330-200.

I also understand there is a floor strength problem with the A330-200 which will not permit QF to install Skybeds without significant cost to strengthen the floor. This is not a problem for the Millennium seats used in the domestic config for the proposed JetStar International Star Class config (same thing).

thadocta

As alluded to by NM, the 332 was originally meant to be a replacement for the 762/763 on the triangle (SYD-BNE-MEL-SYD), whilst the 333 was meant to be used on international routes as a way of growing the routes compared to what could be provided by a 763. The original order was for 6x332 and 7x333. The smaller 332 was thought to be sufficient for domestic ops in the triangle.

As mentioned by NM, the turnaround times for the 332 are signifigantly longer than those for the 763, and the operation of the 332 on these flights did not last long, since each aircraft could be used for a few sectors less per day, costing QF money BIG time.

When this was realised, the order was amended, and only 4x332 were actually delivered, the reaminder being converted to 333's.

The 332 is still useful on longer domestic sectors, SYD/MEL-PER/CNS being obvious examples. Being longer flights, longer turnaround times are allowed for, which suits the 332.

Dave

number_6

The big advantage of the A330 series (over B767) is the much larger cargo area (thanks to the Airbus standard of having a higher beltline -- so less space above the pax cabin but more space below). The A330 can carry roughly double the cargo volume compared to B767; the B787 fixes that, and is slightly more cargo than the A330. This extra cargo capacity was not what QF needed on their routes (loading cargo doesn't make for a fast turnaround); however didn't QF get all of the A330s very cheap (maybe below cost) as a sweetener for buying A380s? I guess we will never know that, but the A330 are great planes for the right route (just as the 767 was a revolutionary plane, but in the 80s).

thadocta

This increased cargo capacity was one of the reasons why the 332 took a lot longer to turn around than the 763.

Admittedly, this was QF's fault, but who can blame them? The plane had the belly space, why not use it?

As for the A330's being ultra cheap, I have heard that the A330's were practically given away by Airbus, as Airbus wanted QF as a launch customer for the A380, and they offered the A330 to QF as a way for QF to get experience on modern FBW Airbus aircraft. QF took them up on it.

Was a great deal though, my info is that QF are very happy with the A330-300, although the A330-200 did not fit in with its intended role (not surprisingly). So QF ended up with a lot of aircraft that they like (the 333) and paid practically nothing for.

Dave

willyroo

Dave - I told ya mate...

O Lord, won't you buy me - a 764...

RickyT

Generally this seems to be correct but it is possible to turn around an A332 in an hour, examples:

- QF 485 from MEL arrives PER at 10:25 and QF 802 (using the same A332) to MEL is scheduled to depart at 11:25
- QF 409 from SYD arrives MEL at 08:30 and QF 420 (using the same A332) to SYD is scheduled to deaprt at 09:30
- Even the SYD-CNS flights are allocated a hour-turnaround at CNS.

This is fairly consistent with the turnaround times required for a B763. IMHO, one of the reason the A332 is deployed on the SYD-MEL when they need the capacity (especially during peak times).

sxc

If QF was happy with the A330-300, why did they not pick any more up in their latest order? Maybe the 787s fuel economy made QF want to go back to Boeing?

number_6

QF bought their A330s before the 787 was launched. The 787 has made all A330 obsolete (and decimated their residual value). Hence the desire of Airbus to launch the A350 to replace the A330 product line, but that has run into some resistance with key customers wanting better performance. The 787 has really raised the bar for aircraft performance and is hard to beat. The A330 makes sense to fill in an existing fleet, but no airline is going to buy new ones otherwise.