eoinnz

I just came of operating my first flight on the A332. It is a very nice aircraft from both a passenger and crew perspective (apart from the lack of bunks but thats another issue). Didn't have a single IFE problem!!!!! In J class all the seats are pretty good.

Here are some observations for when deciding on a seat:
1 B/E/F/J get a bit of traffic from the rear cabin passengers using the bathroom passing through the curtains.

3 B/E/F/J are not disturbed by curtains but are slightly vulnerable to minimal galley noise.

The front cabin has 2 bassinets however in the back cabin there are 5 bassinets near by. 2 at the front and 3 in economy. In particular avoid row 6 due to the close proximity of bassinets and curtain traffic from crew moving between cabins and economy passengers attempting a visit to toilets that don't exist.

In economy avoid row 45 D/E/F/G - despite being a bulkhead seat passengers constantly try to climb over you to get to the other toilets on the other side.

54 A/B is great for reclining without having to consider anyone behind you. 58 J/K is also good as there is now no toilet behind it, and minimal galley noise.

55 and 56 A/B are not for passengers use.

nonce

Thanks eoinnz. I have changed my seat from 6K (what was the computer thinking) to 2E for my upcoming SYD-NRT flight on the 332 (which in itself was changed from the JAL flight after reading this thread).

eoinnz

Here are some photos I quickly snapped whilst the aircraft was free of engineers, ground staff, catering, cleaners and other crew!!!

This is the economy section with the new seat covers
http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...t=DSC00092.jpg
http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...t=DSC00090.jpg

Here is the cross between business class and economy and a view of row 6
http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...t=DSC00089.jpg

And finally the front business class cabin
http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...t=DSC00088.jpg

Image quality and size reduced for quick loading.

thadocta

Thanks for the photos. I have yet to see the new interiors, but it looks.....ummmmmm.....bright.

Dave

nonce

The new interiors look bright in photos but look much better in person. Based on the pics it looks like the second J cabin is to stay away from, especially row 6.

perseus11

Does anyone know factually if the AKL-LAX 330-200 flight is (or is not) flown severely weight restricted (i.e., at less than full passenger and cargo loads) ?

Traveloguy

I don't believe so. That's why a 200 is used on the route as opposed to a 300. Suggest a trip to the Airbus site to illustrate the point. The 200 is a very capable aircraft.

perseus11

I am quite familiar with the 332 performance, it's loading capabiliites (MTOW) and detailed specification ranges based on that and takeoff/in-flight environments. The range capability that you see on the Airbus site assumes in-flight Still air environments, sea level takeoffs and other "perfect" conditions to achieve the 6700nm MAX range. I am not aware of any airline that flies the 332 more than 5000nm without significant weight restrictions. That said, I am also unfamiliar with the environments between AKL and LAX - consequently, the reason for the ?.

Traveloguy

I believe Air China operates CDG-PEK which is a similar distance. I'm sure if we dig hard enough we will find other carriers also operating similar distances. Routes to China generally make money off cargo which is heavy so that's another thing to take into consideration.

PresRDC

I was in Row 5 and it was fine. Rows 4 and 6 are missing at least one window. I had the seat next to me free, so I was extra comfortable.

NM

Every flight, no matter if its a Cessna 172 or an A380, is 'weight restricted". I assume you are asking if QF has to restrict the number of passengers to something less than the number of installed seats in order to carry sufficient fuel to complete the mission.

There are several factors that come into play with a flight such as this mission.

• The prevailing jetstreams provide tailwinds for the east-bound flight (AKL-LAX) while providing headwinds for the return journey (LAX-AKL). Flight times reflect this, with westbound being scheduled at 1 hour longer duration. So AKL-LAX (per your question) is less affected than LAX-AKL would be.
• Assisting the LAX-AKL is the fact that the scheduled departure time is late evening when the air temperature is generally cooler in LA and LAX is basically at sea level, which improves the aircraft operating efficiencies over an airport that may be at a higher altitude or under hot conditions.

Under normal weather conditions, QF can operate their A330-200s with a full passenger load of 235 (26 J and 199 Y). There is little additional uplift capacity for freight on these flights, just like with a LAX-MEL flight using a 744 aircraft).

However, it would be possible that during the northern summer (and QF has not operated A332 from LAX in summer yet), on a particularly hot evening and when strong headwinds are expected, that QF may have some restrictions imposed. They would then need to choose from restricting pax numbers or including a tech stop. This has not happened yet since operating the A332 on this route.

The amount of pax+freight weight the aircraft can carry on any flight is the difference between the MTOW and the sum of the minimum operating weight and the fuel required to operate from origin to destination if commencing at MTOW. QF's A330-203 models have MTOW=233T and according to Airbus the A332 has a typical operating empty weight of around 119T. Assuming a flight mission of 13.5 hours will require somewhere around 75T of fuel, we have around 39T available for passengers and their baggage. So for 235 passengers, that is an average around 166kg/pax. I don't know what allowance QF has per passenger for their loading calculations, but would expect it to be in that ball park.

thadocta

166kg per passenger? On a flight from the LOTFAP? Does their baggage go on a seperate flight?

Dave

og

Not only is there a weight issue on the ex LOTFAP flights, but an extra 50 cubic metres of galley storage is needed for the "super size" meals that must be loaded.

NM

as an average per pax I think that is reasonable. How much do you think would be reasonable as an average across 235 pax? I don't consider myself to be under-weight, but I have never been close to 166kg for me+bags on any trip.

So yes, some people may exceed that average, but I would suggest that as an average its not too far off the mark, and in fact is probably on the higher side of the ledger.

thadocta

We ARE talking about flights from the LOTFAP remember, where your average LOTFAPer probably consumes that much in junk food per day!

Dave