A330-200 Vs 747-400
#31
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,114
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.
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.
#32
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sydney, AU.
Programs: QF. UA. Avis. AMEX.
Posts: 1,558
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).
#33
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,114
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.
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.
#34
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
Dave
#37
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold(OWE), QF LTG, MR Plat, IHG Spire, Hertz PC
Posts: 8,156
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.
#38
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PIT
Posts: 759
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 ?.
#39
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold(OWE), QF LTG, MR Plat, IHG Spire, Hertz PC
Posts: 8,156
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 ?.
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Bend, IN
Programs: AA EXP 3 MM; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 18,563
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.
#41
Join Date: Aug 2001
Programs: AA Plat & LTG; QF LTG
Posts: 9,837
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.
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.
#42
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
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.
Dave
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP/LTG | UA P
Posts: 13,531
#44
Join Date: Aug 2001
Programs: AA Plat & LTG; QF LTG
Posts: 9,837
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.
#45
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
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.
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.
Dave