Equipment on DOH - AKL
May 6, 2017, 1:27 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York, Paris
Programs: AA ExPlat 4MM, AA Life Plat, Lufthansa FT, Delta Basic
Posts: 1,593
Equipment on DOH - AKL
Hello,
With both EK and EY providing all A 380 service to Sydney and EK doing the same to AKL, QR finds itself at a big disadvantage with its offer of a mediocre 777 hard product in Business Class, and this on the World's longest route.
Is there any plan to upgrade the equipment to A 380 or A 350 / B787-8/9 (assuming that the two latter have long enough legs to fly that distance) ?
Alternatively, is there any plan to prioritize the equipment of the 777-200 with Q suites ?
Thank you.
With both EK and EY providing all A 380 service to Sydney and EK doing the same to AKL, QR finds itself at a big disadvantage with its offer of a mediocre 777 hard product in Business Class, and this on the World's longest route.
Is there any plan to upgrade the equipment to A 380 or A 350 / B787-8/9 (assuming that the two latter have long enough legs to fly that distance) ?
Alternatively, is there any plan to prioritize the equipment of the 777-200 with Q suites ?
Thank you.
May 6, 2017, 2:00 am
#2
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,944
Cofyknsult this has been discussed on the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qatar...l#post28119285 thread. It is thought that the A350-1000 may have the range required. But the discussion above was inconclusive because of differing units of measure. (Kilometers, statutory miles snd nautical miles!) being used. The B787s do not appear to have the range.
The plan for retrofitting the Qsuites has been to retrofit the 773s first then the 772s and A350s.
The plan for retrofitting the Qsuites has been to retrofit the 773s first then the 772s and A350s.
May 6, 2017, 3:59 am
#4
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LON
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 3,918
I found there to be nothing mediocre about the 777-200 on my trip to and from AKL, in fact for longer flights like AKL I really prefer the space that the 777 offers. I accept that it's different to the 787 and 350 cabin arrangements but I guess it's all down to personal preferences. Assuming there is not an equipment change I'm due to be on the 350 for the longish flights to/from HND later this year and would probably prefer the 777 but am equally happy with the 350.
May 6, 2017, 4:03 am
#5
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
Not exactly sure how the 777-200 is necessarily inferior. Sure the hard product is older, but is it really so much inferior than other products on the market? EK has a 2-3-2 configuration on their 777, which still are the backbone of their fleet. Many other operators use 2-2-2 configurations as well.
May 6, 2017, 4:53 am
#6
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: BA GGL
Posts: 112
I found there to be nothing mediocre about the 777-200 on my trip to and from AKL, in fact for longer flights like AKL I really prefer the space that the 777 offers. I accept that it's different to the 787 and 350 cabin arrangements but I guess it's all down to personal preferences. Assuming there is not an equipment change I'm due to be on the 350 for the longish flights to/from HND later this year and would probably prefer the 777 but am equally happy with the 350.
May 6, 2017, 8:21 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,536
It's a perfectly fine plane indeed. I doubt QR will have the need for a 388 on the route any time soon, as others have pointed out, the 351 is more likely though my guess is that fuel savings would be a bigger reason than supposed quality disadvantage. QR offers a very good product, better than EK in many respects. I'm surprised to hear that EY are flying a 388 to AKL I must say.
May 6, 2017, 8:46 am
#8
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
Read the post again. OP said that EY is flying the A380 to SYD and that EK would fly the A380 to both SYD and AKL. Surprisingly, OP seems to forget that QR flies the A380 to SYD as well. I doubt that EY or QR will ever deploy the A380 on a regular basis on that route. Their A380 fleet is simply to small, whereas EK has probably too many on their hands.
May 6, 2017, 1:34 pm
#10
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Programs: BA Gold, Mucci
Posts: 2,068
I agree as well, I really liked the 777-200LR hard product. As someone who is always flying BA, the QR seat is far more spacious both in width and pitch. It's also just a nicer setup and you don't feel claustrophobic. I slept fairly well on my AKL trip and I don't sleep on BA at all usually.
May 6, 2017, 2:12 pm
#11
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,944
maxvor look at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qatar...l#post28085004 and you will find one of the threads you are looking for.
On the QR forum we try to avoid sticky threads and use the QR dashboard. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qatar...dashboard.html. Here you will find not only a fleet guide thread but also threads for most of QRs aircraft types.
On the QR forum we try to avoid sticky threads and use the QR dashboard. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qatar...dashboard.html. Here you will find not only a fleet guide thread but also threads for most of QRs aircraft types.
May 7, 2017, 3:43 am
#12
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: AMS
Posts: 585
maxvor look at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qatar...l#post28085004 and you will find one of the threads you are looking for.
On the QR forum we try to avoid sticky threads and use the QR dashboard. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qatar...dashboard.html. Here you will find not only a fleet guide thread but also threads for most of QRs aircraft types.
On the QR forum we try to avoid sticky threads and use the QR dashboard. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qatar...dashboard.html. Here you will find not only a fleet guide thread but also threads for most of QRs aircraft types.
Having flown most of the QR's long-haul configuarations in J and F, i'm well aware of advantages and shortcomings of every of those. I was merely poiniting to the fact that labeling 777 BC as "mediocre" became a required attribute in every thread related to routing served by these aircraft types, discussing this topic again and again. And most of this labeling comes from people who never flew it, while those who did generally put it close to the top of their preference list even when compared to B787 and A350. And now, whole new topic to discuss how "bad" this hard product is. Just wondering how it could be done more clear that there is no need to discuss it again, not to say not to start a new thread on this topic.
May 8, 2017, 5:06 am
#13
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 776
Thank you for referencing!
Having flown most of the QR's long-haul configuarations in J and F, i'm well aware of advantages and shortcomings of every of those. I was merely poiniting to the fact that labeling 777 BC as "mediocre" became a required attribute in every thread related to routing served by these aircraft types, discussing this topic again and again. And most of this labeling comes from people who never flew it, while those who did generally put it close to the top of their preference list even when compared to B787 and A350. And now, whole new topic to discuss how "bad" this hard product is. Just wondering how it could be done more clear that there is no need to discuss it again, not to say not to start a new thread on this topic.
Having flown most of the QR's long-haul configuarations in J and F, i'm well aware of advantages and shortcomings of every of those. I was merely poiniting to the fact that labeling 777 BC as "mediocre" became a required attribute in every thread related to routing served by these aircraft types, discussing this topic again and again. And most of this labeling comes from people who never flew it, while those who did generally put it close to the top of their preference list even when compared to B787 and A350. And now, whole new topic to discuss how "bad" this hard product is. Just wondering how it could be done more clear that there is no need to discuss it again, not to say not to start a new thread on this topic.