Printable View
I braved the oppressive summer heat to get a shot of the QFA A330 at JFK this evening.
This is a welcome change to the B774 Particularly Wunala- I am glad to say Wunala is just a memory - a bad memory at that. Good by and good riddance.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/...d87da5e6_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/...710f2534_b.jpg
Senga
Senga, I love how you "braved the elements" to grab this shot. You actually caught it with nice light, no overcast...I'm disappointed in you. :lol:
Yes, it was PAINFUL
I hate the Sun and I hate warm weather. I almost was not going to out for it it because of those two reasons. But then I was like get it and get it out of the way.
Senga
Never thought Id see the day one of those would ever fly to the 'States' those boor buggers cramped up in that A330! all that way! Lets hope the in-flight entertainment worked. The pilots & crew must be laughing all the way to their hotels getting on that routing.Its highly competitive & sought after to get rostered onto that route.
Hiflyer / Down Under
...And the gold mine that once was JFK becomes even less exciting. I suppose it could be worse. At least it's not a B77W or some other abortion with blended winglets. Nice shots Senga, I just don't think I can get used to seeing a QF twin jet here.
We're lucky to even still have Qantas at JFK. There's a HUGE amount of compeitition now between the U.S and Australia. I'm surprised Qantas just doesn't rely on AA for the LAX to JFK leg.
I've read the route makes big $$ for Qantas in terms of cargo.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
[quote=Iberia A340-600]I've read the route makes big $$ for Qantas in terms of cargo.[/quote:3ah8u7jq]Quote:
Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":3ah8u7jq
You don't shrink yourself to profitability or greater profitability.
[quote=T-Bird76][quote="Iberia A340-600":7p0id57b]I've read the route makes big $$ for Qantas in terms of cargo.[/quote:7p0id57b]Quote:
Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":7p0id57b
You don't shrink yourself to profitability or greater profitability.[/quote:7p0id57b]
Apparently Qantas does. The A330 has a decent amount of cargo capacity in the hold. However the route has changed from SYD-LAX-JFK to AKL-LAX-JFK so any cargo that was flying from Sydney to New York now needs to be re-loaded on the ground at LAX. This is the second time that Qantas has downgraded AKL-LAX to the A330-200 from the 747-400. They have serious competition with Air New Zealand on the route and since they probably never fill the 747-400 to JFK it made sense to downgrade the cabin size but keep a relatively same cargo load.
Didn't I just say that about competition??? *shakes head*Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia A340-600
[quote=T-Bird76]Didn't I just say that about competition??? *shakes head*[/quote:2ui98npn]Quote:
Originally Posted by "Iberia A340-600":2ui98npn
Yes, yes you did. However I was referring to the competition between Air New Zealand and Qantas on the AKL-LAX-AKL route, not for Qantas between the United States and Australia. Reading more on the topic, various posts on Airliners.Net (obviously not a confirming source of information but helpful), Qantas stays in the market so that they can offer their passengers full service all the way from Australia/New Zealand to New York, high cargo revenue aside.
I'm merely offering some speculation as to why Qantas keeps flying the route with their own aircraft as opposed to having a code-share with American.
Gordon..... The 330-200 doesnt have anyplace near the lift ability on the transpac segment of the routing and if you are going to ship from NY in any event more times than not your freight forwarder is going to take it rail or road depending on the dimesions and value of the product or if it is a recurring shipment.... There is limited cargo originating from JFK on QF... Coming there was but I am sure forwarders are going to reconsider using QF's cargo program to NY and from NY based on the fact it would have to come off to go on another plane now... It increases inscurance cost and also risks shipment delays because of things like priority of other freight, booking dates, and a twinjets weight restriction on a overwater crossing due to a necisty to have more fuel.... It happens all of the time.... Trust me... My Stepfather owns a sizeable freight forwarding company..... JFK wasnt making money for QF the way you probably think they were. Not to mention... Right now.... If it is not a time sensitive foodstuff etc etc people are going ocean freight.... Air freight is much more expensive compared to sea and you do not run into as many variables.... If it fits inside a 20 or 40 footer it goes pretty much.
Well, they've kept the route for some reason... Something must be going right.
Senga great sunlight on those shots lol but to me the A330-200 looks like a bloated pig.
The A330-300 is a bit more elegant, they're only bringing the -200?
JFK has truly become the land of the long-haul twinjets. I don't know what's more painful, that or you guys arguing about cargo on QF..
Heres the PAX B744s I game up with.
SIA
KLM
AFR
CAL
CCA
JAL
KAL
AAR
DAL
ELY
BAW
VIR
DLH
SVA*
Some of those listed bring widebody twins also.
Long haul airlines bringing only twinjets to JFK. Might be forgetting 1 or 2
Finnair
Alitalia
Air Berlin
Jet Airways
Eurofly
Turkish
Air India
Kuwait
Lot
Uzbekistan
Aeroflot
Aerosvit
TAM
Aerogal
Egyptair
PIA
Aer Lingus
Qatar
Emirates
Royal Air Maroc
Air Europa
ANA
Austrian
Open competition on this Qantas' most profitable operating route would kill them dead!
Several overseas carriers including Singapore Airlines have applied to the Australian Govt in the past seeking operating approval, only to be rejected to "look after Qantas" best interests.
Bring on the competition & 'open the skies' to the route & stop protecting Qantas from real competition that they know would really hurt their bottom line.
My 50c worth anyway!
Hiflyer
I agree....an unhealthy obsession had set in the last couple of years... :borat: time to "let go" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SengaB
I am curious, what is the 774? NEver seen it before :P
See how the A332 looks kinda of pregnant? "She" mated with the 773 and had to name their ugly child 777-400.Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks7757
ps: I think I forgot LAN..
I cant stand seeing a A330 in palce of a 744. especally wunala. In terms of pax, when they announced the swap I was still working out of T7 and they were only getting roughly 110 pax a day. Now true this was the slow part of the year but only 110 on a 744!? Thats not good. Even towards my last few weeks at T7 the planes were comming in pretty empty. Cargo wise too. There was barely anything on the plane inbound. If you want to know the worse it got, one day there were only 98 pax o/b with full cargo. A few days before I left T7 to head to EIA there were close to 175 pax with only 1-2 pcs of cargo inbound.
Not surprising then, we have an A330, rather than an A380, replacing the 747 into JFK...Quote:
Originally Posted by NLovis
Got these shots from home today (7/16) of the Qantas A330 OneWorld.
http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Av...6_2CWXz-XL.jpg
http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Av...2_ePdBP-XL.jpg
Interesting website for those interested in Qantas. :D
http://www.theqantassource.com/index.html :borat:
Lets know what you think!
Best Regards,
Hiflyer 'Down Under'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiflyer
Thats what Jeremy needs for Eva :P