QF: Would it be asking too much to spruce up the 767s

[under the radar]

Good point about preferring 767s over 737s, especially for short journeys.

It's when your going SYD or MEL to PER and you appreciate some entertainment, and a little comfort in the seat, and there is a fair difference between the 767 and A330/747s available on the same route.... but QF give us discounted prices for 767 journey's don't they :shock:

so should i expect a 'discount' if i happen to get a clapped out / graffiti ridden / non aircon / disgusting old train on our public transport network?? you pay to get from A to B ... s**t happens!

 

[nlagalle]

AJ has indicated that A330s are in common config now and wont be changed!

The'll still need the seats changed over to cloth etc. IFE?

 

[Oneworldplus2]

I agree with you. Love the 767 over the 737s.

On the golden triangle, for sure.
But go transcon (5+hours), the refurbished 747 or A330's, with AVOD makes a huge difference. And the cabin 'feels' cleaner.

 

[harvyk]

I like the 767's on some routes, and where there is a choice between a B737 and a B767 I'll pick the B767 every time. That said they really do need a bit of a cabin refresh, that also said most other countries where "long haul domestic" or short haul international come into play, the B767's like they are now are really sort of average.

I guess the problem QF have is that they do have some really good planes on a fair few of the routes that the B767 operates on (ignoring the SYD-MEL route) and thus if you typically travel on A330's \ B747's or even a B737 with AVOD on those routes and then get the B767 experience for the exact same price it's understandable you would feel a little ripped off.

 

[simongr]

On the golden triangle, for sure.
But go transcon (5+hours), the refurbished 747 or A330's, with AVOD makes a huge difference. And the cabin 'feels' cleaner.

OBviously they are better - but SYD_MEL your only options are 73x or 763 mostly. I always choose 763.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

OBviously they are better - but SYD_MEL your only options are 73x or 763 mostly. I always choose 763.

Same, who said l didn't?

 

[MarkD]

Actually I prefer the 767s even on PER-BNE, however its always been Redeye when I have done that flight on QF so the IFE wasnt an issue. Actually find the seats comfortable myself.

 

[Moopere]

Wow. Serious love for the 767 here. I am amazed. I must be getting the worst of the bunch then when I rarely bump into one (as I say, route to avoid). Collapsed hard cushioning on clapped out seats, IFE thats just a joke, everything rattling and squeaking even without weather ... I've not done J in one since about 2003/4... but it was pretty underwhelming then, I can't imagine it being better now.

Note that I've nothing against the engineering product, its the well worn through interiors and IFE that I bump into as the flying customer that causes me to give them a miss.

 

[markis10]

I find the seats OK, more room than a 737, one less neighbour and the fact its one heck of a solid aircraft a big winner, IFE is a meh, I have had enough failures and QF link flying to self cater. QF could do themselves a big favor and order some new ones, I note an order yesterday was for a mix of 787 and 767 for another airline, they may not have the economics of an A330 but turnaround time is king for domestic!

 

[straitman]

I find the seats OK, more room than a 737, one less neighbour and the fact its one heck of a solid aircraft a big winner, IFE is a meh, I have had enough failures and QF link flying to self cater. QF could do themselves a big favor and order some new ones, I note an order yesterday was for a mix of 787 and 767 for another airline, they may not have the economics of an A330 but turnaround time is king for domestic!

Good point.

Why spruce up the old ones when you can still buy new ones.

 

[moa999]

As a qn why is the A330 so bad on turnaround vs 767

 

[markis10]

As a qn why is the A330 so bad on turnaround vs 767

More people and pax through the same facilities, QF have not optimized their facilities to take advantage of the A330s door positions having only the odd aero bridge with dual door capability on the domestic front, resulting in more time on the ground for their bigger aircraft not making money.

 

[jb747]

I'd actually have liked to have seen them replace the older 767s with new ones. For a number of reasons the 767 is still the best wide body choice for domestic operations, but I'd have to agree that they should have done something with the interiors quite some time ago. I very much doubt that 787s will ever be seen on QF domestic operations....

When commuting, I always look for 767s. Over the many years I've been doing so, it has always been the most reliable choice (and the 330 the least).

 

[serfty]

The'll still need the seats changed over to cloth etc. IFE?

I have travelled on one of the new JQi 332's and the IFE is in seat - i.e. PIFE. With JQ 'tis pay-per-view for some content.

So really only the leather ...

 

[oz_mark]

I have travelled on one of the new JQi 332's and the IFE is in seat - i.e. PIFE. With JQ 'tis pay-per-view for some content.

So really only the leather ...

and the credit card swiper

The older 332's are main screen though, maybe they could look at that!

 

[jb747]

The power and wiring requirements of in seat IFE are pretty huge. That was always an issue on the 767.

The advent of usable wifi streaming, and the various smartphones, tablets, and laptops that just about everyone carries, is a gift from heaven for the airlines. That's 10s of millions of dollars per wide body that can be replaced with relatively cheap transmitters and a bit of storage...with a large percentage of the passengers providing their own screens.

It will be interesting to see which airline is first to make the leap to removing the fixed installations.

 

[ajw373]

The power and wiring requirements of in seat IFE are pretty huge. That was always an issue on the 767.

The advent of usable wifi streaming, and the various smartphones, tablets, and laptops that just about everyone carries, is a gift from heaven for the airlines. That's 10s of millions of dollars per wide body that can be replaced with relatively cheap transmitters and a bit of storage...with a large percentage of the passengers providing their own screens.

It will be interesting to see which airline is first to make the leap to removing the fixed installations.

As a technician myself what I don't follow is how one day the use of transmitting devices is bad for the aircraft, yet now we are moving into an era where mobile phone bases stations and wifi is being installed on planes, meaning of course there will now be upwards of 400+ transmiting devices going on each and every flight. I gather on the 767 they are trialing this there are no changes to protect the wiring and instruments from interfearance so what now suddenly makes it safe?

 

[rechoboam]

The power and wiring requirements of in seat IFE are pretty huge. That was always an issue on the 767.

The advent of usable wifi streaming, and the various smartphones, tablets, and laptops that just about everyone carries, is a gift from heaven for the airlines. That's 10s of millions of dollars per wide body that can be replaced with relatively cheap transmitters and a bit of storage...with a large percentage of the passengers providing their own screens.

It will be interesting to see which airline is first to make the leap to removing the fixed installations.

Exactly. I was amazed to be talking to a rocket scientist who had spent her entire (short) career sorting out IFE issues before going back to uni.

 

[jb747]

As a technician myself what I don't follow is how one day the use of transmitting devices is bad for the aircraft, yet now we are moving into an era where mobile phone bases stations and wifi is being installed on planes, meaning of course there will now be upwards of 400+ transmiting devices going on each and every flight. I gather on the 767 they are trialing this there are no changes to protect the wiring and instruments from interfearance so what now suddenly makes it safe?

I expect that there are a number of parts to the answer. Firstly, as we've moved in to a more digital age, the power output of these devices has dropped. A modern phone is quite a different animal to the original analogue phones.

Unlike most people for whom it's myth, I've seen first hand the effect of a device (a child's toy as it happened) that was causing an issue with a 767 autopilot. Once we'd worked out that the toy was a possible cause, we were eventually able to replicate the problem by just turning it on or off. In that case the issue came up in the cruise, and provided an interesting pastime for half an hour or so. But, the effect it was having would have precluded an auto land had it been needed (and if the toy were still turned on).

I expect too, that the devices that will actually be in use are now reasonably well understood, and the bands that they will be working have been tested to some degree.

And I also suspect that the large percentage of people who have never turned their phones off, irrespective of any effects, real or otherwise, have unintentionally provided a large public test....

Plus the airlines have worked out how to ensure that if you do use your phone, you'll have to pay them for it.....

 

[Oneworldplus2]

I've seen first hand the effect of a device (a child's toy as it happened) that was causing an issue with a 767 autopilot. Once we'd worked out that the toy was a possible cause, we were eventually able to replicate the problem by just turning it on or off.

Can I ask, how far away the toy was from the coughpit/instrumentation to be causing a problem?