Report: Qantas Crew Sleeps across Economy Seats in full view of passengers.

[Must...Fly!]

Expanding to new routes when you don’t have the planes? DEL and FCO for example. And using 787s instead of a380s to DFW.

The 787s have long haul crew rest so I fail to see the issue here.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The 787s have long haul crew rest so I fail to see the issue here.

The reason why they are left with a330s on the BNE-LAX route is because they’re using the 787s to expand into new routes, or cover existing routes in place of the a380.

As you say, if they had stuck with the 787s on the route this wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[RooFlyer]

Can we just have one thread that doesn’t descend into yet another Qantas rant thread? This is supposed to be about FA crew rest on A330s, not whether you approve of QF’s aircraft utilisation.

Trouble is, at the moment, just about all bad flying experiences lead to Qantas’ door.

And this IS the Qantas part of the forum

 

[Must...Fly!]

The reason why they are left with a330s on the BNE-LAX route is because they’re using the 787s to expand into new routes, or cover existing routes in place of the a380.

As you say, if they had stuck with the 787s on the route this wouldn’t be an issue.

What new route runs the 787?

I generally dislike Qantas but it seems like they are doing the best with the fleet they have available at the moment

 

[Port Power]

Isn't the major problem the privacy curtains have not yet been installed? The flight crews have always slept across four Y seats, and most comfortably with mattress toppers. Privacy is the main issue. Crew would rather appear fully groomed in front of passengers. More important is having a bit of private space for a while, out of sight. They would be used to ambient noise by now, even crying babies. When will these privacy curtains be installed?

 

[TheInsider]

What new route runs the 787?

I generally dislike Qantas but it seems like they are doing the best with the fleet they have available at the moment

And yet they still haven't put in any more firm orders.

 

[Greg555]

Can we just have one thread that doesn’t descend into yet another Qantas rant thread? This is supposed to be about FA crew rest on A330s, not whether you approve of QF’s aircraft utilisation.

While Qantas continue to show how much they disrespect their customers, illustrate their management incompetence and blatantly use customers money as working capital - I will continue to rant about Qantas - everywhere, everytime.

The reason they continue to behave like this is because of fanboys out there making excuses for them and supporting a flawed product and flawed organisation.

Post automatically merged: Apr 26, 2022

Expanding to new routes when you don’t have the planes? DEL and FCO for example. And using 787s instead of a380s to DFW.

Exactly!

 

[Greg555]

The 787s have long haul crew rest so I fail to see the issue here.

And the A330's......?

Post automatically merged: Apr 26, 2022

Trouble is, at the moment, just about all bad flying experiences lead to Qantas’ door.

And this IS the Qantas part of the forum

Exactly right....

 

[Greg555]

What new route runs the 787?

I generally dislike Qantas but it seems like they are doing the best with the fleet they have available at the moment

....doing the best with the fleet they have available at the moment due to lack of forward fleet planning and introducing new routes without appropriate metal...

 

[justinbrett]

QF used A330s for years on the MEL-AKL-LAX-JFK route. This is nothing new (BNE is only 600NM further than AKL). Yes, the crew rest area for FAs isn't adequate, needs to be improved. Hence the title of this thread.

But seriously some people in here need to get a grip. This forum is starting to resemble twitter where it's become an echo chamber of a group of fundamentalists that aren't representative of the wider community.

QF (or many other airlines) don't seem to be struggling for passengers recently.

The reason they continue to behave like this is because of fanboys out there making excuses for them and supporting a flawed product and flawed organisation.

Well the product / organisation of VA didn't end up to well, now they don't have a single widebody aircraft...

And yet they still haven't put in any more firm orders.

They're about to order A350s. They don't just have to be used for sunrise routes, they could easily slot into some of the current B787 routes.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

For me the issue is fairly straightforward… were any rules broken in either the provision of suitable rest facilities, or the subsequent workaround.

 

[Must...Fly!]

And yet they still haven't put in any more firm orders.

However there are 3 waiting for Boeing to resolve it's differences with the FAA I think, after QF initially paused them? May be wrong here so am happy to be corrected (as always)

....doing the best with the fleet they have available at the moment due to lack of forward fleet planning and introducing new routes without appropriate metal...

Forward fleet planning in the last two years may as well be akin to pricking a voodoo doll with clothes pins. I will apportion blame on QF & management where appropriate but not for that.

 

[RSD]

Forward fleet planning in the last two years may as well be akin to pricking a voodoo doll with clothes pins. I will apportion blame on QF & management where appropriate but not for that.

Agreed - but that doesn't excuse opening up new routes if that then leaves you without suitable aircraft for existing routes...

 

[Melburnian1]

QF used A330s for years on the MEL-AKL-LAX-JFK route. This is nothing new (BNE is only 600NM further than AKL). Yes, the crew rest area for FAs isn't adequate, needs to be improved. Hence the title of this thread.

But seriously some people in here need to get a grip. This forum is starting to resemble twitter where it's become an echo chamber of a group of fundamentalists that aren't representative of the wider community.

By definition, no specialist website or blog is 'representative of the wider community'. A site like AFF will attract those who fly/have flown regularly, those having an interest in aviation as a mode of travel or who wish to commence flying (perhaps their first international flight) and they perceive a need to become more familiar with trip-enhancing or moneysaving options including use of FF points to name a few groups.

IIRC, fewer than 20 per cent of Australians fly regularly internationally i.e. at least once a year (although other extreme is the cohort who make many trips annually, or did pre-COVID.

Are you therefore suggesting AFF mandates that 80 per cent of members or contributors must be Australian citizens/residents who've never flown or haven't done so for a decade? That would be 'representative' but irrelevant to the purpose of this useful blog site.

In passing, Mattg has written some articles recently that have not been complimentary re QF. Yet as usual, they're well argued and his spelling and grammar is impeccable.

New contributors constantly feature in AFF threads including this one. They can hardly be accused of being an 'echo chamber.'

You may not read mainstream media but whether 'The Age'/'SMH' 'Traveller section, or competitors such as 'The Oz', media is full of complaints re QF. Yet internationally to/from Oz, it and JQ combined usually have only a one-third share of total international flight users.

Maybe it's QF itself that needs to 'get a grip' of the complaints and substantively act to at least partly fix, rather than having an individual in charge who sends a soporific email to FF holders and who then (as highlighted by media) goes on holidays while there's the bag crisis at major domestic airports.

 

[Rebel20]

https://www.news.com.au/travel/qant...s/news-story/c52f43b418c0b8d723c49e1c8b3a2e93

Qantas seem to find a new way every day to lower our opinions of them!

It's not our opinion Qantas pays attention to It's our wallet...

 

[justinbrett]

By definition, no specialist website or blog is 'representative of the wider community'. A site like AFF will attract those who fly/have flown regularly, those having an interest in aviation as a mode of travel or who wish to commence flying (perhaps their first international flight) and they perceive a need to become more familiar with trip-enhancing or moneysaving options including use of FF points to name a few groups.

IIRC, fewer than 20 per cent of Australians fly regularly internationally i.e. at least once a year (although other extreme is the cohort who make many trips annually, or did pre-COVID.

Are you therefore suggesting AFF mandates that 80 per cent of members or contributors must be Australian citizens/residents who've never flown or haven't done so for a decade? That would be 'representative' but irrelevant to the purpose of this useful blog site.

In passing, Mattg has written some articles recently that have not been complimentary re QF. Yet as usual, they're well argued and his spelling and grammar is impeccable.

New contributors constantly feature in AFF threads including this one. They can hardly be accused of being an 'echo chamber.'

You may not read mainstream media but whether 'The Age'/'SMH' 'Traveller section, or competitors such as 'The Oz', media is full of complaints re QF. Yet internationally to/from Oz, it and JQ combined usually have only a one-third share of total international flight users.

Maybe it's QF itself that needs to 'get a grip' of the complaints and substantively act to at least partly fix, rather than having an individual in charge who sends a soporific email to FF holders and who then (as highlighted by media) goes on holidays while there's the bag crisis at major domestic airports.

Your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, the usual suspects hijacking threads with no relevance to the topic.

My get a grip remark was directed at those who felt it was an outrage that Qantas is using A330s trans Pacific - because it's certainly not new to use this aircraft on this type of route; there is a relevant discussion about the crew rest area to be had, but this is now lost in the noise of yet another rant thread.

The very fact that Qantas is using the aircraft this way reflects the increased demand on international routes, which much really annoy you that others don't share your hatred of the airline. I've seen a few comments on here people asking "why is anyone still choosing to fly Qantas?". You see this stuff all the time on twitter about politics, and it's a dead giveaway that you're living in an echo chamber and can't comprehend that others have a different view. You can quote the media all you like, but at the end of the day, the media don't run stories about passengers who flew without incident - it doesn't make good viewing. Not to say there haven't been issues, but it's hardly as binary and universal as many on here seem to claim. As a data point I've flown four times over the last two weekends (Easter & Anzac Day) and all went without incident and were great flights.

 

[Port Power]

Yes, let's get back to the topic as in the title.

 

[Cddc]

My get a grip remark was directed at those who felt it was an outrage that Qantas is using A330s trans Pacific - because it's certainly not new to use this aircraft on this type of route; there is a relevant discussion about the crew rest area to be had, but this is now lost in the noise of yet another rant thread.

But it is an outrage?! These previous Jetstar A330s were not designed for long haul travel and do not have an adequate crew rest area, which goes to the wider point of aircraft utilization and QF's past acquistions/future orders of aircraft, which are very valid topics for this thread IMO.

Correct my if I'm wrong, when QF previously operated the A330 on transpacific routes (using QF configured/bought A330s), they had adequate crew rest areas installed? So really the heart of this topic is QF's use of aircraft and adequate aircraft purchasing/planning?!