Qantas LAX-JFK service reduced to 5 services per week

[MarcB]

I posed a question in another post the other day (can they be merged?) regarding strange availability on the LAX-JFK route. Seems this answers my question...

Qantas have today announced the end of daily SYD-JFK services. SYD-LAX will operate, but LAX-JFK and vv. will become 5 per week.

Latest Qantas News

Aircraft and Schedule Changes SYD-AKL-LAX-NYC & BNE-LAX Effective: 05 July 2010

19 March 2010

Qantas has made the following adjustments across our international network which will come into effect from 05 July 2010:

• SYDAKL – commencement of A330-200 operations on the Tasman
• AKLLAX – returns to a daily flight utilising the A330–200
• LAXJFK – moves from a daily 4 class B747-400 flight to 5 days per week utilising the 2 class A330–200
• LAXBNE – QF16 will now operate on Wednesday and no longer on Monday

Customers can still fly five days per week from Sydney to New York with Qantas and daily on codeshare flights with American Airlines.

The Airbus A330-200 aircraft to be introduced on the Auckland to New York route will offer customers enhanced levels of comfort including the award winning Sky Bed in business class and state-of-the-art entertainment in every seat.

Travel Agents will be notified of these schedule changes via their GDS systems. For Further information view the Frequently Asked Questions.

View USA Passenger Reaccommodation Policy.

To claim the fare adjustment as indicated in the Policy, Travel Agents will need to submit a Fare Adjustment Application Form located in the Service Requests section of the Qantas Industry Sales Site.

 

[Travel Guru]

One wonders what the rationale is behind operating a 2 class service LAX-JFK, I would have thought (and have found with corporate and leisure clients) that Y+ would be a popular option through to JFK.

I guess thats what you get when you have a goose like Joyce running the show.

TG

 

[samh004]

Well that solves the mystery of the A330 on LAX-JFK that I see mentioned every so often.

 

[markis10]

One wonders what the rationale is behind operating a 2 class service LAX-JFK, I would have thought (and have found with corporate and leisure clients) that Y+ would be a popular option through to JFK.

I guess thats what you get when you have a goose like Joyce running the show.

TG

As I posted in the other thread, its all about the cargo that does not self load, specifically a fully loaded A330 will hold more cargo than a 747-400, and its cargo that is helping keep the segment going given the cabotage issues.

 

[pauly7]

Selfishly - yay, A330 on Syd-Akl!! Pity its the red eye on the way over, but return is great.

 

[Worldtraveller8888]

a fully loaded A330 will hold more cargo than a 747-400

Really?!

WT

 

[milehighclub]

As I posted in the other thread, its all about the cargo that does not self load, specifically a fully loaded A330 will hold more cargo than a 747-400, and its cargo that is helping keep the segment going given the cabotage issues.

A 747-400ER can hold 26 LD1 containers with a total cargo capacity of 127m³
A A330-200 can hold 26 LD3 containers with a total cargo capacity of 109m³

Data calculated from Unit Load Device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NM]

I suspect Markis10 is not talking so much about the volume of freight capacity, but more about the efficiency of freight carriage over the flight distance.

Ideally for efficient freight carriage, the fuel burned during the mission should be the same as the difference between max take-off weight (MTW) and max landing weight (MLW). That allows the maximum weight of freight to be carried without a penalty for fuel carriage.

The number of interest for freight operations is the fuel-burn-per-hour / (MTW-MLZ). This basically defines the optimal range for freight ops. The sweet-spot for a 744 is considerably longer than for an A330, with the A330 making a very good freighter at the USA trans-continental distances, especially when considering overall operating costs.

Keep in mind that since its still operating as a passenger service, a full complement of cabin drew is required even if passenger loads are light (less cabin crew cost for A330-200 vs 747-400). Landing and ground handling fees will also be lower for the A330-200 vs 747-400. Freight is not concerned with the presence of a First Class or Premium economy cabin on the aircraft.

Obviously depending on the weight density of the freight to be carried, its common for a 747 to run out of lift capacity before it runs out of volume space. The A330-200 will more commonly bring the freight volume and weight limits into line, making for a more efficient freight operation over the distance involved.

 

[Sprucegoose]

One wonders what the rationale is behind operating a 2 class service LAX-JFK, I would have thought (and have found with corporate and leisure clients) that Y+ would be a popular option through to JFK.

I guess thats what you get when you have a goose like Joyce running the show.

TG

agree about Joyce - cheap irish git, no style or tradition about the man.

 

[Worldtraveller8888]

Ideally for efficient freight carriage, the fuel burned during the mission should be the same as the difference between max take-off weight (MTW) and max landing weight (MLW). That allows the maximum weight of freight to be carried without a penalty for fuel carriage.

B744: MTOW-MLW/Fuel Flow per Hr = 397-295/10 = 10.2
A332 = 233-182/5 = 10.2

Rough numbers, but that suggests the optimal range is the same... both types have to fly for about 10 hours to burn the fuel down from MTOW to MLW?

WT

 

[ejb]

agree about Joyce - cheap irish git, no style or tradition about the man.

Hi Spruce,

I think we should play the ball here and not the man.

Joyce is running QF because those who make these decisions have decided that reducing costs are more important than improving revenues. At this job Joyce may be the man.

Most of us on AFF would be after better service not reduced service for less money. However, currently I see that most pax just want the cheapest seat on a plane and they don't seem to care about service and that is the pax Joyce et al are going after.

Perhaps things will change for the better in the future, I hope so.

ejb

 

[markis10]

A 747-400ER can hold 26 LD1 containers with a total cargo capacity of 127m³
A A330-200 can hold 26 LD3 containers with a total cargo capacity of 109m³

Data calculated from Unit Load Device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia has its limitations, in this case specific aircraft configurations for the operator in question.

As mentioned in the other thread:

Airbus A330-300
Airbus 330-300 Equipment available for freight (based on full passenger loads) LD7+ 6LD3 + Bulkhold
Volume available for freight (based on full passenger loads) 80.2m3


compares to a QF 744

Boeing 747-400 Equipment available for freight full passenger load 2LD3/6LD7 + Bulkhold
Volume available for freight with full passenger load 73.4m3


Source - Qantas Cargo

 

[Sprucegoose]

Hi Spruce,

I think we should play the ball here and not the man.

Joyce is running QF because those who make these decisions have decided that reducing costs are more important than improving revenues. At this job Joyce may be the man.

Most of us on AFF would be after better service not reduced service for less money. However, currently I see that most pax just want the cheapest seat on a plane and they don't seem to care about service and that is the pax Joyce et al are going after.

Perhaps things will change for the better in the future, I hope so.

ejb

Yes ejb I appreciate your point. I thought the CEO was also the ball....

Whilst I generally agree with your sentiment, Joyce has done nothing however to disguise his 'discount' nature and we all know where the business is headed. When things do turnaroud at the pointy end, Red Rat will be found wanting with a mass premium business exodus off to Asian and Middle Eastern Carriers, who know something about high end service. Where the real money is made, so we are told.

I believe this decision by Joyce is shortsighted and incorrect in reducing the premium end of the business and if it has been endorsed by the board, well they should be taken out the back and shot as well.

cheers

Spruce:evil:

 

[oz_mark]

As mentioned in the other thread:

Airbus A330-300
Airbus 330-300 Equipment available for freight (based on full passenger loads) LD7+ 6LD3 + Bulkhold
Volume available for freight (based on full passenger loads) 80.2m3

However, and A332 is smaller than an A333, and I believe (due to range) that it is the A332 that is making the journey. Notwithstanding that, it may well be more efficient to use a 332 overall than a 747.

 

[markis10]

Just to add to my post above, the A330-200 also has the following capabilities:

ULD Configuration 4LD7/14LD3
Equipment available for freight (based on full passenger loads) 4LD7 + 4LD3 + Bulkhold
Volume available for freight (based on full passenger loads)
61.8m3


I dont believe the route has that high a yield, however the economics of running an A330 make sense, with Jetconnect crew and a much lower seat cost per KM, the $$$ are winning here. Compared to a 747, the A332 will carry more freight and have less operating costs than the 744 over that route.

 

[hvb]

A 747-400ER can hold 26 LD1 containers with a total cargo capacity of 127m³
A A330-200 can hold 26 LD3 containers with a total cargo capacity of 109m³

Data calculated from Unit Load Device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But Wikipedia also shows that the 747-400 ( NON ER ) will carry 32 LD1 containers ( approx 150m3 ).

With 3-4 747's on the deck in LAX every day it would be the last preferred AC to send on the JFK run. Range on transcon USA is flights is not an issue for any 747 so I would expect if max freight upload on transcon is required the preferred option would be a non ER 747.

That said, if QF have decided that an A330 will meet mission needs then speculation on cargo may be a bit of a non issue. Although to me I would have thought 3-4 747's ( and the odd A380 ) would generate considerable through freight to JFK when consolidated in LAX each morning.

My 2cents

hvb

 

[NM]

B744: MTOW-MLW/Fuel Flow per Hr = 397-295/10 = 10.2
A332 = 233-182/5 = 10.2

Rough numbers, but that suggests the optimal range is the same... both types have to fly for about 10 hours to burn the fuel down from MTOW to MLW?

WT

Perhaps JB747 can provide some more accurate figures, but my expectation is that at MTOW fuel burn is going to be closer to 13,000kg/hr (29,000lb/hr) for a 744. I would also expect the A330-200 high-weight fuel burn to be more than half that of the 744. In modern aircraft, the fuel burn is almost proportional to weight. So for weights around 60% of the 744, the fuel burn would also be around 60%.

So I think the numbers will be more like 7.8 hours for 744 and 6.5 for A330-200.

 

[N860CR]

I'm not too impressed with how QF have implemented this. I'm booked on 108 in September and just logged into my booking then and see that I have been moved onto an AA codeshare a few hours earlier. No notification at all, not even the "your booking has changed" notice, it was just done and dusted.

I'm going to call and see if they'll move me onto the QF service a day earlier. AA transcon in Y is not my idea of fun. Odd that QF lists "Meal - Yes" on the AA flight, which from memory are all "buy on board".

 

[markis10]

The demand for space is westbound, not eastbound or ex Australia, you should see some of the delays and routings for our freight ex Ottawa in the last few months, wish I was getting points on the flights the freight took.

In terms of the specifics of the QF fleet, please use this rather than Wikipedia:

http://www.qantas.com.au/freight/dyn/capacity/capacity#Boeing747-400

 

[jamesatfish]

Very disappointed in this change - although I can appreciate why they've made this change there is now no premium cabin option to fly to/from JFK.

My question to the experts here - what's the next best option for the LAX-JFK leg? My wife and I (and baby daughter) were booked on QF108 JFK-LAX-SYD in F in July, but we've now been automatically changed to the A330 service in J for the JFK-LAX sector.

It doesn't look like AA are flying their 3-class 777s on that route on that day, so it seems our choices are to stick with the A330 or switch to an AA 3-class 762.

Which option would people recommend? Both have flights with suitable timings to connect to 108 from LAX, and as a WP there's no difference in lounge access either way, so I'm just interested in what will be the most comfortable flight. I've flown the AA 762s before but never on the internationally configured A330 QF are now using on that sector.

Any suggestions would be most appreciated.