Qantas A330s
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed the wheels have turned when QF decided to send their pilots to Malaysia Airlines for initial line experience.It was only 30 years ago they had helped Malaysians to set up the present modern airline as it is today. 
What boggles our minds here is why QF went the Airbus way, when they have always been a loyal Boeing customer.Needless to say MH had their own good & bad operational experiences with both a/c type (A330-300 & B777-200 IGW).
Both a/c types has their plus points whereby MH's 777's are long haulers they also double up on the medium & sometimes short haul sectors.The A330's are used on the medium density,medium to short routes.Pound for pound on the medium routes the A330 comes out a winner as it burns less (not sure on it's operating cost per hour though) & carry more pax.Might be a different figure if MH had not converted their options on the 777-300 to an all 777-200 IGW though, but I do believe (imho) that the 777-300 will be the winner as it carries more than the A330-300 (just an educated guess
)
MH A330's & Airbus a/c generally don't handle turbulence very well compared to the 777's.Certainly MH's cabin crew can attest to that as their EY galley is situated right at the aft cabin section on both models.
In a nutshell, IMHO,the 777 has it's strength more towards the 'hardware' but lacks the sophistication of the Airbus's software.
It will be interesting to watch how QF will handle their 'buses' when they get their hands on them.Certainly it will be unwise to get them without the ETOPS certification if QF intend to introduce the 'bus' to international sectors.It will certainly push the learning curve for the end users (crew & engineers) as Airbus has a different philosophy compared to Boeing's.It certainly opened MH's eyes here!
"Love it or hate it!" that's what they say!
Good Luck QF!
PILOST
P.S. If any of you happen to see an MH 777-200 with the reg. of 9M-MRA don't pass the chance to see the plaque placed by Boeing in the cabin.That was the a/c that broke the fastest round the world (eastbound) with one stopover record.Needless to say MH is proud of that achievement as it was a colloboration between MH & Boeing & crewed by both company's pilot.
What boggles our minds here is why QF went the Airbus way, when they have always been a loyal Boeing customer.Needless to say MH had their own good & bad operational experiences with both a/c type (A330-300 & B777-200 IGW).
Both a/c types has their plus points whereby MH's 777's are long haulers they also double up on the medium & sometimes short haul sectors.The A330's are used on the medium density,medium to short routes.Pound for pound on the medium routes the A330 comes out a winner as it burns less (not sure on it's operating cost per hour though) & carry more pax.Might be a different figure if MH had not converted their options on the 777-300 to an all 777-200 IGW though, but I do believe (imho) that the 777-300 will be the winner as it carries more than the A330-300 (just an educated guess
) MH A330's & Airbus a/c generally don't handle turbulence very well compared to the 777's.Certainly MH's cabin crew can attest to that as their EY galley is situated right at the aft cabin section on both models.
In a nutshell, IMHO,the 777 has it's strength more towards the 'hardware' but lacks the sophistication of the Airbus's software.
It will be interesting to watch how QF will handle their 'buses' when they get their hands on them.Certainly it will be unwise to get them without the ETOPS certification if QF intend to introduce the 'bus' to international sectors.It will certainly push the learning curve for the end users (crew & engineers) as Airbus has a different philosophy compared to Boeing's.It certainly opened MH's eyes here!
"Love it or hate it!" that's what they say!
Good Luck QF!
PILOST
P.S. If any of you happen to see an MH 777-200 with the reg. of 9M-MRA don't pass the chance to see the plaque placed by Boeing in the cabin.That was the a/c that broke the fastest round the world (eastbound) with one stopover record.Needless to say MH is proud of that achievement as it was a colloboration between MH & Boeing & crewed by both company's pilot.
Evertonian
PILOST....I understand that there was a significant saving to be made on the A330's, but long term, the costs will be enormous.
It's almost like the ghost of Peter Abeles is running QF!!!
It's almost like the ghost of Peter Abeles is running QF!!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PILOST....I understand that there was a significant saving to be made on the A330's, but long term, the costs will be enormous.
PILOST
Guest
Posts: n/a
I thought Dragon and Cathay get a pretty good run out of their 330s and apart from broke, debt ridden, poorly managed third world airlines and Air New Zealand not many carriers hold on to a fleet long term anymore. What's been MH's problems with the 330?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 330 is a very good a/c. However the 340 not so much (-600 maybe). The problem is while Airbus give these machines away the cost of parts is enormous.
Typical bloody French.
Typical bloody French.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pad Thai
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would you fly something built by those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys?
I know plenty of guys on the 320 and also 330. Anyone with a comment invariably hates the cheap French piece of garlic breath-smelling socialist cr@p.
The rest don't seem to comment. But all of them DO seem to be very defensive about it...
The rest don't seem to comment. But all of them DO seem to be very defensive about it...
Last edited by one-ball; 18th Aug 2002 at 09:34.
whether a pilot likes or dislikes Boeing / Airbus is totally irrelevant; the beancounters pay for them and they will pick the one they believe will make the most money over the life cycle cost of the aeroplane.
Like "Keg", I heard that the original contract pinned Airbus down to a fixed maintenance cost for the life of type. If they do become maintenance intensive as they age then Airbus will pick up the tab - including pax disruption costs.
Airbus must believe in their product for them to sign such a specific contract.
GB.
Airbus must believe in their product for them to sign such a specific contract.
GB.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Next door
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah RAM
A warm little hand comes out of the seat and gives your dick a
rub also!
Click off all the lovely ' make-it-easy' devices and it becomes a
Boeing. ALL fly-by-wire accidents, to date, are unequivocally pilot
fault.
Unlike the Tail of the 737......
A warm little hand comes out of the seat and gives your dick a
rub also!
Click off all the lovely ' make-it-easy' devices and it becomes a
Boeing. ALL fly-by-wire accidents, to date, are unequivocally pilot
fault.
Unlike the Tail of the 737......
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're all through talking crap that I'd say you mostly have no first hand knowledge of, I thought you might be interested in the names of the first 4 A330-200s.
VH-EBA will be named 'CRADLE MOUNTAIN'
VH-EBB will be named 'FREYCINET PENINSULA'
VH-EBC will be named 'GOLD COAST-TWEED'
VH-EBD will be named 'TARALGON'
In my experience both the pilots and the engineers like the A330/340. The pilot/aircraft interfaces are very user friendly, and they are a pleasure to work on.
An Airbus vs Boeing debate is pointless and only shows how little some of you actually know and have experienced.
VH-EBA will be named 'CRADLE MOUNTAIN'
VH-EBB will be named 'FREYCINET PENINSULA'
VH-EBC will be named 'GOLD COAST-TWEED'
VH-EBD will be named 'TARALGON'
In my experience both the pilots and the engineers like the A330/340. The pilot/aircraft interfaces are very user friendly, and they are a pleasure to work on.
An Airbus vs Boeing debate is pointless and only shows how little some of you actually know and have experienced.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
‘FMU’, regarding your comment
From many comments I’ve heard from engineers, I think it would be more accurate to say that, for the A330 at least, the pilots love ’em but the engineers hate ’em. More than one engineer has commented on the Airbus’ (too) lightweight construction – ie, if something structural breaks, it has to be replaced rather than patched and repaired, (as can often be done on a Boeing), because the structure is simply too lightweight (or too often composite) to cope with trimming it back to make a repair.
I’ve heard from quite a few friends who’ve flown both the 340 and the 330 that the preference between the two is almost overwhelmingly in favour of the 330. The 340’s a dog – at least the -300 is. Four hair dryers in lieu of engines, I understand, but this should be fixed by the -500 and -600 with the far more powerful Trents. (But this won’t concern Qantas.) Either type can sometimes be a total pain to share the airways with if you’re driving the ‘other’ product, simply because of the Airbus’ slower cruising speed. I’ve heard less than complimentary comments regarding the fly by wire controls in really bad conditions (monsoons in Asia). My friend didn’t feel as ‘in touch’ with the aircraft in the very gusty conditions as he would have liked to have been in that last 50’ prior to touchdown.
Interestingly, on the point of the pilots loving the Bus, when the conversation rolls around to whose toy is the nicest, the most frequent comment from the Bus drivers to shoot down the Boeing boys is “Ah, but we’ve got the table.”
It’s certainly true to say that the Bus has far more bells and whistles than the Boeing, but this makes it a far ‘busier’ aircraft to operate than the Boeing. There’s little doubt that both are excellent products, but they are built (and, to a lesser degree, operated) to a different set of principles. Certainly their computer software is very different in its approach to the man/machine interface. Personally, having flown more than one type made by both manufacturers, I prefer the Boeing philosophy, but I have friends whose preference swings the other way, and I’m sure the Bus will have its champions (and detractors) within Qantas within a few months of its introduction.
Regarding the comment that QF has written a full maintenance cost clause into their purchase contract, I sincerely hope they’ve read the smallest of the small print, because Airbus has traditionally made its money from its very expensive spares rather than from its sometimes giveaway aircraft sale prices. Either way, if the story of the fixed maintenance costs story is true, I believe someone – either the QF shareholders or the long-suffering EU taxpayers – is going to end up way out of pocket. It will be interesting to see how the new type pans out in QF. Only time will tell.
In my experience both the pilots and the engineers like the A330/340. The pilot/aircraft interfaces are very user friendly, and they are a pleasure to work on.
I’ve heard from quite a few friends who’ve flown both the 340 and the 330 that the preference between the two is almost overwhelmingly in favour of the 330. The 340’s a dog – at least the -300 is. Four hair dryers in lieu of engines, I understand, but this should be fixed by the -500 and -600 with the far more powerful Trents. (But this won’t concern Qantas.) Either type can sometimes be a total pain to share the airways with if you’re driving the ‘other’ product, simply because of the Airbus’ slower cruising speed. I’ve heard less than complimentary comments regarding the fly by wire controls in really bad conditions (monsoons in Asia). My friend didn’t feel as ‘in touch’ with the aircraft in the very gusty conditions as he would have liked to have been in that last 50’ prior to touchdown.
Interestingly, on the point of the pilots loving the Bus, when the conversation rolls around to whose toy is the nicest, the most frequent comment from the Bus drivers to shoot down the Boeing boys is “Ah, but we’ve got the table.”
It’s certainly true to say that the Bus has far more bells and whistles than the Boeing, but this makes it a far ‘busier’ aircraft to operate than the Boeing. There’s little doubt that both are excellent products, but they are built (and, to a lesser degree, operated) to a different set of principles. Certainly their computer software is very different in its approach to the man/machine interface. Personally, having flown more than one type made by both manufacturers, I prefer the Boeing philosophy, but I have friends whose preference swings the other way, and I’m sure the Bus will have its champions (and detractors) within Qantas within a few months of its introduction.
Regarding the comment that QF has written a full maintenance cost clause into their purchase contract, I sincerely hope they’ve read the smallest of the small print, because Airbus has traditionally made its money from its very expensive spares rather than from its sometimes giveaway aircraft sale prices. Either way, if the story of the fixed maintenance costs story is true, I believe someone – either the QF shareholders or the long-suffering EU taxpayers – is going to end up way out of pocket. It will be interesting to see how the new type pans out in QF. Only time will tell.
The Ansett experience with the A320 was very interesting, it had lots of knockers to begin with, and had to the very end, mostly by Boeing pilots that never flew it. The general impression of everyone I knew that flew it, loved it and despite it's initial huge problems it proved itself to be very reliable and efficient.
It will be very interesting to see if it's a similar story to what happens at QF with the 330....
It will be very interesting to see if it's a similar story to what happens at QF with the 330....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fubaar is close to the mark. I have flown many Airbus and Boeing aircraft types. The A340 is a dog performance, wise. The A330 is a different airplane and really performs compared to other Airbus types. Typical of the current wide bodied Airbus types, it lacks some 1st class / business class passenger appeal as it is noticeably narrow inside compared to the 747 / 777 type aircraft. 1st class passengers especially, don’t like the 330/340 on long flights. A full aircraft can cause problems in the cabin for cabin crew due to limited storage space, unless the cabin baggage is strictly monitored.
Both types are quite enjoyable and relatively easy to fly, but when things go wrong, can be quite stressful and very complicated. This is due in part to Airbus manuals and procedures and the inherent nature of computers which glitch from time to time causing crazy problems. Engineers have generally commented that it is a more difficult aircraft to work on than equivalent Boeings and maintenance / spare parts more expensive ie: the airframe is cheap but the spares are expensive.
Both types are quite enjoyable and relatively easy to fly, but when things go wrong, can be quite stressful and very complicated. This is due in part to Airbus manuals and procedures and the inherent nature of computers which glitch from time to time causing crazy problems. Engineers have generally commented that it is a more difficult aircraft to work on than equivalent Boeings and maintenance / spare parts more expensive ie: the airframe is cheap but the spares are expensive.
