Qantas Business Class Seating

In article ,
(woodsie) wrote:


what is it about about biz class thats so good? (apart from the extra leg
room/bigger seats, fancier meals? and feeling your in a higher class of
society).

You have to try it. Then try international FC. You'll then find it
hard to go back to int'l BC!

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:35:28 +1100, (woodsie) wrote:

In article u, "grrr"
wrote:

We recently (18 March) flew QF 107 Business Class (SYD-LAX-JFK). No Sky
beds

The service was great. It was my first time in international Business
Class. I don't think I
could ever fly cattle class again!


what is it about about biz class thats so good? (apart from the extra leg
room/bigger seats, fancier meals?

Mainly the extra leg room/bigger seats, and the fancier meals.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:38:35 GMT, Not the Karl Orff
wrote:

In article ,
"John Smith" wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
om...
We're using frequent flier miles to fly Qantas business class from Los
Angeles-Sydney this coming September. Our return will be from
Cairns-Brisbane-Auckland-Los Angeles. My question pertains to the
availability of the new Skybeds on these routes. Are the Skybeds
installed on the 747-400 planes that typically operate on these
flights or do they still have Dreamtime seats? Does anyone have
recent experience flying this route and if so, what were your
impressions?
Thanks in advance for your responses,
Rick

As a side note -

QF worships the business practices of AA. Very profit oriented manner.
Nothing wrong with that except the pax perception of when an advertised
upgrade is actually in an airplane. Think the first skybeds within ~12

Oh, AA isn't that bad. When AA announced MTC, they actually reconfigred
the fleet within a year.
The distinction was that MRTC could be done in a few hours, and AA had
teams that specialized in performing the work while the aircraft were
overnighting. Other carriers think the upgrade is important enought
that they will take an aircraft out of service for a few days during a
B or C check , to get it done. QF will only do it as part of heavy
maintenance, so for example the Ugly Sisters entered service well
after the First class Bed and Dream time Biz Class product was in
service on many aircraft, but they elected to put the aircraft into
revenue service with the MH and OZ cabins (which were awful, and many
of the cabin amenities were unreliable beyond belief. It was so bad
that QF employees were forbidden to discuss the state of these
aircraft. IFE never lasted through a flight, a lot of the galley
equipment was broken, and replacements had 9-12 month lead times....)

There is a reason the aircraft were called the Ugly sisters, and in
fact it got so bad that QF was ultimately forced to bring them up to
the current standard long before they were due for heavy maintenance.

By contrast, When BA, or EK, or SQ announce an upgrage, it is either
already in place, or they give a date, often only weeks in the future
when it will be in place across the fleet. With QF the time between
advertising, and getting it fitted to the entire fleet traditionally
is measured in YEARS. The Bed product in F was announced in 1998. I
think the last aircraft was finally fitted in 2001.

Other carriers are also careful about where they deploy it. i.e. when
BA began deploying the lie flat bed in C, they said which markets
would get it, and when. If you were flying in that market, after that
date, you were going to get it. With QF, you often didn't know until
you got on the aircraft. In early 2000 Tucson told me that of the 3
daily service from the USA to Australia, usually one had the Bed in F,
but they didn't know which one would have it until the aircraft was
assigned.

I have long questioned the ethics of announcing products and
advertising them when you know perfectly well that most of your
customers aren't going to get the advertised product for a long time
to come.

Business class wont let you escape the crying babies - we had seats 30 A &
B, and could see everybody coming down the stairs - lots of small children.


I got news for you. F doesn't allow you to escape it either. I spent
about 10 hours one night going from LAX to LHR in the F cabin on BA
with Phil Collins and his entourage. At the time he had an 18 month
old daughter, and I was unlucky enough to end up with the nanny and
the 18th month old sitting next to me. She screamed most of the way
to London...

As I said to the BA purser, I don't think that is the experience I
paid for. He didn't disagree....
Phil... He was at the other end of the cabin.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:59:35 +1000, Dave Noble
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:01:17 +1000, "grrr" wrote:

We recently (18 March) flew QF 107 Business Class (SYD-LAX-JFK). No Sky beds

The service was great. It was my first time in international Business Class. I don't think I
could ever fly cattle class again!

We came home via a Singapore, no skybeds on that Qantas flight either

The travel agent implied that the SYD-LAX-JFK leg is luck of the draw in terms of sky beds.

Its worse that a luck of the draw, there are no skybeds currently
scheduled to operate the SYD-LAX run, though given that they have
nearly completed the UK-Oz aircraft, perhaps they will be started soon
Dave
Low priority. QF doesn't have a competor on the North America services
that offers a business class bed product. It gets deployed where they
have competitors offering a superior product.

what are the Ugly Sisters?

In article ,
matt weber wrote:


maintenance, so for example the Ugly Sisters entered service well
after the First class Bed and Dream time Biz Class product was in
service on many aircraft, but they elected to put the aircraft into
revenue service with the MH and OZ cabins (which were awful, and many
of the cabin amenities were unreliable beyond belief. It was so bad
that QF employees were forbidden to discuss the state of these
aircraft. IFE never lasted through a flight, a lot of the galley
equipment was broken, and replacements had 9-12 month lead times....)

Not that bad. i was on an ugly sister in February 2000 that had
Dreamtime seats (which I despise anyway)

There is a reason the aircraft were called the Ugly sisters, and in
fact it got so bad that QF was ultimately forced to bring them up to
the current standard long before they were due for heavy maintenance.

Well, the a/c are orphans in a way that they're GE powered while the QF
744 fleet is RR powered, so i guess QF had to buy 6 744ERs (GE powered)
to keep them company.

By contrast, When BA, or EK, or SQ announce an upgrage, it is either
already in place, or they give a date, often only weeks in the future
when it will be in place across the fleet. With QF the time between
advertising, and getting it fitted to the entire fleet traditionally
is measured in YEARS. The Bed product in F was announced in 1998. I
think the last aircraft was finally fitted in 2001.

Other carriers are also careful about where they deploy it. i.e. when
BA began deploying the lie flat bed in C, they said which markets
would get it, and when. If you were flying in that market, after that
date, you were going to get it. With QF, you often didn't know until
you got on the aircraft. In early 2000 Tucson told me that of the 3
daily service from the USA to Australia, usually one had the Bed in F,
but they didn't know which one would have it until the aircraft was
assigned.

I have long questioned the ethics of announcing products and
advertising them when you know perfectly well that most of your
customers aren't going to get the advertised product for a long time
to come.

No question

In article m0kjc.91$ph.24@fed1read07, "4000 psi"
wrote:

what are the Ugly Sisters?

GE powered 744s (the current QF 747 fleet - one other exception is RR
powered - the other exception, QF ordered and has taken delivery of
some/all 6 747-400ERs which are GE powered).

In article ,
GB wrote:

Not the Karl Orff wrote in news:canwine-
:
GE powered 744s (the current QF 747 fleet - one other exception is RR
powered - the other exception, QF ordered and has taken delivery of
some/all 6 747-400ERs which are GE powered).

Not entirely true. If the current register is to be believed,
there are nine GE powered 747-400s in the fleet. VH-OEB through
VH-OEJ are all powered by some variant of the CF6-80. Only
VH-OEB, C, and D are Ugly Sisters though, the other six are
-438 (built for Qantas) models.

3 original -400 ugly sisters from OZ and MH and 6 -400ERs

They're hardly orphans tho, since all the OG 767-300s are
powered by similar CF6-80 engines. The British Airways 767s
(VH-ZXA-ZXG are, surprise surprise, RR powered tho!!!)

Still a slightly different type to maintain

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:58:53 -0700, "4000 psi"
wrote:

what are the Ugly Sisters?

VH-OEB/C/D These are 747-400 purchased used (2 from MH, one from OZ),
that are GE CF6 powered. They mark the change in 747's from RR to GE
engines at QANTAS. They were ugly for customers on the inside because
of the decision QF made about placing them in service.