Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Thai May revamp U.S flights

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    8,285

    Thai May revamp U.S flights

    Saw this on A.net. Interesting read. I'd so rather see a 747 in Thai colors bank over HoBe then the A345.

    THAI may cut nonstop flights to US
    Route revamp could affect summer service

    By BOONSONG KOSITCHOTETHANA

    Thai Airways International is considering replacing its direct flights to the United States with one-stop services in the wake of losses and fierce competition.

    The flag carrier's non-stop Bangkok-New York service is likely to be replaced with flights with stopovers in major Chinese cities such as Beijing or Shanghai, while Bangkok-Los Angeles flights would stop in South Korea.

    The change in THAI's North American operation is part of a route revamp that could affect the forthcoming summer flight timetable, beginning in April. The new timetable was not expected to see any new routes being introduced, according to THAI president Apinan Sumanaseni.

    Pressured by shareholders to improve yields, THAI is taking a hard look at the economics and viability of its entire system.

    Fierce competition on the so-called Kangaroo route _ flights from Australia and New Zealand _ especially by Dubai-based Emirates _ may force THAI to cut flight frequencies, he said.

    Part of the revamp also involves changing the type of aircraft used. For instance, it may use the B747-400 jumbo jet, A340-600 or B777-ER on US-bound services instead of the A340-500 that holds only 200 passengers.

    The higher capacity aircraft and the stopovers would help THAI to shore up profitability on those routes.

    Capt Apinan conceded that THAI stood to lose some appeal by dropping its non-stop North American flights, directed over the North Pole, but it was more worried about the financial burdens these services entailed.

    THAI operates five direct flights a week to New York and the same number on its Bangkok-Los Angeles route. Its services to Moscow and Johannesburg introduced last year were doing fine, he noted.
    ...

    Along with making efforts to reduce operating costs and improve profitability, Capt Apinan said THAI would proceed with the previously proposed establishment of a new wholly owned airline subsidiary, tentatively known as Royal Orchid Airlines, or Euarng Luang in Thai.

    The new airline would take over THAI's domestic operation, which has been suffering losses, using a more cost-effective and less complicated operating model.

    The new carrier will be positioned between the conventional premium airline and the low-cost carrier. With the creation of the new airline, THAI would become a fully-fledged international carrier.






    Just last year they increased frequencies on the non-stops, right? I would have thought that was a positive sign but perhaps not.


    If they get rid of the non-stops, do they sell off their A340-500 fleet? No need for that range anymore, is there?


    Does anyone see SQ making similar cuts?


    And the Royal Orchid Airlines idea is back. Is there really a need for TG to have two domestic airlines (Nok Air being the other)? The high prices they charge for their domestic services really don't make sense when they offer nothing different that their competitors.

  2. #2
    Senior Member hiss srq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Around here and near there.
    Posts
    5,565
    uh oh dont get Josh May all fired up now
    Southwest Airlines-"Once it pop's it's time to stop" Southwest Airlines-"Our Shamu's are almost real" Southwest Airlines -"We blow our top real easy" Southwest Airlines- "You can't top us..... really"

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    352
    hahaha you called that one ryan! but, being that I've already got my Thai A340-500 bank shot, I wouldnt mind the switch to the 744...so...bring it on! :D

    - Josh
    "BANK M*THER$@*#^$, BANK!!!"

  4. #4
    Senior Member hiss srq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Around here and near there.
    Posts
    5,565
    I did not realize THAI's 340-500's were only layed out to hold 200 or so pax. This surely must be a misprint I was reading.
    Southwest Airlines-"Once it pop's it's time to stop" Southwest Airlines-"Our Shamu's are almost real" Southwest Airlines -"We blow our top real easy" Southwest Airlines- "You can't top us..... really"

  5. #5
    Moderator Matt Molnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    9,302
    Thailand = really far = weight restrictions = 200 passengers :)
    Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem.
    All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control.
    I trust you are not in too much distress. —Captain Eric Moody, British Airways Flight 9

  6. #6
    Senior Member hiss srq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Around here and near there.
    Posts
    5,565
    I understand that but I did not realize that they were that small.
    Southwest Airlines-"Once it pop's it's time to stop" Southwest Airlines-"Our Shamu's are almost real" Southwest Airlines -"We blow our top real easy" Southwest Airlines- "You can't top us..... really"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    944
    Not really sure why they were doing JFK nonstop to begin with. I don't think Bangkok is much of a business travel market the way SIN, PVG or HKG are, and the leisure traveler to Thailand isn't bothered by having a stop if the fare is right. It actually makes good business sense for them to do someplace in China nonstop from here if they can as they will capture some high-yield business traveler who prefers the orchid service and Thai girls to whatever the US majors or Chinese homegrown carriers have to offer.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Stamford, CT
    Posts
    329
    Note to self: better get out to JFK and get the TG A346 before it's switched to other types of aircrafts.

    On a different note, I am doubtful that China will allow Thai to pick passengers from Beijing or any other Chinese cities.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Mateo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Where the PARK routing crosses the Expressway Visual 31
    Posts
    1,590
    Airbus introduced the 345 - a couple of airlines thought it was intriguing and ordered tiny fleets to do some out there routes (TG: JFK-BKK, SQ: EWR-SIN, EK: JFK-DXB, AC: YYZ-DEL), but in the end it's a super long range aircraft that can't do the only route that could really support a super long range aircraft, LHR-SYD. Everything else is trying to stimulate demand on routes that don't really have it.

    The 345s are configured as nearly half-C, half-Y in terms of cabin area. SQ flies with only 181 pax and uses a less dense arrangement in coach because 17 hours in 34" pitch would ensure that no one would ever fly Singapore again!

  10. #10
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,467
    What would Thai do with their A345s though? I would figure it's a waste to put them on non-longhaul routes, no? Would it profitable for them to reconfigure the seats and fly shorter with them?
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  11. #11
    Senior Member Iberia A340-600's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil D.
    What would Thai do with their A345s though? I would figure it's a waste to put them on non-longhaul routes, no? Would it profitable for them to reconfigure the seats and fly shorter with them?
    I imagine they would send them to some European destinations.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Futterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rego Park/Forest Hills, NY
    Posts
    877
    [quote=Iberia A340-600]
    Quote Originally Posted by "Phil D.":cebab
    What would Thai do with their A345s though? I would figure it's a waste to put them on non-longhaul routes, no? Would it profitable for them to reconfigure the seats and fly shorter with them?
    I imagine they would send them to some European destinations.[/quote:cebab]

    I doubt they will add more seats and fly shorter with the A345. At least not exclusively. It makes no sense to do that with an aircraft like this, however, it is an option if utilization was the only consideration. For example, the Cathay 346s (which I hear will be replaced with the 773W later this year, or whenever they arrive) do other longhauls and high-capacity intra-Asia runs between the JFK flights. Something tells me that Thai isn't really in a position to do this, though.

    One option for Thai, as noted on A.net, is to sell the A345s to Emirates, etc.

    Brian

    PS - Hi again!
    "My wife is an air traffic controller. I married her because I've always wanted to screw the FAA." - B. Wulle

  13. #13
    Senior Member Iberia A340-600's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,006
    I'm trying to think of a good city that Thai could re-route through that is in Asia and I am thinking Seoul would be the best airport or maybe even Osaka which isn't served from JFK.

    I wouldn't mind seeing a Thai 747-400 or 777-200ER at JFK but I am pretty used to seeing the 747-400 since it was a regular visitor to MAD.

    Perhaps they could re-route through a European city?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •