Thai Airways to Delay Airbus Deliveries?

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I read on another forum that Thai is considering delaying the delivery of its Airbus aircraft that are due for delivery later this year. The article was posted on 30 June so does anybody know what Thai is up to? Obviously, any such decision would impact on the proposed LAX and Auckland non-stops amongst others.

 

The full article was:

 

"Last weekend, Kanok Abhiradee, president of state-controlled Thai Airways, was quoted saying that the carrier would review its plans to take delivery of five Airbus aircraft this year, after Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister, urged state enterprises to find ways to cut non-essential imports.

 

While Thai Airways'' contractual obligations might prevent or deter it from postponing its aircraft orders, the fact that the Thai government is considering such measures is an indication of its nervousness about the impact of rising oil prices on the country's trade balance.

 

Thai Airways said the airline's management would consider this week how it could best fulfill the prime minister's request. (I follow that)

 

Thailand's trade deficit hit a nine-year high in May, partly because of the soaring cost of oil imports.

 

In an effort to stem inflationary pressures, countries such as Thailand, India and the Philippines are likely to raise interest rates.

These countries have come under increasing pressure to begin dismantling costly energy subsidies that inflate demand.

Oil subsidies remained particularly high in India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Several Asian governments have already moved to increase their artificially low petrol and kerosene prices - a move that has led to popular discontent in some cases. "

 

Tom

[Floyd 0]

Maybe TG DECIDED SOMETIME AS THE NEW AKL-BKK direct service has been replaced by a mcdonald douglas plane.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Floyd,

 

I agree. On some of the proposed A340-600 routes the codeshare airlines' schedules show the TG flight as being "346", whereas the TG site simply shows the aircraft type as being "EQV" i.e. we're not quite sure.

 

Maybe echster or emil may have more insight as to what is actually happening as there seems to be a million rumours around but very few announcements by TG.

 

Hopefully, next month's investors presentation will clarify some of the rumours.

 

Tom

Edited July 15, 2005 by CheshireTom

[Emil 0]

Sorry Tom I only have info on whats reported to Boeing shareholders. If the airbuses are those new monsters, then the delay could be that the old airport can't accomodate them.

[Samsonite 181]

Sorry Tom I only have info on whats reported to Boeing shareholders.  If the airbuses are those new monsters, then the delay could be that the old airport can't accomodate them.

It will probably be at least another year before we see the new A380 enter commercial service and the first few are scheduled to go to Singapore Air. In this case they are talking the A340-500 or 340-600, which can use conventional airport facilities. Maybe Boeing will get lucky and by the time Thai Air can make the purchase, they will choose the Boeing 777-200LR instead.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Samsonite

[Tahoe_Bill 0]

Samsonite,

Probably no such luck for Boeing. Excluding the current "cash crunch", the “Shrimp for Aircraft†deal will (or may) probably prevent TG from purchasing any 772LR from Boeing in the foreseeable future. Too bad, as I prefer the B777 to anything currently produced by Airbus although, the SQ and TG 345 cabin layouts are very customer friendly.

[echster 1]

From what I hear, the statements were made to placate Thaksin. TG has no intention of delaying delivery of the A345s and A346s. TG simply has too much rapid expansion the rest of this year to not take delivery. AKL, from what I've also heard, is going all MD11 and MEL will be getting the A346.

 

Edit: I'll just add my .02 cents since folks mentioned the B772LR. I can't see TG buying it because of the good deal they're getting from Airbus and certain EU nations. However, IMHO, the better deal is the B772LR over the A345. The B772LR can carry more pax (301 vs. 280 in 3-class config) and more cargo (11 tons more) while burning less fuel (20% less) than the A345. That equates to some damn good numbers and that's why more aircraft will soon be ordered. Boeing is trying to stretch about 300-500 more miles out of it so it can do the SYD-LHR route.

 

Also, the B772LR will atempt a new world record in August. The current record -- 10,823 nautical miles (20,044 kilometers) -- was set in 1997 by the 777-200ER (Extended Range). Details of the record flight, during which the Worldliner is to fly for approximately 24 hours, will be released in the weeks ahead.

Edited July 17, 2005 by echster

[Samsonite 181]

Edit:  I'll just add my .02 cents since folks mentioned the B772LR.  I can't see TG buying it because of the good deal they're getting from Airbus and certain EU nations.  However, IMHO, the better deal is the B772LR over the A345.  The B772LR can carry more pax (301) and more cargo (11 tons more) while burning less fuel (20% less) than the A345.  That equates to some damn good numbers and that's why more aircraft will soon be ordered.  Boeing is trying to stretch about 300-500 more miles out of it so it can do the SYD-LHR route.

echster,

I agree with you on the 777-200LR and the following chart at the Boeing web site,

 

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html

 

shows that Sydney to London is within its range of 9,420 nautical miles (10,840 miles).

A friend of mine, "in the business," told me TG is broke and really cannot afford to be buying any new aircraft, Airbus or Boeing. True or not, I really don't know.

Edited July 17, 2005 by Samsonite

[Floyd 0]

TG already have at least 1 new airbus 340-600 as i saw it there this month after arriving from New York in the new thai logo livery.

[echster 1]

echster,

I agree with you on the 777-200LR and the following chart at the Boeing web site, shows that Sydney to London is within its range of 9,420 nautical miles (10,840 miles).

 

A friend of mine, "in the business," told me TG is broke and really cannot afford to be buying any new aircraft, Airbus or Boeing. True or not, I really don't know.

SYD-LHR is technically within the range if there are no winds and no ATC delays, and as an airline you've configured the aircraft to lose money on each flight! So, yes, it is within range. Facetiousness aside, it can't presently be done...and done profitably. This was why I noted Boeing was trying to squeeze an extra couple hundred miles out of testing and tweaking. LHR-SYD, on the other hand, can be done right now due to tailwinds on the route. Qantas is holding out hope for Boeing and if it can be done, they will likely place an order. It's my understanding if they can make SYD-LHR, they'll buy enough B772LRs to run NYC-SYD....bypassing a connection in LAX.

 

As far as TG is concerned, I wouldn't say they're broke. They're one of the few airlines that runs a profit. However, they are one of the most inept airlines in the world. It is a shame their management and the government are corrupt because their staff is awesome. All you need to prove this point is look at how they've handled (or didn't handle, whatever the case) their aircraft interiors. While other airlines were improving, they were sitting on their collective asses.

[echster 1]

Floyd:

 

TG already have at least 1 new airbus 340-600 as i saw it there this month after arriving from New York in the new thai logo livery.

 

Samsonite:

 

Yes, I saw it in BKK a few weeks ago and it is a very good looking aircraft, BUT it is the only one in their fleet. When it goes down for service or goes in for scheduled service, that will disrupt their new non-stop JKF-BKK route until they add more aircraft capable of flying the distance.

The A346 flew a one-time mission to JFK because the A345 broke. TG's A346 will mostly be flown on routes to Europe, and occassionally Oceania.

 

There shouldn't be a disruption in non-stop service to the US after August as TG is scheduled to take delivery of 1-2 more A345s. With this/these plane/s, TG is going non-stop to LAX 3x a week beginning in September. This should leave an aircraft available as a maintenance spare.

[Samsonite 181]

There shouldn't be a disruption in non-stop service to the US after August as TG is scheduled to take delivery of 1-2 more A345s.  With this/these plane/s, TG is going non-stop to LAX 3x a week beginning in September..............

echster,

Thank you for all the good information.

Do you know the scheduled flight time between LAX and BKK?

MIGHT be worth jumping on a shuttle to LA to catch this flight.

Edited July 17, 2005 by Samsonite

[echster 1]

echster,

Thank you for all the good information.

Do you know the scheduled flight time between LAX and BKK?

MIGHT be worth jumping on a shuttle to LA to catch this flight.

It's should start in October or November. See this thread from this board:

 

LAX-BKK-LAX Non-stop Info

[viking2003 0]

I’ve read the cheers for the Boeing777-200*s here (wonder why the Stars and Stripes were fling under his name), but the same person hasn’t obviously flown the TG 777-200 configuration in Business Class. I had the misfortune to have such a flight – HK to BKK – and that business class seat was a joke, the smallest seats in C-class I’ve ever seen on any Asian carrier. So PLEASE TG, don’t introduce any more of these 777’s – they obviously could increase number of passengers as claimed possible compared to the Airbus A330/340, but at the cost of passenger comfort. To be frank, I don’t care if it’s a Airbus or Boeing, but if I pay for service I also expect it, and TG did not deliver with their 777.

[Samsonite 181]

It's should start in October or November.  See this thread from this board:

 

LAX-BKK-LAX Non-stop Info

Thx echster, that told me what I wanted to know, 17 1/2 hours. Depending on the layover time at LAX, plus the flight to LAX (one hour) the overall flight time will probably work out to be the same as flying SFO to BKK and making the connection in TPE, HKG, or NRT. Plus LAX is a pain in the ass to get around. Think I might skip this "adventure."

I do however, like the schedule. Arriving in BKK at 07:00 has its appeal, provided you can check into your hotel that early. Of course, if you are going straight on to PYX, that is even better.

Edited July 17, 2005 by Samsonite

[viking2003 0]

Must be just TG.  I've found business class on the 777s, of other airlines, to be one of the most comfortable I've ever experienced.

Yes Samsonite, must be other Airline, because TG 777-200s business class is crap! Where other Airlines in A330/340’s or 777 manage to get a 2+2+2 seat configuration in business class, TG has managed a 2+4+2! I book business class because I want the comfort and then they offer “cattle-class†at business class price. Like a certain Lady in the UK “I weren’t amused†and told the crew so. They were very courteous as Thai staff always is, and I understood that I by no way were the first to complain about those seats.

[echster 1]

I’ve read the cheers for the Boeing777-200*s here (wonder why the Stars and Stripes were fling under his name), but the same person hasn’t obviously flown the TG 777-200 configuration in Business Class. I had the misfortune to have such a flight – HK to BKK – and that business class seat was a joke, the smallest seats in C-class I’ve ever seen on any Asian carrier. So PLEASE TG, don’t introduce any more of these 777’s – they obviously could increase number of passengers as claimed possible compared to the Airbus A330/340, but at the cost of passenger comfort. To be frank, I don’t care if it’s a Airbus or Boeing, but if I pay for service I also expect it, and TG did not deliver with their 777.

What does being from the US have to do with Boeing and TG's B772s? Nothing! I stated just above that TG's management is inept. When it comes to outfitting a plane, Boeing puts in what the airlines want, not what they want.

 

Anyone who knows a lick about the aviation industry knows TG's premium cabins are horrible. They're starting to change it with the introduction of the A345s/A346s. Their B744s (F/C), B772s/B773s (C/Y) are being refitted. Just to let you know, the B772s will be 2-2-2.

[echster 1]

Thx echster, that told me what I wanted to know, 17 1/2 hours. Depending on the layover time at LAX, plus the flight to LAX (one hour) the overall flight time will probably work out to be the same as flying SFO to BKK and making the connection in TPE, HKG, or NRT. Plus LAX is a pain in the ass to get around. Think I might skip this "adventure."

I do however, like the schedule. Arriving in BKK at 07:00 has its appeal, provided you can check into your hotel that early. Of course, if you are going straight on to PYX, that is even better.

I've thought about taking the non-stop, but I just can't make it work. I usually fly paid C-class so would like the opportunity. However, being Gold with EVA Air and the time specifics involved, it just isn't worth it to me. The only people who would pay this are those whose time is worth more than mine. I cannot see paying $5k for a RT ticket with 1.5 hours less travel time when I can get there for $3k. An hour of my time isn't worth $2k.

 

TG Non-stop LAX-BKK

Depart 2230, Arrive 0700

 

EVA Air LAX-TPE-BKK

Depart 0130, Arrive 1130

 

Granted, it's faster coming back to LAX, but who wants to get back to work quicker?

[Samsonite 181]

SYD-LHR is technically within the range if there are no winds and no ATC delays, and as an airline you've configured the aircraft to lose money on each flight! So, yes, it is within range. Facetiousness aside, it can't presently be done...and done profitably. This was why I noted Boeing was trying to squeeze an extra couple hundred miles out of testing and tweaking. LHR-SYD, on the other hand, can be done right now due to tailwinds on the route. Qantas is holding out hope for Boeing and if it can be done, they will likely place an order. It's my understanding if they can make SYD-LHR, they'll buy enough B772LRs to run NYC-SYD....bypassing a connection in LAX.

echster,

Here is a little more on the Boeing 777-200LR and Qantas. It has a error or two, but pretty much along the lines of what you said on the subject.

 

From today's Sydney Morning Herald"

 

"Forget spending hours in Qantas's transit lounges. At last, non-stop flights between Sydney and London could be reality - but only if Boeing can persuade the national carrier to buy its newest plane.

 

Boeing's latest aircraft, the 777-200 long range, flies in to Sydney today, and the aircraft manufacturer has a clear agenda. It must sell this jet to Qantas or risk surrendering to its nemesis, Airbus.

 

Qantas is one of three leading international airlines (the others are Emirates and Singapore) to order 12 of the new super jets, the double-decker 500-seat Airbus A380. The plane will revolutionise air travel.

 

The A380, the biggest advance in commercial air travel since Boeing's 747 about 30 years ago, was due to enter service early next year, but it has been delayed by at least six months.

 

But despite its commercial appeal, the A380 will not provide Qantas with what it calls the "holy grail" of air travel: non-stop flights between Sydney and London, or between Sydney and New York.

 

The A380 may allow Qantas to increase the number of passengers it carries into congested airports such as Heathrow, but the Boeing jet would avoid stops in hubs such as Singapore or Bangkok.

 

The 777-200LR was first slated as a London to Sydney direct option, with the reverse route unlikely because of tail winds. But it is understood that Boeing is close to improving its new jet's range.

 

A spokeswoman for Qantas, Jodie Taylor, said that the airline was looking at Boeing's long-haul options as it would with all new aircraft. But it is understood that Qantas is looking at the 777-200LR with renewed interest.

 

Pakistan International Airlines was the first airline to order the jet, followed by Eva Air.

 

The new Boeing aircraft will arrive from Singapore this morning, but it is expected to completed its first record-breaking 24-hour flight in September.

 

Source: Sydney Morning Herald"

[Floyd 0]

Just got this from my travel agent this morning;

BANGKOK to AUCKLAND on Thai Airways Flight TG989 (Airbus A340-600)

Departing Wednesday 2 Nov 2005 at 5:20 PM Arriving Thursday 3 Nov 2005 at 10:50 AM

Economy Class Seating

Meals Served: Meal

Edited July 19, 2005 by Floyd

[Floyd 0]

flew BKK-MNL with TG on a boeing 777 in with complimentry upgrade to business and the seats was 2 + 2 + 2. Actually it was a bit more comportable than the upper deck of business in a 747.

And what was better, It was free.

[stevoman 2]

Just got this from my travel agent this morning;

BANGKOK to AUCKLAND on Thai Airways Flight TG989 (Airbus A340-600)

Departing Wednesday 2 Nov 2005 at 5:20 PM Arriving Thursday 3 Nov 2005 at 10:50 AM

Economy Class Seating

Meals Served: Meal

Same as my Nov 7th flight,a/c type A340/600 although M11 on outward FLT.in October.

[torrenova 644]

Qantas has already flown LHR-SYD non stop or vice versa to celebrate its 70th (?) anniversary.

 

The problem is that with such vast distances, the reserve fuel, allowing for adverse weather, circling, diversions etc. would be almost depleted. The flight they took for this one off was barely laden, few if any passengers and little or no cargo. Basically, a PR stunt.

 

In any case, the viability of LHR-SYD has to be questioned. Current stop offs at SIN or BKK or in the case of JAL or ANA at NRT mean that you can garner business along the way. You can also take people who do not want to complete the full journey.

 

Look at say Qantas now. They drop us lot off from LHR-BKK. If it goes LHR-SYD, then we won't fly, we'll have to get someone else. Much more rationale for the SYD-NYK leg.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I don't know if this will come to fruition but if it does it is another PR disaster for Thai (their upgrade programme is already 12 months behind schedule).

 

From this morning's Nation:

 

THAI told to postpone purchase of two aircraft

Published on August 08, 2005

 

Thai Airways International Plc (THAI) has been ordered to postpone its acquisition of two new Airbus 340 aircraft scheduled for delivery in November this year in order to avoid creating further pressure on the country’s current account deficit.

 

The Thaksin government informed THAI executives last week about its concern over the airline’s acquisition of the two aircraft at a time when the country has been running a huge trade deficit and current account deficit...................

 

...............THAI’s acquisition of the two aircraft would have added to the country’s import bills, but the postponement will force the national airline to revise its business strategies and adjust its flight network.

 

The full article is at:

 

Thai Postpones A340 Order

 

What this means for the already announced new routes, aircraft upgrades etc is anyone's guess. Suffice to say that lots of folk are going to be a little bit pissed off.

 

Tom

[Floyd 0]

hope not cos im supposed to be on one of those new planes.

The Thai Govt has to learn that you need tospend money to make money. And they need to look after the net worth of their offshore shareholders. (hahaha)