Thai Air drops non-stops to and from U.S.

[Samsonite 181]

"Fuel prices force Thai to drop A340-500 non-stops to USA

By Leithen Francis

Airline axes New York and Los Angeles direct services but agrees A380 reparations

 

Thai Airways International is abandoning its non-stop services to Los Angeles and New York, which it operates with Airbus A340-500s, due to high fuel costs. Meanwhile, the airline has reached a deal with Airbus to acquire eight A330-300s at a discounted price as part of compensation for the delay to its A380 order.

 

Thai confirms that it will revamp its five-times weekly non-stop services from Bangkok to Los Angeles and New York Kennedy into one-stop services, and is considering either Seoul or Shanghai for the stopover point, although it gives no timeframe for the move. The confirmation comes in response to public remarks made by the airline's president Apin Sumanaseni......."

 

Rest of story here, http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...n-stops-to.html

[BigDUSA 71]

I've flown Thai a few times from the US and the planes are always full or close to it.

[Samsonite 181]

I've flown Thai a few times from the US and the planes are always full or close to it.

If they replaced those A340s with B777-200LRs (as it carries more passengers and burns less fuel per passenger), they might make some money on that route.

[Rex7777 0]

I can't see how stopping enroute wouldin any way save money, unless they use a different type of plane.

 

Rex

[wacmedia 277]

If they replaced those A340s with B777-200LRs (as it carries more passengers and burns less fuel per passenger), they might make some money on that route.

 

Hi,

 

Wait till they get the Airbus A380's on that route and they will be saving fuel and carrying more passengers.

[BigDUSA 71]

Hi,

 

Wait till they get the Airbus A380's on that route and they will be saving fuel and carrying more passengers.

 

Assuming Airbus can get the A380 off the factory floor and into the hands of the airlines.

[BigusDicus 9,829]

Gee wiz.

 

I have flown the LAX - BKK nonstop round trip several times now. It was really nice, saved several hours flying time. And the hassle of changing planes and sitting around Japanese or Taiwanese airport's in a jet-lag stupor.

 

I would imagine Thai Air is forecasting a drop in US citizens traveling to Thailand. Many reasons for the decline, falling dollar amongst them.

[wacmedia 277]

Assuming Airbus can get the A380 off the factory floor and into the hands of the airlines.

 

 

Hi,

 

Have faith in the Europeans to make your journey to LOS more comfortable and more fuel efficient.

[Tengotodo 52]

And what of us who have confirmed tickets NS from JFK/BKK for this June?

 

p.s. As of today, you can still book the NS on Thaiairways.com

Edited February 20, 2007 by Tengotodo

[wacmedia 277]

And what of us who have confirmed tickets NS from JFK/BKK for this June?

 

although it gives no timeframe for the move

 

Hi,

 

I think this is because of the delay to the A380's. Maybe they will never implement this unpopular change.

[echster 1]

I can't see how stopping enroute would in any way save money, unless they use a different type of plane.

 

Rex

 

Not only will a stop save money, there is in all likelyhood a profit to be made by adding a stop.

 

For those of you not aviation savvy, I'll break it down so a 5 year old can understand.

 

1. An aircraft can only leave an airfield at or under it's max weight.

2. Not taking into account winds, the shortest distance from:

 

BKK-LAX is 7186NM, BKK-PVG-LAX is 7198NM, BKK-ICN-LAX is 7187NM.

 

3. The distance being added is almost non-existant.

4. For a non-stop flight on an A345, most of the weight carried is fuel.

5. By adding a stop and flying almost the same exact distance:

 

a. TG can use a B772ER or B773. These are twin engine aircraft and burn less fuel than a 4 engine aircraft. This lowers their fuel costs.

 

b. By adding a stop, TG doesn't need to carry a lot of fuel. It only needs the necessary fuel plus a reserve. Carrying extra fuel, or full tanks, when not needed actually burns more fuel. Simple physics.

 

c. By carrying less fuel, and here's where they and other airlines make money, they have more room to carry cargo. It's no accident that they want to connect BKK and LAX with either Incheon or Shanghai. A lot of goods flow into the US via those 2 places.

 

To wrap-up, like aircraft (talking weight class here) with 4 engines burns more fuel than a 2 engine aircraft. A non-stop flight carrying fuel for almost 7200NM has limited space to carry cargo. Adding a stop will allow more cargo to be carried.

 

 

Another way to show this is with the cargo industry. Have you wondered why almost every cargo flight between the US and Asia stops in Anchorage? Almost every aircraft can make that flight non-stop. However, it is not profitable without the stop. You may wonder why. Seems it would be more expensive. But think of it like this (not using exact numbers because I don't have them in front of me as I type this):

 

A B744 carrying cargo from China to LAX. It can take 75 tons of cargo all the way without a stop, or it can take 125 tons of cargo with a stop in Anchorage. You don't need the fuel to go all the way (which the airline pays for) so you can cram more cargo (which the customer pays to ship).

 

The less weight used for fuel, the more weight used for cargo. Airlines make a lot of money carrying cargo. EVA made a full 50% of its money last year just on cargo, Singapore Airlines about 44%.

[HILLY 9]

Not only will a stop save money, there is in all likelyhood a profit to be made by adding a stop.

 

For those of you not aviation savvy, I'll break it down so a 5 year old can understand.

 

1. An aircraft can only leave an airfield at or under it's max weight.

2. Not taking into account winds, the shortest distance from:

 

BKK-LAX is 7186NM, BKK-PVG-LAX is 7198NM, BKK-ICN-LAX is 7187NM.

 

3. The distance being added is almost non-existant.

4. For a non-stop flight on an A345, most of the weight carried is fuel.

5. By adding a stop and flying almost the same exact distance:

 

a. TG can use a B772ER or B773. These are twin engine aircraft and burn less fuel than a 4 engine aircraft. This lowers their fuel costs.

 

b. By adding a stop, TG doesn't need to carry a lot of fuel. It only needs the necessary fuel plus a reserve. Carrying extra fuel, or full tanks, when not needed actually burns more fuel. Simple physics.

 

c. By carrying less fuel, and here's where they and other airlines make money, they have more room to carry cargo. It's no accident that they want to connect BKK and LAX with either Incheon or Shanghai. A lot of goods flow into the US via those 2 places.

 

To wrap-up, like aircraft (talking weight class here) with 4 engines burns more fuel than a 2 engine aircraft. A non-stop flight carrying fuel for almost 7200NM has limited space to carry cargo. Adding a stop will allow more cargo to be carried.

Another way to show this is with the cargo industry. Have you wondered why almost every cargo flight between the US and Asia stops in Anchorage? Almost every aircraft can make that flight non-stop. However, it is not profitable without the stop. You may wonder why. Seems it would be more expensive. But think of it like this (not using exact numbers because I don't have them in front of me as I type this):

 

A B744 carrying cargo from China to LAX. It can take 75 tons of cargo all the way without a stop, or it can take 125 tons of cargo with a stop in Anchorage. You don't need the fuel to go all the way (which the airline pays for) so you can cram more cargo (which the customer pays to ship).

 

The less weight used for fuel, the more weight used for cargo. Airlines make a lot of money carrying cargo. EVA made a full 50% of its money last year just on cargo, Singapore Airlines about 44%.

All good reasons plus one more. Fuel varies in price at different destinations and then there can also be a VAT fuel rebate that can be reclaimed in certain places. This can far outweigh the additional fuel costs for take off and climbing to altitude.

In my flying days a long time ago we used to fly to Europe via Jersey on min fuel and refuel there. The saving was enormous on a twin and worth the 15 minutes to go out of our way.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

echster,

 

A couple of points.

 

TG, as things stand at the moment, doesn't have fifth-freedom rights to fly pax/freight between China and the US so they would have to re-enter mature markets such as Incheon/Narita and re-establish themselves. That would take time.

 

There is also the question of crew duty time on the ultra long-haul routes being inefficient because the aircraft effectively have to be double-crewed. Unless you have the right number of premium pax paying premium rates (such as SQ manages on the SIN-US non-stops) then Thai, or any other airline that fancies trying to do US-BKK non-stop, was always going to struggle.

 

 

Hilly,

 

There is no duty or VAT on aviation fuel in UK.

[Tengotodo 52]

I thought that the biggest use of fuel from an efficiency standpoing is used for take-offs and approaches (as they proxy around waiting for a strip). The non-stop from JFK to BKK seems to be always full, so I don't see how making a stop can be a money-making event if the plane is 100% full.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I thought that the biggest use of fuel from an efficiency standpoing is used for take-offs and approaches (as they proxy around waiting for a strip). The non-stop from JFK to BKK seems to be always full, so I don't see how making a stop can be a money-making event if the plane is 100% full.

 

It's full of discounted tickets. The airlines make their cash from premium services (first/biz) for which there is scant demand between the US and BKK. However, there is a significant demand between the US and Japan/Korea and between BKK and Japan/Korea.

[Rex7777 0]

I wonder how much more they'd have to charge in order to make a profit? For those people wanting a non-stop, what if they tacked on another $100 or so? Would that make a difference? I bet people would pay it.

 

Rex

[marcortez 0]

http://www.thaiairwaysusa.com/EN/News/News...tion.aspx?Id=24

 

 

 

Thai airways adding flights to the USA, effective May 1st 2007.......quite opposite of the OP's post it seems.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The Thai revised schedule was put out before the comments made by its executives. The up-to-date situation is ........................

 

Non-stop Asia-US flights cause a headache for THAI

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

 

Thai Airways International (THAI) is stuck in a quandary. The non-stop flights to the United States have been operating at a loss despite the high load factor on each flight.

 

This has been creating problems for THAI executives with options such as terminating the services, using stopovers or changing to a more economical aircraft model not really able to stem the losses that the route is making despite achieving 80 to 90 per cent load factor on each flight.

 

“Our US flights are not doing so well and we are taking a hard look to find a good way out,” said THAI president Apinan Sumanaseni.

 

It has been suggested that the Bangkok-New York flight could include a stopover in major Chinese cities such as Beijing or Shanghai while the Bangkok-Los Angeles flight could stop in South Korea.

 

But such an option still does not guarantee that the airline could recoup its losses because the price competition on Asia-US flights among international carriers has been fierce. This is mainly because THAI is not the only airline operating these routes at a loss – it has been reported that Singapore Airlines’ Singapore-New York non-stop flight is also in the red.

 

As one executive commented: “Whatever way you choose, non-stop or with a stopover, you don’t make money

 

Not really a situation to give anybody any confidence in booking with them for a few months down the road knowing that their non-stop might actually end up via Beijing.

[bastax33 28]

I was hoping to book my flight for later this year (JFK-BKK) on TG this week.

[Tengotodo 52]

I was hoping to book my flight for later this year (JFK-BKK) on TG this week. If they do reschedule the flights and the new schedule doesn't work with my vacation days, any chance of getting a refund?

 

 

I have tickets already, too. I doubt a "refund' will be available. I don't think Thai does refunds.

[Sailfast 503]

Thai air website is still listing non-stop flights into Jan 2008

 

Travelocity is still selling the non-stop flights into Jan 2008

 

Since it does not seem like they have set an alternative, I would not worry just yet.

 

The flights I have taken have been fairly full, with the exception of premium economy. Seems like you don't get much in that class for the extra money you pay. Even the manager at JFK's Thai air told me not to spend the money for the upgrade if I already had an aisle seat.

 

I hope they can work it out becuase it's a nice flight at a fair price.

 

Sailfast

 

Look at me, I can't head back for almost a year and I'm still dreaming....

[rockinjerry 2]

Uh, Mr. Echster, could you please break it down so a 2-year old can understand it?

 

Thank you, kind Sir!

[jacko 8,766]

I have tickets already, too. I doubt a "refund' will be available. I don't think Thai does refunds.

And by moving a few letters around we reach the more applicable phrase..... I don't think Thais do refunds.

[Tengotodo 52]

And by moving a few letters around we reach the more applicable phrase..... I don't think Thais do refunds.

 

 

That's funny and so true. Have "deserved" a refund on several occasions while bopping about in various establishments, but NEVER got even OFFERED once! lol. I soon learned never to expect one.

[sick_puppy 0]

The big issue here is that the A345 is overweight and does not have the fuel efficiency that Airbus promised. To even make the ultra-long haul flights, they had to reduce the weight, and thus no First Class (seats are too heavy), only AC with Premium Econ (42" pitch) and regular Economy with 36" pitch (versus ~32" for most airlines). So despite high load factors, the plane just does not carry enough people. (BTW, SQ claims they do not make money on their A345 ultra long hauls either).

 

To another poster's quest about why they do not just increase the price due to the benefit of a non-stop? This only applies for those who live in LA or NYC. For everyone else it is not a nonstop, nor is it for anyone connecting beyond BKK. So coming form SFO (for me), it is just as easy to connect in HKG as it is to connect in LAX. Actually, its much nicer to connect in HKG ... the LAX TBIT is a pit! Oh, and Asian fares, compared to Europe on a per mile basis (especially premium fares) are brutally competitive.

 

TG's problem is that they cannot economically re-deploy the aircraft. The A345 is pretty specialized for ultra-long hauls. Everyone now knows that the A345 is a dog, and they'd lose millions of $ selling the aircraft. So they may be stuck operating it at a loss, and hope to gain "prestige" and connecting traffic thru BKK.

 

Obviously, based on the conflicting press statements, TG has not figured out what they are going to do yet.