Thai Airlines to sell off new A340's

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 14 Mar 2007, 02:59

Thai Airlines has asked its board to sell off its four new A340's citing high operating costs:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/14Mar2007_news09.php

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 14 Mar 2007, 04:31

Not good news for the A340 program. I was wondering what would happen to the A340-500 once the B777-LR's came online. If others do the same, the days of this beautiful bird, A340, will be shorten

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 14 Mar 2007, 07:47

The problem is rather that the Thai Airways International's 'commerce department' cannot fill the aircraft. If Thai will sell all the aircraft it cannot fill, some nice second hand aircraft will come to the market....

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 14 Mar 2007, 09:36

Funny isn't it - that plenty operators of the A340-600 can make money (see Lufthansa, Virgin). Even operators of the A340-500 make money (Emirates, Singapore) though I agree it is more difficult with this variant. So why blame the plane? Covering up other short comings methinks!

Classic bad management - blame the tools for your own ineptitude. So whats next to go at Thai cos this will help the balance sheet only in the short term.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 14 Mar 2007, 12:12

Another anti-Airbus post from the resident Airbus basher bits44, which -it becomes almost standard- is FACTUALLY wrong.

The reason Thai wants to get rid of the ultra-long haul A345s it's operating is because they have reorganised their network and have cut all ultra-long haul non-stop stretches for which they had the A345 in their fleet.

Operating any ULH plane - be it an A340-500 or a 777-200ER- on regular long haul routes definitely is not cost effective: the 777-20ER may be less cost ineffective on those routes indeed, yet I doubt Thai is very pleased with the CASM of those planes on the routes they fly either.

In short: they have bought 2 planes which have become unsuitable for their operations and are getting rid of the most unsuitable first...
I wouldn't be surprised the 777-200ER will soon be seen out too, especially with the batch of A330-300X TG has recently ordered.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 14 Mar 2007, 12:56

tolipanebas wrote:.... they have bought 2 planes which have become unsuitable for their operations and are getting rid of the most unsuitable first...

That's an other way to explain the same... Don't blame the 'commerce department' but the 'marketing department'...
Was ULH a mistake?

OrientThai · Post by **OrientThai** » 14 Mar 2007, 13:52

THAI has a LF between 80% and 90% on their flights to LAX and JFK. They are having good loads on these flights but their main problem is the yields.
Costs flying these routes are very high (for example TG has to pay 20000$ per flight to the Russian for using their airspace) and questions can be raised concerning the configuration of these airplanes: Why didn't they install First Class? (though it's where you're making profit) Are there too few seats?
If the Thai government continue to interfere with TG internal affairs bad management will continue and TG will always remain behind SQ or CX.

SQ isn't doing great either on these ultra long-haul flights and Air Canada are selling their A340-500s. Airbus is producing great airplanes but we have to admit that Boeing has produced a superior product with the B777LR helping to bring the costs down on these routes where the profit margin is quite thin.

BTW these birds are going to SAA.

keen_watcher · Post by **keen_watcher** » 14 Mar 2007, 17:05

hi guys,

referring to last posting by tolipanebas and bits44, it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with bits44 because he is so nice/neutural by providing e-links, thus save us lots of time, to read some interesting news in vaiation wolrd, at least on this particular topic. I didn't see bits44 put forward any personal assessment / comments on this too.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 14 Mar 2007, 17:31

OrientThai wrote:They are having good loads on these flights but their main problem is the yields....
Why didn't they install First Class? (though it's where you're making profit) Are there too few seats?

IMHO people are not ready to pay for the few hours they save on these ULH. This is ok for business people. LF can be reached with attractive fares, but that does not cover the costs.
Although TG should have good yields in its home market now the Baht is at its nine year high, this seems not the case.

The high Baht will become a problem for TG in the coming months.
At comparable or better prices the neighbouring countries offer equivalent tourism products.
And adverse publicity of a cracking airport, the southern insurgence with its thousands casualties and the bio-hazards in the centre and North of the kingdom, with hundred thousands dead fishes in the rivers, the bird flu and the haze and air pollution in the northern provinces and political unrest with the upcoming elections, will not make it easy for TG to make big profits. Neither will the local hospitality industry.
Today: People urged to use tap water as polluted water comes to Bangkok

And competition is fierce.
In all they can be happy they do not have to fill A380's yet...

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 14 Mar 2007, 17:44

All this makes me quite nervous if US does get a hold of those A345s from AC. I'm sure we'd have as much problem at TG as making it work (I mean who wants to fly a LCC for 18 hours?)...

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 14 Mar 2007, 18:24

cageyjames wrote:All this makes me quite nervous if US does get a hold of those A345s from AC. I'm sure we'd have as much problem at TG as making it work (I mean who wants to fly a LCC for 18 hours?)...

What a lot of rubbish: Did you know that plane refurbishment happens all the time.? So if US wants to introduce 34" spacing it can do at will!

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 14 Mar 2007, 18:33

Vinnie-Winnie wrote:What a lot of rubbish: Did you know that plane refurbishment happens all the time.?So if US wants to introduce 34" spacing it can do at will!

LOL, are you serious? Believe me we'll refurbish the aircraft, but it will be more like FR than SQ.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 14 Mar 2007, 19:13

cageyjames wrote:(I mean who wants to fly a LCC for 18 hours?)...

Not me, although I remember the time that flying to BKK from Europe, took about 20hours (more or less). Now a non-stop flight does it in 12hours.
The machines can do it, but my body doesn't seem to like it.
And I wonder what it means pollution wise: carrying tons and tons of fuel just to fly further...
First ship the crude to Asia or to Europe... why not pick it up where it grows?

OrientThai · Post by **OrientThai** » 14 Mar 2007, 19:53

At comparable or better prices the neighbouring countries offer equivalent tourism products

Well despite the insurgency in the South, the military coup and the bombings in Bangkok the tourists are continuing to flock into Thailand and the tourism industry is set to break another record this year. Thailand is still ahead of countries like Vietnam offering more and better infrastructures to accommodate all the tourists. Bangkok is also getting more attractive to compete against Singapore or Hong Kong.

Flights to Europe are heavily packed so TG won't have a problem to fill those A380s on premium routes like FRA and LHR.
Competition is indeed becoming fiercer especially on regional routes with LCCs like Air Asia and on routes to Australia with Emirates.

The main goal for TG will be to attract higher yield, attracting more business traffic although with the current government, confidence from foreign investments in the Thai economy have dropped in favour of other countries especially Vietnam...

Challenging times ahead for THAI and the Thai nation...

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 15 Mar 2007, 02:34

OrientThai wrote:Bangkok is also getting more attractive to compete against Singapore or Hong Kong.

Where its says '-' it does not mean more...

PlaneHunter · Post by **PlaneHunter** » 15 Mar 2007, 18:34

cageyjames wrote:
Vinnie-Winnie wrote:What a lot of rubbish: Did you know that plane refurbishment happens all the time.?So if US wants to introduce 34" spacing it can do at will!
LOL, are you serious? Believe me we'll refurbish the aircraft, but it will be more like FR than SQ.

Have you ever flown both FR and US (longhaul)? Apparently not...

PH

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 15 Mar 2007, 19:50

PlaneHunter wrote:Have you ever flown both FR and US (longhaul)? Apparently not...

Yes I have as I do work for US.

Its pretty bad and getting worse every day. Hey if you enjoy US (longhaul) I'm happy for you, but I wouldn't pay to fly US.

Bob_Marcotte · Post by **Bob_Marcotte** » 15 Mar 2007, 20:13

tolipanebas wrote:Another anti-Airbus post from the resident Airbus basher bits44, which -it becomes almost standard- is FACTUALLY wrong.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's fed up with this guy's posts. It's getting really annoying

PlaneHunter · Post by **PlaneHunter** » 15 Mar 2007, 21:02

cageyjames wrote:
PlaneHunter wrote:Have you ever flown both FR and US (longhaul)? Apparently not...
Yes I have as I do work for US.

Its pretty bad and getting worse every day. Hey if you enjoy US (longhaul) I'm happy for you, but I wouldn't pay to fly US.

US' longhaul product is quite average or even slightly below (e.g. old B762 cabin), but there's no reason to compare it to FR. If US gets the A340s then they will most likely install a similar or updated interior as on the A333.

PH

Established02 · Post by **Established02** » 15 Mar 2007, 21:18

OrientThai wrote:Costs flying these routes are very high (for example TG has to pay 20000$ per flight to the Russian for using their airspace)

20.000$ per flight seems an awful lot of money!

Assuming that the aircraft has 400 seats would mean that every seat would carry a cost of 50$, just for using Russian airspace!

I guess avoiding Russian airspace is not an option for those flights concerned.