ROP From Thailand, joined Jun 2001, 239 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 5 months 15 hours ago) and read 4947 times:
The krungthepdurakit, Thai-language newspaper reported yesterday that Thai has done a request to its board to dump A300-600 flleet of total 21 aircraft to upgrade its performance. They said this is subjected to be done if Thai need to climb up its position to the better world rank sine the A300 is so much outdate for both business and economy sector and unworth to be improved.
Meanwhile they also said to request to the Airbus for the faster delivery of its ordere A340s flleet since it failed from the UA 744 deal earlier.
Sorry i could not post thee source here since it 's from the real paper not from the website, and yes it's in Thai.
Ryanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4754 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 4106 times:
Wow... Wingtip! You sure have a lot of time on your hands!
Anyway, I am all for the good riddance of the A300s. Thai has had them for a while now and they are starting to look aged, especially the interiors. The Business Class is a disgrace to it's standing as an international carrier.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4781 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 4001 times:
Thai has had them for a while now and they are starting to look aged, especially the interiors
The interior quality has nothing to do with the actual quality of the aircraft, it simply reflects the priorities of the airline. There is no real replacement aircraft for the A300 other than the 767-400, and that is obviously not going to happen. The A330 is heavier and is not well suited to shorter-range routes (QF experience). Why doesn't Thai just redo the interiors if that is all that customers care about and save the money. The used aircraft market is in the toilet.
Korg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 3876 times:
I agree that the 764 is quite perfect for the replacement. It has both engine commentality with the 744s (GE) and cockpit operation commentality with the 777s that Tg has. Also, the 764 has a range of around 4000nm which is what the A300-600R has. So why TG would not pick it? unless they want to wait for the 7E7 then I can understand.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12431 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 3876 times:
It is best to do these things while the fleet is relatively young. The A300-600 is a good aircraft and if it can't be sold for pax use, it can be converted to freighter use. TG uses both GE and PW powered aircraft (maybe all the -600Rs are one engine type?), so maybe Air HK, which has recently ordered A300-600Fs could operate them.
Because they're not so old, I don't think there will be a huge urgency about this. Airbus must be the favoured supplier, particularly as there are already A330s in the fleet and A340s to come. I'd say A330-300s will figure in the order, but TG should also look at A330-200s. As well as being very useful for regional flights, they can also be used on long haul flights, for example to Europe, Australia and NZ.
Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 3535 times:
I think this is not of top urgency on their LONG list of to-do things to bring them on par with competition.
They have a shortage of aircraft now and definitely not in a position to dump planes when they do not have the funds to purchase more "new" aircraft. Personally I think the UA deal was a pretty sweet one but TG would not budge for a slightly higher price tag which would still prove to be viable for a bunch of relatively new aircraft that are all well maintained...
AB6s are doing them a lot of good in their network on short to medium haul routes and nothing can really replace them except the B7E7 and to certain extent the A332. They have great cargo capability the B764 doesn't. Adding a totally new type into their fleet doesn't really make sense.
I do however agree that the A333s would gradually replace them as their network grows and demand increase and the extra 70 seats would not be too hard to fill. A332s would be an option.
Rest assured, I think they will still be in their fleet for the next 5 years AT LEAST. Some of them are relatively new A300-600Rs. I believe last few examples delivered were in 1998. Cargo conversion can also be a good idea WHEN they actually do leave their pax fleet. I have to agree that on some of them an interior revamp is much needed but this shows nothing about the plane's efficiency from the technical side of things. They are still their backbone workhorses to build their network in the region (medium haul routes) as these A300-600Rs have pretty long legs up to 7000km.
It will be interesting to see and a replacement is inevitable but I'm sure it will take quite a while seeing they have no rush, and even if they do, seeing how long decisions get made in the TG board, we need to WAIT.
Skyguy From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 3511 times:
Thai have been trying to streamline their fleet for a long time. When the airline was run (and still is to an extent but less so now) by Air Force generals, the fleet had all sorts of aircraft, BAe, Airbus, Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas's. The costs of maintaining and servicing so many different aircraft types and engine poew plants was very high. To that effect, sometime in the late 90's, management endeavoured to get rid off spare aircraft and try and focus on just two types of manufacturers.
By getting rid of their old Airbus's, this makes their fleet swing more towards a Boeing heavy fleet.
"Those who talk, do not know, and those who know, do not talk."
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 3457 times:
Warren747sp, just out of curiosity...
in what way would introducing a new type to replace another type, of which some planes in the fleet are still quite new, only to serve as a stop-gap-measure until yet another plane becomes available constitute "a better option"?
And, Skyguy, how does removing the "old" Airbusses constitute a "swing more towards a Boeing heavy fleet", considering that Thai will soon start taking delivery of A340-500s and A340-600s?
Warren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3212 times:
Just because an airline owns say A340 does not mean automatically that they will have to go for the A330. If Thai wants to get ride of their existing A300, that's their choice.
Of course the A330 can haul more cargo than the B767. But I am not sure how the 764 would compare with the existing A300 in this regard.
The A300 isn't the plane with the best reputation quite a few have crashed with different carriers and 2 with Thai.