Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TG Goes Double Daily To US Despite Staggering Loss  
User currently offlineBkkair From Thailand, joined Aug 2001, 409 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 8131 times:

From The Bangkok Post on 26 February

Effective 1 May 2007, TG will increase to daily nonstops from BKK to both JFK and LAX, utilizing 4 A340-500 aircraft.

Highlights from the article



  • Thai lost US$142 Million on flights to the United States in 2006
  • US flights, whether non-stop or with a stop along the way will never make money, due to price competition
  • Switching from A345’s to 744’s, A340-600’s or 772ER’s will not stem the losses
  • Options include having the JFK flights stop in PEK or PVG and the LAX flights stop at ICN.
  • Singapore flights from SIN-JFK are also losing money.
  • Russian over flight fees are US$20,000 per flight.
  • Thai is looking for a way for these flights to earn money but can’t find a way out.
  • Cabin factor is 80% to 90% on the USA flights.
  • The A340-500 is not economical on routes shorter than these Ultra Long Haul flights.
  • Selling the 4 A340-500’s is not an option as they are only 2 years old and would have to be sold at a heavy discount.

Bottom line: Thai says it may be better off keeping the US flights running at a loss for the sake of supporting its network and connectivity, feeding traffic from North America to other profitable routes.

Thai made a profit of about US$114 Million in the latest quarter ending 31 Dec 2006.

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJeffrySkY From Singapore, joined Feb 2004, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 8068 times:

Quoting Bkkair (Thread starter):
Singapore flights from SIN-JFK are also losing money

I guess the article was referring to SQ's non-stop SIN-EWR route, and it has been no secret that the flight operates on a very slim margin. Probably sends a message out to people, especially proponents of LHR-SYD nonstops, that operating ultra-longhauls is a balance on the knife's edge between profitability and maintaining the 3 'C's convenience/connectivity/comfort for customers.

Good job summarising the article otherwise.


User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 8062 times:

It was announced earlier about JFK going daily but this is the first I've heard about LAX.

This news was announced before the president of Thai mentioned the routes will go one-stop eventually.



No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4517 posts, RR: 72
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 7887 times:

And they didn't know all of this before? SQ was already operating its nonstop US services when TG was still nowhere. What's more, transpacific traffic has traditionally been lower yielding to begin with. It goes to show that TG is lacking the human resources to run a truly professional operation. Also this solution of continuing the A345 nonstop operation although it is bleeding money because there is no alternative to deploy the A345 and selling the aircraft is supposedly not an option? What a joke.

The truth is that TG was falling over itself to start its own nonstop US operations after SQ announced similar plans. The TG operation is nothing more than a cheap copy cat of SQ's. That is the reason why, for reasons that are beyond me, TG didn't put a 4- or 8-seat F-cabin in these A345s: SQ also operates without F-cabin.


User currently offlineEx_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 7804 times:

Quoting JeffrySkY (Reply 1):
I guess the article was referring to SQ's non-stop SIN-EWR route, and it has been no secret that the flight operates on a very slim margin.

The SIN-FRA-JFK is pretty marginal too.


User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 7702 times:

Quoting Ex_SQer (Reply 4):
The SIN-FRA-JFK is pretty marginal too.

I believe this route is actually a very high premium market for the airline.



No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineGneissGuy From Singapore, joined Jul 2006, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7605 times:

Quoting AlitaliaMD11 (Reply 5):
Quoting Ex_SQer (Reply 4):
The SIN-FRA-JFK is pretty marginal too.

I believe this route is actually a very high premium market for the airline.

SIN-FRA-JFK is HUGE. I think its one of SQ's most profitable routes.


User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3284 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7558 times:

Are the timings to change at all or will they continue to use the existing timings (useless for connectivity to/from India)


Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3339 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7470 times:

Quoting Bkkair (Thread starter):
Selling the 4 A340-500’s is not an option as they are only 2 years old and would have to be sold at a heavy discount.

Have they discussed this with EY?
I'm sure EY and a number of other 'new'middle east airlines would take these aircraft at short notice.


User currently offlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4517 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7470 times:

Quoting Nimish (Reply 7):
useless for connectivity to/from India

The overall connectivity and hub organization issue needs some serious rethinking...


User currently offlineEx_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 7408 times:

Quoting GneissGuy (Reply 6):

SIN-FRA-JFK is HUGE. I think its one of SQ's most profitable routes.

Overall SIN-FRA v.v. suffers from too much capacity, both direct and indirect, thus affecting yields. There is good business traffic, so SQ operates more frequencies on the route. However, with all these frequencies, SQ cannot fill the seats in Y at a decent price. So, they have to offer some very low fares in the back to fill two flights per day, thus bringing down yields. CDG and ZRH also suffered from the same problem, although I imagine the 77W has fixed some of that, as I imagine it will for SQ326/325.

SIN-FRA on SQ26 does better than SQ326 because of better departure/arrival timings. SQ325 does better than SQ25 for FRA-SIN because SQ325 offers better departure timings thus attracting more premium traffic.

FRA-JFK v.v. is not strong. As a third country carrier with only one flight per day on the route competing with home carriers offering multiple frequencies, SQ has to charge some pretty low fares.

SIN-JFK v.v. - I understand that yields today have been affected by the introduction of the nonstops; premium fares get channeled to the nonstops, cheaper fares get dumped on SQ26/25.

When I was with SQ, SQ26/25 were running at around breakeven. I can't imagine it being any better today. This is also a very expensive route to operate, made worse by SQ choosing a long ground time (almost 12 hours) at JFK to offer better connectivity.

Anyway I hate to hijack a thread about TG. If anyone wants to set up a separate thread on this, please feel free to do so.


User currently offlineThaiA345 From Indonesia, joined Oct 2006, 888 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7198 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 3):
That is the reason why, for reasons that are beyond me, TG didn't put a 4- or 8-seat F-cabin in these A345s

Yes, I truly agree with you on that HB-IWC, I for one usually travel in F especially on my US routes. But since the introduction of TG's A345 without F cabins, I am not too happy about it and so are many other passengers that I have spoken too. I am definitely happy if TG uses the A346 on the LAX route with a 1 stop in ICN. Don't get me wrong, I love the A345 as an aircraft and its capability just not too happy about the seat selection and layout on board, both for TG and SQ.

Thai A345


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6893 times:

Quoting Bkkair (Thread starter):
Singapore flights from SIN-JFK are also losing money.

How do they claim to know this?


User currently offlineBkkair From Thailand, joined Aug 2001, 409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6826 times:

To clarify what the article said:

SQ is losing money on the nonstops from SIN-NYC (meaning SIN-EWR). .

The article never mentioned or implied that SIN-FRA-JFK was losing money.

Who knows where the writer of the article in The Bangkok Post got this information. Although there have been many posts about ULH flights bleeding money on Airliners.net, we won't know if SQ is losing money unless SQ issues a press release about this, which is unlikely.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week ago) and read 6749 times:

Quoting Bkkair (Reply 13):

Who knows where the writer of the article in The Bangkok Post got this information.

which is why it, like most things concerning that nation's aviation-related ops (or in this case, uncorroborated claims about another's on its behalf) should be taken with a grain....


User currently offlineOhsopc From Thailand, joined Jul 2006, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 3):
And they didn't know all of this before? SQ was already operating its nonstop US services when TG was still nowhere. What's more, transpacific traffic has traditionally been lower yielding to begin with. It goes to show that TG is lacking the human resources to run a truly professional operation. Also this solution of continuing the A345 nonstop operation although it is bleeding money because there is no alternative to deploy the A345 and selling the aircraft is supposedly not an option? What a joke.

The truth is that TG was falling over itself to start its own nonstop US operations after SQ announced similar plans. The TG operation is nothing more than a cheap copy cat of SQ's. That is the reason why, for reasons that are beyond me, TG didn't put a 4- or 8-seat F-cabin in these A345s: SQ also operates without F-cabin.

Well TG ordered the A345 before SQ got their A345 and started to fly the route. So how did you suggest TG to figure out that the route will be loss making when SQ can't even figure it out themselves because they haven't flown it YET.

The interim solution is that they will increase the fare to offset the loss, which is probably a good idea since they have high cabin factor load and their price is well well well below SQ's anyways.

A cheap copy cat of SQ? SQ just launched Milan in response to the very very popular TG Bkk-Milan route. Is SQ a cheap copy cat of TG too then?
Maybe TG didn't put the F seats in - because they have to - because they are too heavy for these flights (which happens to be the same reasons that SQ don't have F in their 345 either)

Quoting Bkkair (Reply 13):
Who knows where the writer of the article in The Bangkok Post got this information. Although there have been many posts about ULH flights bleeding money on Airliners.net, we won't know if SQ is losing money unless SQ issues a press release about this, which is unlikely.

They did issue a statement about that.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7823 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5771 times:

Quoting ThaiA345 (Reply 11):
I am definitely happy if TG uses the A346 on the LAX route with a 1 stop in ICN. Don't get me wrong, I love the A345 as an aircraft and its capability just not too happy about the seat selection and layout on board, both for TG and SQ.

If TG does BKK-ICN-LAX, it wont work. There is ample capacity from LAX-ICN. I would be happy with a stop on the way from BKK-LAX, but it shouldnt be ICN. They should try PVG. Given the size of the market, LAX is underserved to China whereas there is lots of service to ICN. Right now the only option from LAX-PVG is China Eastern.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineExpressjetphx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 3):
That is the reason why, for reasons that are beyond me, TG didn't put a 4- or 8-seat F-cabin in these A345s: SQ also operates without F-cabin.

SQ's (and presumably TG's as well) F seats were too heavy for the ultra-long haul configuration, and would have restricted range making the nonstops impossible.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5178 times:

Quoting Expressjetphx (Reply 17):
SQ's (and presumably TG's as well) F seats were too heavy for the ultra-long haul configuration

...on an A345


User currently offlineOhsopc From Thailand, joined Jul 2006, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4697 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 18):
...on an A345

which was the only aircraft available at that time.


User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2413 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

Quoting JeffrySkY (Reply 1):
Probably sends a message out to people, especially proponents of LHR-SYD nonstops, that operating ultra-longhauls is a balance on the knife's edge between profitability and maintaining the 3 'C's convenience/connectivity/comfort for customers.

The main problem is when you put around 200 passengers in an aircraft that is meant to seat over 300. The A340-500 is just a bad aircraft. The airlines and their routes show it. The 777-200LR can do SIN-EWR in SQ's new 3 class layout even with a lot of cargo.

Quoting GneissGuy (Reply 6):
SIN-FRA-JFK is HUGE. I think its one of SQ's most profitable routes.

Just a side note: Do you think the SIN-FRA-JFK-FRA-SIN route will be replaced by the 777-300ER or A380?

Back to TG:

Besides BKK-ZRH, where do TG's A340-600s currently fly?


User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3982 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 20):
Just a side note: Do you think the SIN-FRA-JFK-FRA-SIN route will be replaced by the 777-300ER or A380?

There was talk earlier when the 777-300ER was first introduced to CDG that FRA-JFK would be seeing the 777-300ER. It has since become clear that SIN-FRA will see the 777-300ER but the SIN-FRA-JFK flight will by the 747-400.

There was also mention that the SIN-FRA-JFK route could be an A380.



No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4757 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3923 times:

TG lost out on its competitive edge by not having daily flights. Now with this change, perhaps they can now compete with SQ on better grounds.


Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineMalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

Daily to LAX! I dont have to worry about adjusting my days off anymore Big grin


There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlinePlanetime From Singapore, joined Mar 2006, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3797 times:

Quoting AlitaliaMD11 (Reply 21):
There was talk earlier when the 777-300ER was first introduced to CDG that FRA-JFK would be seeing the 777-300ER. It has since become clear that SIN-FRA will see the 777-300ER but the SIN-FRA-JFK flight will by the 747-400.

There is no talk of that becoming true. 1 of the 3 flights to LAX the 777-200ER will become a 777-300ER this summer, along with one the flights to SFO.

Quoting AlitaliaMD11 (Reply 21):
There was also mention that the SIN-FRA-JFK route could be an A380.

Maybe but I see SQ putting the 380 on the LAX and SFO sector before JFK.


25 Kaitak744 : I formulated my own theory about SQ's future long haul routes: -19 747-400 aircraft with routes: 3xLHR, 3xSYD, FRA, FRA-JFK, NRT-LAX, HKG-SFO to be r
26 GneissGuy : Eventually it will be replaced by the A380. They wanna get rid of the 747s asap.
27 ZK-NBT : I'm leaning towards the 77W from what I've heard on here. I'd say the SIN-FRA flight that will get the 77W soon will go A380 eventually or like other
28 Kaitak744 : Asiana? There are a total of at least 5 daily flights between the 2 airlines. Los Angeles has the world's largest Korean population outside Asia, and
29 ConcordeBoy : Keep in mind that SQ has also publically flipflopped on their potential acquisition of the 772LR yet again. Could get interesting.
30 ZK-NBT : Yes of course, not sure how I forgot them. They do 10 weekly by the looks of it with a mixture of 744, 74M and 772 flights. KE do 21 weekly in the No
31 Kaitak744 : If Singapore wanted to order the 777-200LR, they would have. Slots are filling up. Plus, the A340-500 is worth $5 in the used aircraft market, so the
32 AKLDELNonstop : AFAIK, BKK-AKL and BKK-MEL. This might have changed though. They also fly 773s to AKL sometimes
33 VHVXB : JNB as well
34 Chrisrad : We get the new 772ER's at MEL now
35 ZK-NBT : AKL hasn't seen a TG 773 since 2001, the 346's have been here since October 2005 with the odd 345. TG346's now fly BKK-AKL BKK-ZRH BKK-JNB BKK-MUC Th
36 Post contains images Kaitak744 : Tell that to Emirates. They fly A340-500s on routes as short as DXB-LHR. They make money. Tell that to Air Canada, they are selling theirs aren't the
37 ZK-NBT : No it doesn't, I'd install first on the A345's and put them on AKL and JNB myslf, AKL doesn't seem to be doing to well with the high J 346. Make the
38 Post contains images Malaysia : BKK-PVG-JFK! hmm I get an idea, US should opt the A340-500 for PHL-PVG-BKK Its a Star Alliance Carrier and can help TG domestically I mean back in Tha
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
CO Goes Double Daily EWR-LIS For Summer '07 posted Thu Feb 8 2007 05:28:20 by JAL777
Taca Goes Double Daily LIM-CCS-LIM posted Sun Feb 4 2007 22:48:08 by Avianca
LH Goes Double Daily On FRA-EWR posted Thu Apr 6 2006 13:11:54 by DABVF
Emirates Double Daily To Hamburg posted Mon Mar 6 2006 12:22:16 by EK156
EK Double Daily To Perth posted Wed Feb 8 2006 12:17:05 by EK156
EK Double Daily To Zurich posted Wed Jan 18 2006 16:33:08 by AirMale
Qatar Goes Double Daily Into Colombo posted Thu Sep 1 2005 16:58:32 by Zizou
Emirates Double Daily To Dusseldorf & B777-300ER posted Tue Feb 1 2005 22:28:38 by Udo
Qatar Double Daily To Kochi, India posted Fri Oct 8 2004 02:24:47 by Behramjee
TAM Goes Double-daily On MIA-GRU posted Fri Feb 6 2004 08:23:47 by MAH4546