Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
End Of The ULH? TG Drops JFK 01 Jul 08?  
User currently offlineBkkair From Thailand, joined Aug 2001, 409 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6507 times:

BKK-JFK is zeroed out in availability effective 1 Jul 08 (less than a month away). LAX remains, at this time.

Still no official announcement but the flight has been removed from the TG website as well as other CRS.

With a R/T BKK-JFK costing around US$500,000, including $360, 000 in fuel, do any of the ULH flights make sense anymore unless it is all J class such as SQ?

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6489 times:



Quoting Bkkair (Thread starter):
With a R/T BKK-JFK costing around US$500,000, including $360, 000 in fuel, do any of the ULH flights make sense anymore unless it is all J class such as SQ?

I'm not sure it ever did with a Y cabin. It's a reason I never understood QF's argument. They could fly non-stop SYD-LHR with an F/J cabin only, but they wanted to try to sell Y seats too.

Y customers would not pay a premium for non-stop for the most part, and probably would welcome the chance to get out of the cramped seat at a waypoint.

But in F and J, with good food, comfy seats, nice treatment, non-stop is always desirable. This is one reason I really don't see the point of the A388R. Maybe things will change in the future, but it would seem that an A358R non-stop in F/J teamed up with an A388 one-stop with a heavy concentration of Y and Y+ on a route would make more economic sense.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7604 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6424 times:

As much as ULH routes are glamourized, the reality of them is that they are extremely costly. The only ULH routes that will work (long term) are those that not only have a HUGE local market, but those that have good feed as well (ex. LHR-SYD). Even then, its pushing it.


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineAT777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6151 times:

If i'm understanding everything, you don't think ULH routes will work?
If that is so, then why has Boeing given us the 787? It is supposed to be an ULH plane right?
I just don't think Boeing would have done all this planing, work, manufacturing, and spend so much money on this project if no one thinks ULH routes will not work. Please tell me if i don't have a point.

Ashley in CLT


User currently offlineB707forever From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6000 times:

What is JFK-HKG considered? Just long haul? From CX increasing to 3 non-stops a day plus the 1 stop it makes me wonder if it depends upon the route.

User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5707 times:



Quoting AT777 (Reply 3):
If that is so, then why has Boeing given us the 787? It is supposed to be an ULH plane right?

The 787 business case also relies heavily on the development of point-to-point services. Whether these points are very far apart from each other is also part of the equation, but I do seem to remember that the 787 was designed as a complement/replacement (depending on circumstances) for the systematic hub-and-spoke designs of large airline networks.

Basically, instead of flying MCO-IAH on a 320, then IAH-FRA on a 777/380, and again FRA-TXL on an A321, you'd be doing MCO-TXL on a 788. More or less. MCO-TXL is not ULH in any way but the economics of the 787 would enable such a direct flight.

Sort of.

 Smile


User currently offlineFlyguy1 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1738 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5673 times:

Is TG dropping JFK entirely, or will they stop in another Asian city?


727, L1011, MD80, A300, 777-200, 737-300, 737-700, 747-400, 757-200, 737-800, A320. E190, E135, 767-200, CRJ9
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5466 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5553 times:



Quoting AT777 (Reply 3):
If that is so, then why has Boeing given us the 787? It is supposed to be an ULH plane right?

The 787 is *not* a ULH plane.

Assuming the range comes in where Boeing says it will, the 787 is broadly comparable in range with other long-haul planes like the 772ER, 773ER, A343, and A346. What makes the 787 different is that the 787-8 is the smallest and most efficient plane yet to have that kind of range.

The A345 and 772LR have both the 787-8 and the 787-9 beat by 1000 nm or more. They are still the only true ULH planes in the world, and will continue to be until the A388R and/or A359R enter service.

In any case, the 772LR is rapidly proving that the true use for ULH planes is not 18-20 hour ULH routes, which are a disaster from a yield standpoint, but carrying lucrative cargo on 14-16 hour long-haul routes.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8372 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For years Thai has struggled in the USA, They used to fly a 744 daily and always upgraded you from full y to J and J to F. The yields were awful. Then the A345 arrived and nonstops to both LAX and JFK were possible. Thailand's western location in ASia makes it hard be competitive to the USA, I hope Thai maitains LAX.

User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17501 posts, RR: 45
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5405 times:



Quoting Bkkair (Thread starter):
do any of the ULH flights make sense anymore unless it is all J class such as SQ?

I'm not sure it even makes sense as all J for SQ. I think it's a last ditch effort for SQ to make US/SIN nonstops work. The market for SIN/USA is not that big, and of course the F/J demand is a smaller percentage of that. If you connect beyond SIN, you're putting yourself back into competition with a bunch of other one stops between LAX/JFK and the final destination, bringing down the average fare. As someone else said, ULH will probably only work when/where there is a huge local market, of which you can split a healthy segment of F/J traffic to support the costly service. I'm not sure if Thailand or even Singapore offer that market size.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineAT777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5390 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 7):
The 787 is *not* a ULH plane.

Assuming the range comes in where Boeing says it will, the 787 is broadly comparable in range with other long-haul planes like the 772ER, 773ER, A343, and A346. What makes the 787 different is that the 787-8 is the smallest and most efficient plane yet to have that kind of range.

The A345 and 772LR have both the 787-8 and the 787-9 beat by 1000 nm or more. They are still the only true ULH planes in the world, and will continue to be until the A388R and/or A359R enter service.

In any case, the 772LR is rapidly proving that the true use for ULH planes is not 18-20 hour ULH routes, which are a disaster from a yield standpoint, but carrying lucrative cargo on 14-16 hour long-haul routes.

Thanks for the information. I have been thinking that the 787 would be for the ULH flights. I could have swore that someone on here said that the 787 program would be for ULH flights, but then again, that was in the early stages of the 787 program coming to light.


User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5316 times:



Quoting AT777 (Reply 10):
Thanks for the information. I have been thinking that the 787 would be for the ULH flights. I could have swore that someone on here said that the 787 program would be for ULH flights, but then again, that was in the early stages of the 787 program coming to light.

There is a component of ULH to the program. The "787" is not one single model, as the threads about the future technical data of the 787-10 can attest. The 787 model range covers A300-type aircraft, A332/763/4ER and A333/772/ER. To each their own.

Yes, there will probably be some 787-8 and -9 on very long routes (although probably not much ULH, if at all) but most likely you will see the planes sprout up at some locations that would see very few widebody, point-to-point long-haul services prior to the introduction the plane.


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5466 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5224 times:



Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 11):
There is a component of ULH to the program. The "787" is not one single model, as the threads about the future technical data of the 787-10 can attest.

The only way we will see a ULH-capable 787 is if

1) a higher-weight 787-10 ("787-10HGW") is developed, which will require, at a minimum, new wings and landing gear, and
2) a version of that aircraft with a fuselage the length of the 787-8 (or maybe -9) is produced.

Boeing will need to get development of the 787-9 largely done before it can seriously contemplate that kind of development. Given that Boeing appears to be thinking that 787-9 EIS will now be in 2012, I can't imagine any 787-8LR or -9LR being ready for service before 2018 at the earliest.

So, for now, the 787 is not a ULH aircraft any more than a 772ER or 77W is a ULH aircraft. The initial 787 variants would only be able to fly true ULH routes in a very light premium configuration.


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7410 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Big waste to begin with. As every carrier would love to serve 2 cities like Bangkok and New York, nonstop, it just isn't possible with todays fuel prices. They configure an airplane that is designed to hold 250-300 people and only configure it for 150-200 passenger(SQ), and charge an enormous fare for lavish service. It sounds great but a majority of people aren't willing to part with that much money for something as simple as a flight across the globe. They just want to get where they're going, and if they have to stop once or twice, then so be it.


Made from jets!
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5466 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5180 times:



Quoting AT777 (Reply 10):
I could have swore that someone on here said that the 787 program would be for ULH flights

You probably did. A lot of people are under that impression. I think they were misled by the original 787 range numbers, which looked pretty gaudy, especially for the 787-9. Two things have happened since: first, the range numbers have gone down by a few hundred nm as design became more complete, and, second, the 787 began being seriously marketed as a 9-abreast aircraft -- which makes a full passenger payload a lot heavier and thus cuts the published range number by another 400-500 nm.

I've always thought MZFW range is a more meaningful number, especially recently as belly cargo has become more important. The 787's MZFW range is not known yet, but will probably be between 5500 and 6000 nm. That is right on top of the aircraft I mentioned in my earlier post. By comparison, the A345 can go 7000 nm at MZFW and the 77L can go 7400 nm.


User currently offlineWorldtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5080 times:

The primary reason for the bad name ULH routes have been given is the A345, not the routes or airlines per se.

The A345 is significantly more costly to operate due to its heavier weight and more fuel-thirsty engine. Its cost problems are aggravated by its limited performance. The A345 is not capable of being a decent airplane for ULH flights.

The 777LR is a far different aircraft. It is far more capable - can fly 18 hr flights and still carry lots of cargo with a full 275 passengers. It is far less costly to operate. Because no 777LR operators have started ULH flights doesn't mean the market is not there or the plane is not capable.

You will see ULH flights operated by the 777LR by the airlines that currently operate them. If you know you I am the biggest supported of, you can expect that airline will be one of those airlines.

BTW, I would call south/central India-US nonstop ULH as would I call some of EK's routes to the Americas including IAH and GRU. And those flights are all operated by 777LRs. There are other airlines that try to compete in some of those markets with lesser aircraft but they pay the price in reduced capability. The 777LR is the only a/c that can profitably fly 16+ hr flights.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4938 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 7):
In any case, the 772LR is rapidly proving that the true use for ULH planes is not 18-20 hour ULH routes, which are a disaster from a yield standpoint, but carrying lucrative cargo on 14-16 hour long-haul routes.

 checkmark 
JFK-BOM by Delta is a good example.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 12):
The initial 787 variants would only be able to fly true ULH routes in a very light premium configuration.

The A350-10 could do BKK-JFK with 32,500 gallons of fuel; the A345 uses 45,000 gallons for the same flight. That is a savings of around $50,000 in fuel costs for each flight. TG needs to choose a more fuel efficient aircraft for this route--A350, or B789 properly configured may make this route profitable.


User currently offlineWillyj From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

Is this flight cancelled? I spoke with Thai this week and they said they thought it would have a schedule change/aircraft change. Obviously if the aircraft is changed, they would need to have a stopover somewhere, but they said the flight wouldn't be cancelled entirely...

User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4722 times:

The 787 was originally invented to be a point to point plane between North America and China. I think at the time of original launch orders for the 7E7, people were not thinking about non stop North America to India flights.

The idea is to reduce flying through hubs, but that is not going to happen because, airlines like Korean will operate both A380s and 787s in the same fleet. Inchon Airport is built to be a hub, and the 787s will be used as part of the hub operation.

Will Chinese cities smaller than Beijing, Shanghai and Guanghzou have non stop flights to North American cities - Harbin, Wuhan. Even for Indian cities, passengers might like non stop city pairs like Hyderabad to Chicago, they are more likely to fly through hubs at Brussels or Milan or Munich. They will need a lot of passengers to support non stop services from each Indian city to several American cities. So there will always be hubs.


User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4595 times:



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 18):

Yes, there will still be hubs. I simply believe that a point-to-point market will develop in parallel of these large hubs, supported by 787/350-type aircraft.

And hubs cannot expand forever.

 Smile

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 13):
They just want to get where they're going, and if they have to stop once or twice, then so be it.

To be honest, on a MEL-LHR, I'd much rather have 3 or 4 stop-overs and fly in business class-type seats than have to sit  crowded  at 10-abreast on a 77L non-stop.

 Smile


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4543 times:

The 787 was designed as an 78000-8200nm aircraft to match the 8000nm A380 and 7900nm 777 and 7900nm A340. These of course are all rough numbers, but basically, it was intended to be able to run on any route those other planes could, making the fleet decision simple as substitutions due to seasonal variations would be no brainers.

The 748i was thus also designed as an 8000nm aircraft for the same reason.

The idea was to "take range out of the equation" because then airlines would not need to "abuse" the wrong aircraft to make a route work.

None of those planes are considered ULH. They are all just the best long-haul planes around.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4519 times:



Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 5):
Basically, instead of flying MCO-IAH on a 320, then IAH-FRA on a 777/380, and again FRA-TXL on an A321, you'd be doing MCO-TXL on a 788. More or less. MCO-TXL is not ULH in any way but the economics of the 787 would enable such a direct flight.

I doubt the 787 is going to turn two-stop trips into nonstops. It might turn that MCO-IAH-FRA-TXL routing into a MCO-IAH-TXL routing, though. Or MCO-FRA-TXL (though this already exists). The 787 isn't a point-to-point plane, it's a hub-to-smaller-point plane. If you live in a point, and are going to another point, you're still most likely going to have to connect. But you'll probably end up connecting one less time, which is still pretty substantial.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineGoldorak From France, joined Sep 2006, 1843 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4519 times:



Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 19):
Yes, there will still be hubs. I simply believe that a point-to-point market will develop in parallel of these large hubs, supported by 787/350-type aircraft.

And hubs cannot expand forever.

I agree with you in general. However, with oil at + $130/barrel, I will rather see a reinforcement of intra-hub flights within alliances to rely on the patners "regional" networks. Look at all the non-stop secondary domestic or international routes dropped these last weeks by most US carriers. These routes are not sustainable anymore.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4471 times:



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 13):
SQ), and charge an enormous fare for lavish service. It sounds great but a majority of people aren't willing to part with that much money for something as simple as a flight across the globe.

Perhaps the majority are not, but definitely seems to be people that are.

They are paying for the time-saving, for a market-leading Business Class product, the inflight service and very evidently this is something that these people value and are prepared to pay for.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32782 posts, RR: 72
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4439 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 21):
The 787 isn't a point-to-point plane, it's a hub-to-smaller-point plane. If you live in a point, and are going to another point, you're still most likely going to have to connect. But you'll probably end up connecting one less time, which is still pretty substantial.

 checkmark 

The 787 isn't going to connect cities like Orlando and Berlin or Nashville and London.

IMO, it's going to connect pairs like Houston and Rome; Miami and Tokyo; New York and Osaka. Already large cities/hubs to more large cities/hubs, though which with current large seat aircraft aren't really suportable.



a.
25 Alangirvan : Why would the 787 NOT connect cities like Berlin and Orlando? AirBerlin have bought 787s to operate city pairs like that. European IT carriers like F
26 Ryanair!!! : This is NOT the end of ULH. There are still SQ's to EWR and LAX to be had.
27 MAH4546 : If an air route can't support a 767 today - and MCO-TXL and BNA-LGW can't - it won't support it just because the 787 comes along. What will happen is
28 1821 : BKK - JFK is only the beginning. I checked on the star alliance website and can not get a TG flight from SYD - ATH either past July 1st.
29 LACA773 : Perhaps their flight updates have not been loaded as of now? LAX-BKK is no longer a daily nonstop. It still does operate nonstop, but it's 3 or 4 day
30 Nimish : And not to forget IT and AI's planned BLR-SFO and BLR-JFK routes - both routes due to start this year. And I don't know if BOM-JFK or DEL-ORD is coun
31 Lexy : I think that's where you are dead wrong. I know for a fact that you don't know the business culture in this market and the make-up of local and natio
32 WunalaYann : I realise that I actually meant IAD and not IAH. My point was that the 787 would help connect cities that could sustain 757-type capacity but beyond
33 CXA330300 : It's actually two non-stops plus the one stop. Yes, but at that range, wouldn't a large enough series of connections already be available to make tha
34 Post contains links MAH4546 : I know the make-up of Nashville, and I'll stand by what I said. Nissan North America, a large healthcare industry, and being home to a large number o
35 B752OS : " target=_blank>http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs....10390 Even though Nissan has the NA HQ in Nashville, a ton of stuff is still done out in Los A
36 Alangirvan : I think you are being confused by our statements. We mean the big European market to Florida and the Caribbean and Mexico, not individual American ci
37 Cubsrule : How do we know which markets can support a 767 but cannot do so economically? It's not like we have an airline willing to try and fail at all of thes
38 LAXdude1023 : I see your point about routes like JFK-KIX, but routes like MIA-SVO could be flown with a 767. Will the 787 really change things for routes like that
39 SeaBosDca : MIA-SVO is almost 5000 nm -- a 767-300ER can fly it without a problem, but it presents some operational challenges and won't carry a full load of car
40 Lexy : Sure. I realize that this isn't a post about Miami or LAX so it's all negative coming from you, but I really doubt you have a valid knowledge, or sho
41 B752OS : While MAH and I have butted heads in several threads and he is a biased poster towards his native Miami, just like I am towards my native Boston and
42 Alangirvan : This is where I have the disadvantage that I have not received a detailed presentation from Boeing about the break even of a 787 compared with other
43 MAH4546 : If my company did something as stupid as that, I wouldn't even make the move, I'd quit. And quite a few Nissan employees did. It's It's so easy to pl
44 SANFan : It is my understanding that the 787 was designed to open up the thinner long-hauls and we would expect, regarding US service anyway, to see them mainl
45 Lexy : That's a bold statement from someone who isn't in the decision making part of the aviation industry. Well, everything you have said is bold especiall
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...
Atlant Soyouz. End Of The Il-86. Start Of B-738. posted Mon May 19 2008 01:53:30 by SIBILLE
Why The End Of The AZ MXP Hub? posted Sat Apr 5 2008 18:28:16 by AFKLMLHLX
Luxair Gets A Dash-8. The End Of The All-jet Age? posted Mon May 28 2007 18:22:32 by Steph001
NW+Delta: End Of The Memphis Hub posted Sun Jan 14 2007 16:49:36 by David31998
A Big Airbus Order To Come By The End Of The Year? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 19:01:07 by RootsAir
The End Of The Original 748 In Europe? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 23:24:14 by DHHornet
End Of The A380 Bashing? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 13:20:55 by Findigenous
Hifly/Air Luxor : End Of The A320s posted Wed Sep 20 2006 11:25:14 by FCKC
Light At The End Of The Tunnel? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 20:32:24 by Exarmywarrant
End Of The Cebu Pacific DC9 Era In The Philippines posted Sat Jul 15 2006 16:28:34 by Lufthansa747
A Big Airbus Order To Come By The End Of The Year? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 19:01:07 by RootsAir
The End Of The Original 748 In Europe? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 23:24:14 by DHHornet
End Of The A380 Bashing? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 13:20:55 by Findigenous
Hifly/Air Luxor : End Of The A320s posted Wed Sep 20 2006 11:25:14 by FCKC
Light At The End Of The Tunnel? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 20:32:24 by Exarmywarrant