Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Has TG Considered Opening Up IAH?  
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

Does anyone know whether TG has considered opening IAH anytime in the near future? Admittedly, I am surprised that TG has not attempted to make a go at the IAH market, because Bangkok is ideally positioned to capture the lion's share of East-of-the-Mississippi traffic to Southeast Asia. Also, the Premium Economy offering of the A345 is a competitive advantage that other longhaul players to IAH (save BA and later AF) do not offer. Not to mention that, once CO is freed from its SkyTeam commitments, TG and CO could apply for and implement an immunized relationship.


Live life to the fullest.
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4059 times:

Opinion alert-I think a return of one of the Chinese/Taiwan carriers is more likely near term, than Thai starting IAH.

IAH has the potential to be a big Star hub with Singapore, Lufthansa, etc, so we will see what kind of connecting traffic CO can bring in from all of its Mexico and Central American routes to attract future carriers.



Ciao Windjet mi manchi
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7561 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4050 times:



Quoting Avek00 (Thread starter):
Bangkok is ideally positioned to capture the lion's share of East-of-the-Mississippi traffic to Southeast Asia.

Why is that?

If LAX and EWR have not worked, I have trouble seeing why IAH would.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineCOEI2007 From Vanuatu, joined Jan 2007, 1912 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4027 times:



Quoting EddieDude (Reply 2):
Why is that?

If LAX and EWR have not worked, I have trouble seeing why IAH would.

IAH would be a very long market, that would need a high amount of First and Business class traffic. If EWR didnt work, I couldnt see IAH working


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4024 times:



Quoting EddieDude (Reply 2):
If LAX and EWR have not worked, I have trouble seeing why IAH would.

For starters, it would give Thai an opportunity to offer something both unique and actually sought after in the markerplace - easy access between key energy centers in Asia and the Americas. Business travelers are willing to pay for that (the premium, however, is a ubject of fair debate), as opposed to Thai's other North America services, which cater mostly to leisure travelers.

Second, a IAH flight, depending on timing, can have a far larger network cachement area than either NYC or LAX, and it may benefit from more competitive connections compared to the 1-stop SQ SIN flight (and importantly, SQ cannot respond by launching a nonstop to SIN of its own).



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineAznMadSci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3658 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

Sadly, I would see TG return to DFW than to start IAH. There's rather small business ties to Houston and Thailand compared to Houston and Singapore.

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 2):
If LAX and EWR have not worked, I have trouble seeing why IAH would.

TG served JFK not EWR. SQ serves both JFK and EWR, with EWR nonstop. If TG was to utilize CO for a upcoming strong Star hub, they would have a better chance restarting NYC service out of EWR and not JFK.



The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
User currently offlineLawair From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3963 times:

3 things:

1) I think IAH is a super long shot. If they wanted to cooperate with another Star Alliance carrier they probably would've done so already (UA at ORD, for example). Instead they picked JFK. Also, it's being reported now that the spare A345 are going to be used on an Oslo route.

2) As I said above, TG flew to JFK (not EWR).

3) The LAX route still exists, and it's being reported (not in English, yet) that the flight is going to go daily again in the near future, up from 4x per week.

The OSL and LAX plans were mentioned here:
http://www.thannews.th.com/detialNews.php?id=T0124184&issue=2418


User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7561 posts, RR: 43
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3940 times:



Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 5):
TG served JFK not EWR. SQ serves both JFK and EWR, with EWR nonstop. If TG was to utilize CO for a upcoming strong Star hub, they would have a better chance restarting NYC service out of EWR and not JFK.

You are right. It was my mistake, so sorry about that.. I was thinking of SQ's service. But the point is the same. I really don't think TG will be able to make BKK-IAH work.

Plus, you have the distance issue. According to Great Circle Mapper, BKK-JFK is 7540 nm and BKK-IAH is 8033 nm.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7499 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

If TG were stupid enough to open up IAH, it would be a massive failure. The fact that JFK couldnt work speaks volumes. LAX is the only (and I do mean only) destination that can really work from TG year round.

67% of all Thai people residing in the USA live in Los Angeles County, California. Its not like Singapore that lots of traffic to all parts of the USA and that Houston has business ties to. Houston (or Texas for that matter) has no biz ties to Thailand to speak of.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7499 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3826 times:

To understand the Asian Communities in Texas as far as who lives where, I did a little reasearch:

Houston has a larger population of: Vietnamese, Chinese, Filipeanos, and East Indians

Dallas has a larger population of: Koreans, Laotians, Thais, and Khmer (Cambodians)

Dallas does also have the 4th largest Vietnamese population in the country behind Houston as well as a sizable Chinese and East Indian community and Houston still does have a sizable Korean community.

Houston also has about 35,000 more Asians on the whole than does Dallas.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineDLPhoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3781 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 9):
Houston also has about 35,000 more Asians on the whole than does Dallas.

And 90% of those will take a 3 connection trip to save $100/ticket on a VFR trip.
A ULH route costs more (You need more fuel to lift the fuel required for such a long flight...) and is therefore dependent on high yield O/D business traffic.

DLP


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7499 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3754 times:



Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 10):
A ULH route costs more (You need more fuel to lift the fuel required for such a long flight...) and is therefore dependent on high yield O/D business traffic.

Exactly. ULH is super expensive to operate. The costs are obviously worth it when you have a city pair like IAH and DXB with lots of oil ties. But when you take a city pair like IAH and BKK, there are not many business ties at all. Carriers wont operate ULH routes for VFR traffic for the most part.

Texas actually has the 3rd largest Thai population in the USA after Cali and NY, but the VFR is no where near large enough to justify a direct route from Texas.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineAznMadSci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3658 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3726 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 9):
Filipeanos

Filipinos, love, Filipinos!  Wink



The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3699 times:



Quoting Avek00 (Thread starter):
Does anyone know whether TG has considered opening IAH anytime in the near future? Admittedly, I am surprised that TG has not attempted to make a go at the IAH market, because Bangkok is ideally positioned to capture the lion's share of East-of-the-Mississippi traffic to Southeast Asia.

Do I detect a bit of attempted Texas one-up-man-ship in this thread?

IAH may be ideally positioned to capture the East-of-the-Mississippi traffic to BKK, but LAX is even more ideally positioned to capture the entire US, Mexico, Central America and Canada traffic to BKK.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 1):
IAH has the potential to be a big Star hub with Singapore, Lufthansa, etc, so we will see what kind of connecting traffic CO can bring in from all of its Mexico and Central American routes to attract future carriers.

SFO is already a big Star hub and TG does not fly there. AFAIK it never has.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3584 times:



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
SFO is already a big Star hub and TG does not fly there. AFAIK it never has.

Which is nice, but I didn't mention TG in the second part of my post, just Star. A non-sequitor if you will.



Ciao Windjet mi manchi
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24859 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3571 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 8):
If TG were stupid enough to open up IAH, it would be a massive failure. The fact that JFK couldnt work speaks volumes. LAX is the only (and I do mean only) destination that can really work from TG year round.

I doubt any TG services to North America have ever been profitable.


User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3567 times:



Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 1):
IAH has the potential to be a big Star hub with Singapore, Lufthansa, etc, so we will see what kind of connecting traffic CO can bring in from all of its Mexico and Central American routes to attract future carriers.

Actually, I doubt that much will happen with IAH.

People from Central America and Mexico don't like to connect in the US because nearly all the Latin nations are visa countries. This means that people have to get a US visa in order to connect in the US.

Continental would have to get some sort of holding room for transit passengers connecting because the CBP does not allow TWOV pax any more otherwise.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3461 times:

I agree 110% with Eghansen that the CBP and current USCIS rules are a hinderance for US connections.

Though plenty of Central Americans already use IAH (as they do MIA, LAX, DFW etc) for connections and IAH is currently doing some marketing in the LatAm region re: service and connections via Houston. Time will tell if it works.

IAH actually has a transit lounge, but I am not sure if it is currently used for any connections due to CBP rules. Anyone know? I have never connected there without US Docs.



Ciao Windjet mi manchi
User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3444 times:



Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 17):
I agree 110% with Eghansen that the CBP and current USCIS rules are a hinderance for US connections.

They have had perverse effects on the competition. I believe the rules were instrumental in AeroMexico's decision to start service MEX-TIJ-NRT. They also forced Iberia to close their MIA mini-hub and inaugurate nonstop service to MAD from SJO, GUA and Panama.

"Iberia plans to cut its daily flights from Madrid to Miami from two to one, and will begin flying directly to Guatemala and Panama from Spain — bypassing the stopover in Miami so its passengers can avoid dealing with the visa issue and its $100 fee. "

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-07-05-iberia-mia_x.htm


User currently offlineAznMadSci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3658 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3427 times:



Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 17):
IAH actually has a transit lounge, but I am not sure if it is currently used for any connections due to CBP rules. Anyone know? I have never connected there without US Docs.

There used to be one and there might still be one, but not in use, especially when AF used to CDG-IAH-MEX back in the day. Now, and I know this to be true for international transit at IAH flying on CO, say you did CDG-IAH-MEX on CO, you only have to go through US Immigration and not customs. It does seem that those from Latin America using the US as a transit point to Europe or Asia already have US Visas with multiple entries so it becomes just a mere document check at US Immigration.



The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3402 times:



Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 19):
There used to be one and there might still be one, but not in use, especially when AF used to CDG-IAH-MEX back in the day. Now, and I know this to be true for international transit at IAH flying on CO, say you did CDG-IAH-MEX on CO, you only have to go through US Immigration and not customs. It does seem that those from Latin America using the US as a transit point to Europe or Asia already have US Visas with multiple entries so it becomes just a mere document check at US Immigration.

AF hasn't flown CDG-IAH-MEX for ages. They currently fly non-stop to MEX - as does LH, BA, KL and IB.

Those Mexicans and Central Americans using the US as a transit point for Europe and Asia probably do have multiple entry visas. The rest fly nonstop to and from Europe on AM, MX, AF, KL, BA, LH and IB and those flying to Asia fly AM and JL. JL's flight stops in YVR to avoid the US problem. Getting a US visa takes weeks and costs $100 which is not worth it to only change airplanes.


User currently offlineHohd From United States of America, joined May 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2595 times:

While TG may not work at IAH, many critics said the same thing when SQ introduced the flight from IAH via Moscow. SQ is still flying with semi-decent loads and with CO's entry to Star it will see an increase in pax.

And yes, the visa rules are a major hindrance as compared to European cities. In fact for many in latin america it is hard to get even a transit visa to US. CO and other airlines had little traffic international transit traffic to begin with, and now it is almost nonexistent.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24859 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2111 times:



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 20):
JL's flight stops in YVR to avoid the US problem.

That's not why JL operates via YVR. They've been operating to MEX via YVR for about 40 years. I think the original reason was because they didn't have traffic rights that permitted 5th freedom local traffic between US points and MEX. That may still be the case. There's also much less competition YVR-MEX than from US west coast gateways like LAX.


User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2034 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
That's not why JL operates via YVR. They've been operating to MEX via YVR for about 40 years.

But the US problem is not new. Even when there was TWOV, it would still be a hassle to route through the US because of our "everybody must get off at the first port of entry and clear immigration and customs" policy.

Most other airports in the world have transit lounge arrangements.


User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1633 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

If CO joins *A, I wouldn't be surprised to see NZ operate (Australia)-AKL (hub)-IAH (hub) and code-sharing on CO for the midwest and eastern USA. They've signalled ORD as their next likely US port, but that was before CO signalled an intention to join *A. I think that IAH makes more sense, not least because it is not quite so ULH as ORD would be, and therefore not so expensive to operate. It's also better positioned for the southern states. Not that this could happen until (a) NZ takes delivery of its 789s in 2013, and (b) the global recession is over.

How times have changed since I used CO regularly in the '80s to travel from Europe to New Zealand and back two or three times a year. In those days CO was a joke - the only reason I travelled on them was 'cos they were so cheap (as many jokes are). But now, it's a whole new ball game.



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 25, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

IAH just not going to happen for TG. People talking about BKK as it it were an energy hub like Singapore is to some degree - it isnt. A regional hub yes, but of little relevance to Texans concerned with oil and gas.

I can see them going daily on LAX and leaving it at that. In the future we may see the return of JFK flights but probably via a star alliance hub first, so more than likely it will be BKK-SFO-JFK with a UA codeshare, using 772ER or A359 metal. Not for a while yet though.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
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...
Any Possibility For TG To Pick Up SQ's TPE-LAX? posted Sat Apr 5 2008 11:00:34 by FAH345
Has Champion Air Given Up Already? posted Tue Jan 22 2008 13:33:38 by Pmk
Has Air Canada Given Up On Their Mint Green Colour posted Fri Dec 14 2007 08:04:42 by Whappeh
E-Jets Opening Up New US Routes? posted Tue Nov 8 2005 11:02:58 by FLY777UAL
Boeing Has New 787 Graphics Up On Site posted Tue Jun 14 2005 05:15:25 by DL021
Allegiant Has Back-Up 737's? posted Sat Aug 23 2008 15:43:07 by Isitsafenow
Has AF Or KLM Considered The 747-8? posted Sat Apr 14 2007 04:40:35 by JAM747
Has DL Given Up Expanding At BOS? posted Thu Sep 14 2006 12:36:27 by ChrisNH
IAH (HAS) Article posted Sun Jun 25 2006 01:05:13 by Thomasphoto60
Qantas Airways Has Back-up Plan For Code-share posted Tue Jun 20 2006 01:32:44 by Zkojh