Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
warreng24
Topic Author
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:57 am

I've noticed that TG seems to want to move towards a "non-stop" route structure via BKK.

They've killed LAX-KIX-BKK with a LAX-BKK N/S.

Also, they've started the BKK-JFK N/S. Rumors on this board have also indicated SFO-BKK and ORD-BKK.

My question is why did TG decide on the A340 for these routes and not the 777-300ER or -200LR. I can understand that they might not want to wait for the LR. But couldn't a 300ER make LAX/SFO-BKK?

[Edited 2005-12-03 16:57:50]
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:01 am

TG did have ETOPS issues a while back. They also use the Trent engine on their 777 aircraft, which could be another factor.

TG could also have concluded that the A340 was their choice for the job. Not everyone wants to use big twins on long range routes, although that is becoming an outdated way of thinking in the industry.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
Magyarorszag
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:53 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:37 am

Don't forget that TG also operates a dozen A333 around Asia, meaning the same kind of cockpit and thus the potential to cross use pilots on both types. Doing so, pilots could fly short to long haul flights. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers.

M.
 
Aither
Posts: 1284
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:43 am

Why they should not have decided for the A340 ?
Never trust the obvious
 
atnight
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:06 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:11 am

Quoting Aither (Reply 3):
Why they should not have decided for the A340 ?

Exactly, the A340 is an excellent aircraft. Any airline is free to choose according to their needs and to what they consider is the best way to go. Not every airline has to choose the B777, and although it may be a better performer, it was not available to TG when they needed to start non-stop, plus the extra cost of buying one may be another factor....

Quoting Magyarorszag (Reply 2):
Don't forget that TG also operates a dozen A333 around Asia, meaning the same kind of cockpit and thus the potential to cross use pilots on both types.

especially as TG is also getting A380s...
B707 B727 B733/5/7/8/9 B742/4 B752/3 B763/4 B772 A310 A318/319/320 A332 A343 MD80 DC9/10 CRJ200 ERJ145 ERJ-170 Be1900 Da
 
User avatar
jorge1812
Posts: 2914
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:11 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:11 am

And don't forget that tha A 340-500/600 was/is availabale before the B 777-200ER and was (IIRC) before the B 777-300ER.

Georg.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:15 am

It's a valid question.

The A340 is a new fleet type for Thai, though understandably there are commonality advantages with the A330. The engine issue is moot, as the A340s have engines that Thai has no experience with whatsoever. and anyway, TG has a history of odd selections for its engine types, largely due to political interference I believe.

To be honest, I'd say availability is probably the only reason.
 
Magyarorszag
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:53 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:17 am

Quoting Atnight (Reply 4):
especially as TG is also getting A380s.

Exactly!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:20 am

Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 6):
The engine issue is moot, as the A340s have engines that Thai has no experience with whatsoever.

They're Trents. A trent is a trent is a trent in general architecture, and they're accustomed to their fleet of Trent 800s (although they're accustomed to trouble with them).

N
 
Magyarorszag
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:53 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:41 am

Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 6):
The engine issue is moot, as the A340s have engines that Thai has no experience with whatsoever.



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 8):
They're Trents. A trent is a trent is a trent in general architecture, and they're accustomed to their fleet of Trent 800s (although they're accustomed to trouble with them).

TG B777-200s & -300s are also powered by Trent engines. The 875 for the "short" body version and by Trent 892 for the long one.

Greetings.

M.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:56 am

Does the TG A333 have Trent 700 engines? If so, the A345 and -6 make sense engine wise, they'll have Trent 500, 700 and 800 - and they are all very similar - the 500 is a scaled-down 800 with the 700 fan size...
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
Magyarorszag
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:53 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:16 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 10):
Does the TG A333 have Trent 700 engines?

No, they are PW4000 powered.

Cheers.
 
md90fan
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:15 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:20 am

They also have a few A300-600R's  wink 
http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:11 pm

The Answer is : WHY NOT?  Wink

Is it a must that all airlines have to order the B777 ? I do not think so...

There was a ETOPS Problem at THAI some years ago, which caused some inflight shutdowns. Remember every Airline may only have 2 shutdowns every 1000 flights...If I rember correctly THAI had around 2,1 / 1000 and forced both Boeing and RR to improve the reliability of their B777-300 Fleet.Otherwise they would order the A345/346-Combo.They were limited to 60! min ETOPS.Not really enough to fly ETOPS Longhaulflights...

The rate did not improve and they ordered Airbus 345/346.(one add. order later on as well! )

This is what could happen to every ETOPS Airline.So an A340 is sometimes a wise choice...

On the other hand they operate A300-600R,A330 and have A380 on order... Wink
 
LPLAspotter
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:27 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:03 pm

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 1):
TG did have ETOPS issues a while back



Quoting Johnny (Reply 13):
There was a ETOPS Problem at THAI some years ago, which caused some inflight shutdowns. Remember every Airline may only have 2 shutdowns every 1000 flights

Can anyone elaborate the details of this misshap? I'm especially curious at what route the aircraft in question was flying.

LPLAspotter
Nuke the Gay Wales for Christ
 
jakob77
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:09 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:17 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 13):
This is what could happen to every ETOPS Airline.So an A340 is sometimes a wise choice...

are u suggesting that airlines could slack off on maintenance when they have quads like A340s?
 
User avatar
centrair
Posts: 2899
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:21 pm

I thought that maybe they got it to keep up with the Jone's...I mean the Chens (From Singapore).

If that is the case, then when SQ gets the LR, then maybe TG will floow suit.
My name is Centrair but HND is closer. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:33 pm

Quoting Warreng24 (Thread starter):
Also, they've started the BKK-JFK N/S. Rumors on this board have also indicated SFO-BKK and ORD-BKK.

My question is why did TG decide on the A340 for these routes and not the 777-300ER or -200LR. I can understand that they might not want to wait for the LR. But couldn't a 300ER make LAX/SFO-BKK?

Well, a 7880nm 773ER probably could do BKK-LAX/SFO. But a 346HGW would be able to do the BKK-LAX run too... and they didn't order any either.
But a 346 should be able to do BKK-SFO.


They will probably just use the 5 340-500 they ordered for the JFK,ORD(if they start this route) and LAX runs. The 345's have no problem performing those routes.

Regards:
A360
 
FXMD11
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:34 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:11 am

Quoting Aerokiwi (Reply 6):
It's a valid question

Yes it is,mate!

The issue with TG having Airbus 330/340 goes deeper and can probably only
observed and followed here in Bangkok/Thailand itself. This entire 340 issue
was a goverment conflict between the Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra, an industrial tycoon (Belongs to Fortune 500 richest people of the world) and the European Union. Believe it or not, but this goes back a couple of years and has a lot to do with Thailand's Shrimp,Chicken and Rice Export to the EU, where Thai Shrimp and Chicken was baned for a while (it still is for the US).

A couple of years ago (February 2003) there was a headline in the Bangkok Post "Shrimps in exchange for Airbus Orders!". Thaksin, the PM, refused to
buy any Airbus if the EU would not lift their restrictions to imports from Thailand. Do not forget, that these products make very important trade money for Thailand.Today, Thailand is the biggest exporter of frozen shrimps worldwide as well as 3rd biggest in Rice and ranks 5th for chicken.

To cut the story short- this entire Airbus issue was political and TG being partly owned by the Thai Goverment (fully owned by time of decision) had to
follow the Premier Ministers Guidelines and Instructions. TG could not make any strategic decision for Boeing. Also, working here at BKK's Don Muang Airport, Airbus has quite a large office here with some good staff. Boeing closed their's in 1999. Thai Politics tend to lean more towards Europe since
a last couple of years.

Hope this will explain a bit more
 
warreng24
Topic Author
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:13 am

Quoting Aither (Reply 3):

In a time where airlines are trying to consolidate fleet types, you would think that TG would have been weary of adding yet another type to their fleet.

But, I guess I can understand their logic for meeting the requirements:
1) Cockpit commonality with A330 (commonality with A300 also?)
2) I believe that TG operates an all RR fleet?
3) Need to be able to operate long haul routes at a 200-300 seat capacity.

Makes sense. Although I am very very very upset about this new strategy of long haul with the semi-widebodies (such as the 340 & 767).

I can't stand the thought of being trapped in a Y seat for more than 12 + hours. Especially in a semi-widebody. There's the sense of claustrofobia.
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:00 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 19):



Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 19):
Makes sense. Although I am very very very upset about this new strategy of long haul with the semi-widebodies (such as the 340 & 767).

I can't stand the thought of being trapped in a Y seat for more than 12 + hours. Especially in a semi-widebody. There's the sense of claustrofobia.

The 340 is a semi-widebody!?  rotfl 

So, only 777's and bigger cross sections are wide bodies?! Btw, by your standarts, will the 787 be a semi-widebody or a real widebody?

Regards:
A360
 
airbazar
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:11 am

Quoting FXMD11 (Reply 18):
The issue with TG having Airbus 330/340 goes deeper and can probably only
observed and followed here in Bangkok/Thailand itself. This entire 340 issue
was a goverment conflict between the Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra, an industrial tycoon (Belongs to Fortune 500 richest people of the world) and the European Union. Believe it or not, but this goes back a couple of years and has a lot to do with Thailand's Shrimp,Chicken and Rice Export to the EU, where Thai Shrimp and Chicken was baned for a while (it still is for the US).

Aren't you confusing the issue that led to the A380 order with this one? TG has had the A333's long before the shrimp,chicken and Rice export issue. Moreover, they've had the A300 for even longer. Granted, the A300 has no comonality with the A330/340 but it proves that they've been an Airbus customer for a long time and that the dispute with the EU had little to do with it.
 
Aither
Posts: 1284
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:18 am

And if i well remember they have ordered these Airbus aircraft before this shrimp issue. Then only later they have threatened to cancel the Airbus order.
Never trust the obvious
 
MarshalN
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:39 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:32 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 19):
Makes sense. Although I am very very very upset about this new strategy of long haul with the semi-widebodies (such as the 340 & 767).

I can't stand the thought of being trapped in a Y seat for more than 12 + hours. Especially in a semi-widebody. There's the sense of claustrofobia.

And the 777 is a real widebody? Huh?
 
warreng24
Topic Author
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:57 am

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 23):

My classification of a widebody is anything that will fit a 8+ across seating configuration.

TG fits their A340's in a 7 across arrangement (similar to the typical 767 arrangement).

TG fits their 777, 747, MD11, A310, and A330, in a 10, 10, 9, 8, and 8 across (respectively).
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:04 am

Quoting LPLAspotter (Reply 14):
I'm especially curious at what route the aircraft in question was flying.

It wasn't an aircraft in question. TG had a spate of ETOPS related failures and exceeded ETOPS standards. They had to modify their routings and everything for a lot of their trips as a result.

N
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:00 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 24):
TG fits their A340's in a 7 across arrangement (similar to the typical 767 arrangement).

No they don't. They fit the 340's with 8 abreast in Y, just like any other airline in the world.
Also, they have 7 abreast in Y+ on the 340's, as seen in other airlines which operate the 340's with Y+ (VS and SQ for example).

Btw... airlines usually configure the 777's with 8 abreast in Y+ (BA for example).

Regards:
A360
 
JetMaster
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:08 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 19):

Makes sense. Although I am very very very upset about this new strategy of long haul with the semi-widebodies (such as the 340 & 767).



Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 24):

My classification of a widebody is anything that will fit a 8+ across seating configuration.

And that classification is based on - what? Common classification in the industry is "two aisles = widebody".


Regards,
JM
The Journey is my Destination
 
egnr
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:31 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:18 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 24):
My classification of a widebody is anything that will fit a 8+ across seating configuration.

Good, then you'll concede that the A300, A310, A330 and A340 are indeed widebody aircraft...
A300 & A310:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gustav Gnosspelius
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TriplET


A330 & A340:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Konstantin von Wedelstaedt
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



Some A300s, A310s and some A330s operate in 9 across seating layouts...
A300 & A310:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Harri Koskinen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marlo Plate - Iberian Spotters


A330:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brett Charlton



The 767 even occasionally makes it as a 'widebody' with some airlines...
B767:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Savvas Petoussis

7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:22 am

Ok, point taken on the Trents. I thought the Trents on the A340 series were somewhat different to those on the 777.
 
FXMD11
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:34 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:12 am

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 21):
Aren't you confusing the issue that led to the A380 order with this one? TG has had the A333's long before the shrimp,chicken and Rice export issue. Moreover, they've had the A300 for even longer. Granted, the A300 has no comonality with the A330/340 but it proves that they've been an Airbus customer for a long time and that the dispute with the EU had little to do with it.

This issue is going on since 1999 and found his peak in early 2001. Airbus has been a minority in TG's Fleet as well as in the Thai Market. PG just received their first Airbus late last year. TG's 300/310's made less then 10% of the entire fleet before the 330 was introduced. The 340 and later 380 issue were triggered by the Trade Problems Thailand has/had with the EU.

As I mentioned, this is a scenario what can be observed and followed locally nearly on a weekly basis, if you study the Thai News. Sure enough, this is not
a case what reached international attention, but believe me these were the reasons.

Anyway, the 777 Fleet is double the 340 Fleet with 14 x 777 (6x-300 and 8-200) against 7 x 340 (3x500 and 4x600)
 
airbazar
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:07 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 24):
My classification of a widebody is anything that will fit a 8+ across seating configuration.

TG fits their A340's in a 7 across arrangement (similar to the typical 767 arrangement).

So, let me get this. You won't travel for 12+ hours on one because you'll feel clausrophobic but you're all in favor of squeezing an extra seat and increasing the number of middle seats? What drugs are you smoking?

I have news for you: one of the bigest selling points of the 767 and A340 was the reduced number of middle seats as a result of the 2-3-2 and 2-4-2 configurations, respectiveley.

There is no way in hell the middle seat of a 747 or 777 is better than a window/isle seat on an 767 or A340, but your chances of getting a middle seat on a 747/777 are far greater.
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:18 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Thread starter):
They've killed LAX-KIX-BKK with a LAX-BKK N/S.

Also, they've started the BKK-JFK N/S. Rumors on this board have also indicated SFO-BKK and ORD-BKK.

My question is why did TG decide on the A340 for these routes and not the 777-300ER or -200LR.

They would not have killed these routes yet since the 772LR is still not in service... And fleet-wise, 345+773ER does not make too much sense although TG has 772+773A...
When I doubt... go running!
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7064
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:32 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Thread starter):
My question is why did TG decide on the A340 for these routes and not the 777-300ER or -200LR.

Very likely TG didn't want to cancel their flight or dramatically extend their route length (and be delayed) whenever an ETOPS diversion field happened to be fogged in or such. They have tough competition on their main routes, and regularity is something which is noticed by all customers.

At the end of the day the real reason is obviously the TG judged the 340 the supperior plane for their needs.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Nimish
Posts: 2969
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:46 pm

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:06 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Thread starter):
My question is why did TG decide on the A340 for these routes

I for one am really glad they chose the 345 - as I now get to fly LAX-BKK 17 hours non-stop tonight on the spanking new a/c (rather than the earlier stop via KIX on the old 747)! More power to TG and Airbus for opening up this route.
Incredible India!
 
trex8
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: TG: Why A340?

Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:40 pm

Quoting Aither (Reply 22):
And if i well remember they have ordered these Airbus aircraft before this shrimp issue. Then only later they have threatened to cancel the Airbus order.

thats exactly what happened, TG board approved the order but the Thai govt initially refused to let it go ahead till they got concessions from the EU, which IIRC they never really got anyway!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos