THAI ‘jumbo’ flight TG 679 skids off Suvarnabhumi runway while landing

[tso310]

Runway now back in action. Police hunting for illegal Burmese workers responsible for putting rain on the runway.

[NextStationBangkok]

3 hours ago, trainman34014 said:

How come the name and logo haven't been painted out; normally that would be done before the passengers are 'rescued' !

 

Too big to hide. ????

[ravip]

At the rate this post attract the Professional Thai Bashers, anyone would think that this is the first time an aircraft skidded, or that all THAI flights skid on landing!

[Ulic]

The real story here is the 97 passengers so an almost empty flight during a high season period of Chinese travel. So either the Chinese tourists have been greatly reduced or Thai Airways is so inefficient and costly Chinese tourists use them only as a last resort instead using only Chinese airlines. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, oldrunner said:

This one's an easy call, Blame the First Officer who is really in charge of the landing brakes.

 

In the wake of this THAI landing mishap, perhaps the government has now found a new Airport Director for DM, after the prior guy and the security chief supposedly got ousted after the security guard brawl fracas...

 

I'm guessing the aircraft's pilot might be headed for some kind of promotion to a non-flying assignment...

 

 

[FitnessHealthTravel]

9 hours ago, Wiggy said:

They bought 10 of them. The A340 was launched in 1993, but was followed in 1995 by the B777 which had similar range and payload but with only two engines, thus practically killing sales of the A340, of which only 378 were manufactured. Whereas more than 1,500 777s  have been delivered thus far.

Wow, someone can Google...impressive but absolutely useless data but thanks!

[Oztruckie]

Maybe they were attempting to copy the Qantas procedure from a few years back on conserving fuel during the landing procedure, wasn't it something like using a lower flaps setting of similar, maybe someone who remembers more about it can correct me. 

[zzaa09]

10 hours ago, Wiggy said:

No wonder they are losing so much money with only 97 passengers on a 747. Admittedly there could have been more on the outbound flight, but I doubt if it was the 400+ a 747 can hold, as it's too much of an imbalance. That said, it was a change of equipment from the usual 777.

Aside from all this latest, the Thai Airways folks have never conducted decent business practices. 

Been akin for some time now. 

[The Deerhunter]

10 hours ago, Wiggy said:

They bought 10 of them. The A340 was launched in 1993, but was followed in 1995 by the B777 which had similar range and payload but with only two engines, thus practically killing sales of the A340, of which only 378 were manufactured. Whereas more than 1,500 777s  have been delivered thus far.

Until international aviation rules changed a few years back, i was legally necessary to have 4 engines on some routes.  The A340 and 747 were needed for that. The A380 of course is not needed either and for many routes it is just too big.  It has nearly bankrupted some airlines who went A380 instead of B777.  747's are still just viable on some routes and cargo model still very popular.

[Oztruckie]

52 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

Until international aviation rules changed a few years back, i was legally necessary to have 4 engines on some routes.  The A340 and 747 were needed for that. The A380 of course is not needed either and for many routes it is just too big.  It has nearly bankrupted some airlines who went A380 instead of B777.  747's are still just viable on some routes and cargo model still very popular.

Boss of Qantas stated just recently the dreamliner on the Perth London route is about 20% cheaper to run than the A380, although the dreamliner carries a lot less passengers. 

[chainarong]

11 hours ago, Wiggy said:

They bought 10 of them. The A340 was launched in 1993, but was followed in 1995 by the B777 which had similar range and payload but with only two engines, thus practically killing sales of the A340, of which only 378 were manufactured. Whereas more than 1,500 777s  have been delivered thus far.

Interesting this topic, Qantas's pilots voted on the 4 engine as against 2 engines

[toofarnorth]

11 hours ago, stanleycoin said:

Is this a case of brake failure ?

this does happens some times in Thailand, oops  

Just what I was thinking , ............skidded off the runway in heavy rain.   Brake failure gets my vote. At least there was no minibus driving towards it ......or was there ?

[Artisi]

11 hours ago, stanleycoin said:

Is this a case of brake failure ?

this does happens some times in Thailand, oops  

And  did the driver flee the scene? 

[Argus Tuft]

4 hours ago, natway09 said:

 

EFTPOS made a 4 engine plane be able to fly straight whereas a 2 engine had restrictions making for flight deviations on route as 

having to be a certain distance from a suitable landing strip

ETOPS not EFTPOS

 

(Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim is our preferred backronym on that one)

[balo]

40 minutes ago, Artisi said:

And  did the driver flee the scene? 

Yes , the pilot opened the window, climbed out  and was last seen running away from the runway .   

[Stargeezr]

Hydroplaning is no fun in plane, bus truck or car, glad there was no injuries.

  I always loved flying on the B747, it is a tank, and was and still is one of

the safest jets to fly in, lots of built In redundancy.pardon the spelling,

Geezer

[boonrawdcnx]

Interesting this topic, Qantas's pilots voted on the 4 engine as against 2 engines

  

I have posted this on another threat regarding the A340‘s performance and efficiency.

 

Of course THAI has difficulties selling them because there are now much newer and more efficient planes on the market.

 

The A340 was Airbus’s first long range plane it was produced for 20 years. A340/2/3/5/6

With the A340 / 600 then holding the title of longest airliner in the world.

 

The A340 was then (in the 90’s) a real masterpiece in design, performance and efficiency.

 

Engineers and designers combined their expertise to develop an aircraft that could fly longer distances, get there faster, fly at higher altitude giving you a quieter and smoother ride.

 

The A340 Airbus’s first long range plane rivaled the performance of the Boeing 747 100 and 200 models.

 

The airplane is still in use with many airlines and over the last few years I had the joy of flying on A340’s on several airlines like Lufthansa BKK-FRA-BKK, Philippine Airlines across the pacific LAX-MNL for 14.5 hours nonstop - space was so great on that plane I almost wished the flight would last 30 hrs! 6 seats across the row of this enormous plane - see pics attached. Not even the upper deck on the A380 can rival that where they have 4 seats across on Emirates and it feels cramped. The 747 upper deck is even worse - the A340 was a great plane.

 

 

I flew on them several times with Air Tahiti Nui PPT - AKL, AKL- PPT , PPT - LAX LAX - CDG, NRT - PPT - NRT - they use A340’s exclusively on all their international routes and I don’t think they would do that if they would loose money on every international flight they offer!

 

Air Tahiti Nui fly the A340 on the PPT - LAX - CDG itinerary - an almost 10.000 mile journey - in 19 hours with a 2 hour stopover in LAX.

 

Of course they are outdated now like the B747’s having to compete with the wide body A350 or the A380 which can theoretically carry twice the amount of pax.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

[Jimdandy]

15 hours ago, webfact said:

The Boeing 747-400 held 97 passengers and 18 crew.

That aircraft has a capacity of more than 300 passengers! Only 97! from China! Speaks volumes to how much money the airline is losing. Plus the down time it will take to get that plane inspected and back into service.

[The Deerhunter]

3 hours ago, chainarong said:

Interesting this topic, Qantas's pilots voted on the 4 engine as against 2 engines

But they can fly a 2 engine plane on one engine and land safely so the economies of a large 2 engine plane with newer more efficient engines absolutely trounce 4 engine planes these days.    Also you make more money flying a  777/787/A350  full or almost full than a A380 1/2 or 2/3 full and many routes don't need 550 seats ever flight, and the B777-300 now has 450 seats.  The important formula is litres of fuel per seat on an almost full plane every flight.

[Skeptic7]

16 hours ago, SammyT said:

Me too. My biggest gripe with them is that their domestic flights are normally always 20 - 30 minutes late taking off but I can't fault their service otherwise when compared to other domestic carriers. 

Not just domestic. Have flown TG close to 2 dozen times, mostly international, and only arrived on time twice and slightly early once. Like all things Thai...Thai Time! 

[elgenon]

Chinese buy Chinese.

[Lacessit]

21 hours ago, boonrawdcnx said:

 

Well most other Airlines are flying A320’s or B737’s o these short routes to Guangzhou or similar distances.

B 747’s where built for long haul flights and not little hops.

I remember a pilot friend of mine once explained to me when he saw that Thai was using B747’s between BKK and CNX - 55 minutes flying time - what enormous strain every take off and landing puts on these huge planes.

And it makes a huge difference on the lifespan / maintenance cost / insurance of these planes if they did 1000’s when used long haul or 10000’s of take off’s and landings when used short haul.

I remember the days when you got on a flight and you had 3 or 4 seats to yourself to stretch out - just does not happen anymore with all the code sharing - a 747 with 97 pax that sounds like the 80’s!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

I remember getting on a 747 which was flying between Osaka and Tokyo. The Japanese were treating it like a bus. Barely got up to cruising altitude.

[Days Off]

14 hours ago, Ulic said:

The real story here is the 97 passengers so an almost empty flight during a high season period of Chinese travel. So either the Chinese tourists have been greatly reduced or Thai Airways is so inefficient and costly Chinese tourists use them only as a last resort instead using only Chinese airlines. 

Pure genius is the person that can deduce Chinese travel trends from statics of one flight on one airline!  How many passengers were on the flight a week earlier at the start of the week long holiday in China?  Would you expect a full fight on the Monday immediately following week long holiday in China?

[The Teacher]

22 hours ago, MekkOne said:

must get them here, no matter what, we need Chinese.

 

Another way to super impress their Chinese visitors, Lets see PM smooth over this one 

[ravip]

10 hours ago, boonrawdcnx said:

  

I have posted this on another threat regarding the A340‘s performance and efficiency.

 

Of course THAI has difficulties selling them because there are now much newer and more efficient planes on the market.

 

The A340 was Airbus’s first long range plane it was produced for 20 years. A340/2/3/5/6

With the A340 / 600 then holding the title of longest airliner in the world.

 

The A340 was then (in the 90’s) a real masterpiece in design, performance and efficiency.

 

Engineers and designers combined their expertise to develop an aircraft that could fly longer distances, get there faster, fly at higher altitude giving you a quieter and smoother ride.

 

The A340 Airbus’s first long range plane rivaled the performance of the Boeing 747 100 and 200 models.

 

The airplane is still in use with many airlines and over the last few years I had the joy of flying on A340’s on several airlines like Lufthansa BKK-FRA-BKK, Philippine Airlines across the pacific LAX-MNL for 14.5 hours nonstop - space was so great on that plane I almost wished the flight would last 30 hrs! 6 seats across the row of this enormous plane - see pics attached. Not even the upper deck on the A380 can rival that where they have 4 seats across on Emirates and it feels cramped. The 747 upper deck is even worse - the A340 was a great plane.

 

 

I flew on them several times with Air Tahiti Nui PPT - AKL, AKL- PPT , PPT - LAX LAX - CDG, NRT - PPT - NRT - they use A340’s exclusively on all their international routes and I don’t think they would do that if they would loose money on every international flight they offer!

 

Air Tahiti Nui fly the A340 on the PPT - LAX - CDG itinerary - an almost 10.000 mile journey - in 19 hours with a 2 hour stopover in LAX.

 

Of course they are outdated now like the B747’s having to compete with the wide body A350 or the A380 which can theoretically carry twice the amount of pax.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Very informative and interesting post, compared to many Thai, Chinese bashing posts here-in.

Very refreshing indeed, thank you!

[geriatrickid]

Would it kill some of the infrequent flyers here to  put their brains in gear before letting loose with their Thai Airways bashing?

All airlines have equipment swaps. TG obviously had an equipment change. Properly managed airlines do this instead of just canceling a flight and leaving pax to wait for the next flight.

 

To those  criticizing, do you know what the historic pax load on the route is? No airline will fly empty planes on a route. If you don't know the  daily load levels, why are you  commenting on the load? The 747  also has significant cargo capacity. Fewer pax onboard means more cargo can be carried. Did any of the critics see the  cargo manifest and know what the  weight carriage was? Maybe TG needed the heavy lift capacity of the B747? the airplane is  stable and best suited for certain types of heavy cargo.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Would it kill some of the infrequent flyers here to  put their brains in gear before letting loose with their Thai Airways bashing?

All airlines have equipment swaps. TG obviously had an equipment change. Properly managed airlines do this instead of just canceling a flight and leaving pax to wait for the next flight.

 

To those  criticizing, do you know what the historic pax load on the route is? No airline will fly empty planes on a route. If you don't know the  daily load levels, why are you  commenting on the load? The 747  also has significant cargo capacity. Fewer pax onboard means more cargo can be carried. Did any of the critics see the  cargo manifest and know what the  weight carriage was? Maybe TG needed the heavy lift capacity of the B747? the airplane is  stable and best suited for certain types of heavy cargo.

That sounds very reasonable, actually is not even high season for tourists, so it's quite normal to have less passengers on the planes.

Actually i have never thought before of passenger planes carrying cargo, but as it is, your theory makes sense.

In the very competitive market scenario, it's very unlikely that airlines can afford to fly airplanes for fun.

[Cereal]

Time for a baci at the airport. Some of those nasty "help me land" pi must have taken off. Pun intended.

[MekkOne]

2 hours ago, The Teacher said:

Another way to super impress their Chinese visitors, Lets see PM smooth over this one 

they will arrest the rain, and ban it from Thailand for 3 years.

 

[JohnThailandJohn]

On 10/8/2018 at 9:56 PM, Wiggy said:

No wonder they are losing so much money with only 97 passengers on a 747. Admittedly there could have been more on the outbound flight, but I doubt if it was the 400+ a 747 can hold, as it's too much of an imbalance. That said, it was a change of equipment from the usual 777.

 

They just posted a profit of 739 million baht ($22.33 million) for the third quarter that ended Sept. 30