Thai To Replace Ageing Fleet

[markr]

i'm really looking forward to it now!

[think_too_mut]

THAI to replace ageing fleet to keep up with region’s carriers

In fact, THAI’s average fleet age is twice that of rival Singapore Airlines.

There's a good reason for that. A fair proportion of TG's fleet is SIA's hand-me-downs.

They attempted to buy 4x 747 wrecks from United while it was in bankrupcy protection but it was rejected as "price too low".

Good they did not.

[bkk_mike]

Personally, I fly Thai, but it's because I'm over 6ft, and Thai's seats have more legroom.

In place of in-seat entertainment, I carry my PSP and my Ipod.

When flying Thai from Japan, they had seatback TVs in economy. And I believe, they also have them on the extra-long flight to NY, just not on most of the others.

Admittedly, when I first flew Thai 10 years ago, I didn't think anyone still flew long-haul without seatback TVs in all classes, so got a shock. And will admit Thai should be ashamed that they still have longhaul routes without seatback TVs. (although it's possible that they'd intended replacing the 747-400s with A380s, but the A380s are delayed...)

I did switch to BA once... - the contortions I had to make to get my legs comfortable were enough to make me vow to never fly long haul on BA again (at least not in economy). The seatback TVs were nice, but I prefer to have the use of my legs when I land. Also if I'm flying overnight, like I do to/from London, I prefer direct flights in case I manage to sleep, so that rules out SQ.

I think Thailand is just a little backwards in tech, and the lack of seatback TVs on Thai's planes is just one symptom.

- There are no HD broadcasts in Thailand, even on satellite, and the terrestrial TV is all still analogue (when some parts of Europe have already gone 100% digital).

- Satellite TV has so few channels compared to what you get in the west.

- Broadband in Thailand is SLOW...

- Cordless phones in Thailand seem to be very large. (although I have seen some smaller ones recently)

- There's no 3G (OK - I'll admit there's EV-DO in Phuket, but no 3G in Bangkok / Pattaya).

i.e Think of Thailand as being roughly 10 years behind (technologically), with some things a little further back (like the seatback TVs, cordless phones), and some a little less (like broadband and mobiles where they're maybe only 5 years behind).

Edited May 29, 2007 by bkk_mike

[think_too_mut]

i.e Think of Thailand as being roughly 10 years behind (technologically), with some things a little further back (like the seatback TVs, cordless phones), and some a little less (like broadband and mobiles where they're maybe only 5 years behind).

Just about what US and Europe are behind Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Incidentally or not, best airlines come from those 3 places.

[Kaysfeld]

Personally, I fly Thai, but it's because I'm over 6ft, and Thai's seats have more legroom.

I am surprised to hear that the legroom is better on Thai than on BA.

I think Thai have quite poor legroom, so BA must be terrible. Very surprising, as legroom hasn't improved on Thais 747 fleet the last 19 years as far as I am aware.

[Kaysfeld]

I've given up on Thai. Frankly, it's a shockingly bad airline. I recall flying TG from Sydney to Bkk once, in business class. Not only did this particular plane not have inseat entertainment (in business class, mind), but I was positioned in a spot where i couldnt even see the ###### screen.

A similar experience flying back from Beijing last week too . . . . . NEVER AGAIN.

Thai Airways business class to Copenhagen and Stockholm have improved since last year, since Thai scraped First class on their old 747-400 to Scandinavia and moved Business to the old First class seats.

The old Business is now a Economy Plus with old, but large seats with good legroom, but still no inflight entertainment system as normale on all Thais 747-400 Business Class to Europe.

[Kaysfeld]

Flying Singapore Airlines is like driving a Mercedes Benz compared to Thais old Pickup feeling.

It is only the passengers that can force them to improve by selecting better airlines.

Yes, it's true that SIA and Cathay are much better airlines with newer fleet. The problem is for those of us who live in Thailand, and who travel frequently around Asia, you have to default to Thai Airways, with the most frequent flight schedules, esp. for the gold ROP membership, clubs, wifi, etc.. A number of people prefer to accumulate miles on SIA (still star alliance), and willingly go out of their way to make connections in SIN. Depends on your priorities. time is more important to me than a seatback TV.

It is true that Thai have an advantage in direct flight to BKK, which is the reason why they can get away with charging the same price as SIA and deliver so poor quality.

For people living in Northern or Southern Thailand, you can get the quality of SIA for your long flight and make your change to Phuket or Chiang Mai in Singapore in stead of BKK, as SIA fly direct to these destinations from SIN.

[Ping]

All of a pity really, because years ago Thai was a good mob. Just gone downhill over the years. As for legroom, Thai is 34" to SIA's 32" - http://www.westernair.co.uk/seatpitch.html

so there is little difference and both are well beyond the industry minimum of 26". I have found SIA's 777-200s (MEL - SIN) to have plenty of legroom.

[bkk_mike]

Personally, I fly Thai, but it's because I'm over 6ft, and Thai's seats have more legroom.

I am surprised to hear that the legroom is better on Thai than on BA.

I think Thai have quite poor legroom, so BA must be terrible. Very surprising, as legroom hasn't improved on Thais 747 fleet the last 19 years as far as I am aware.

Legroom never improves... - Airlines are forever trying to squeeze in more people... The only way it will ever get better is if someone wins a lawsuit on DVT being caused by the aircraft seats, or some body, such as the EU, introduces some sort of legislation on seat pitch and flight time.

That or a mass heightening of the population... - i.e. If everyone was over 6ft, BA would have to have more leg room, or everyone, would be like me, and avoid them...

Anyway, one bad thing I did notice on the Thai flight from Japan last year... - the seatback TVs mean there was a metal box under one of the seats in each set of 3, which cut down on leg room (but not on seat pitch - which is simply a measure from the back of one seat to the back of the next).

[dr_Pat_Pong]

They are occasionally using new planes on the BKK to BNE route.

Just noticed something annoying: Flight number TG983 BKK to BNE ceases at the end of this month. It's a direct 8hr 45min direct flight. Departs BKK at 11.40pm, gets into BNE at 11.25am the next day.

From 01 June It will be replaced with TG991, which departs BKK at 8.00am (roll up at 5.00am at Suvarnabhumi - yawn!) and goes to BNE via SYD, arriving at BNE at 10.45pm. This adds an extra 3 hours to the trip.

I can't understand why Thai Airways is dropping the direct flight as it's always full. No other carrier flies direct.

Peter

TG have made a bad commercial decision in this change.

[Weho]

They might want to retire some of their ageing flight attendants... have you seen some of them? I was on a recent flight from Bangkok to wherever, and one of the economy flight attendents looked they they just got hit by a bus. Still get on an American, United, Delta or Northwest flight, and they look like they should all be in nursing homes.

[Trevor]

They might want to retire some of their ageing flight attendants... have you seen some of them? I was on a recent flight from Bangkok to wherever, and one of the economy flight attendents looked they they just got hit by a bus. Still get on an American, United, Delta or Northwest flight, and they look like they should all be in nursing homes.

Yes, economy stews are a mixed bag. The 'little princesses' (offspring of the higher military ranks), and the cuties, get the plum jobs in Business & First. Sardine-class trolley dollies do their best, and sometimes will meet you for a date and more (if you're prepared to go through the standard marriage-interrogation).

Thai really needs to get some foreign management in (whatever happened to the SAS connection?) to run its airline and airports. The 'old crates' on the LHR-BKK route are the same as in 1992. Worst are the sagging, knackered-spring seats. And avoid the toxic tartrazine-laced 'orange juice' like the plague. Some might argue the lack of IFE is a boon to sleep on night flights.

Are these 18-year-old 747s safe? Thai hasn't crashed on this route yet, but guess it depends on maintenance and pilot skill.

[Kaysfeld]

Personally, I fly Thai, but it's because I'm over 6ft, and Thai's seats have more legroom.

I am surprised to hear that the legroom is better on Thai than on BA.

I think Thai have quite poor legroom, so BA must be terrible. Very surprising, as legroom hasn't improved on Thais 747 fleet the last 19 years as far as I am aware.

Legroom never improves... - Airlines are forever trying to squeeze in more people... The only way it will ever get better is if someone wins a lawsuit on DVT being caused by the aircraft seats, or some body, such as the EU, introduces some sort of legislation on seat pitch and flight time.

That or a mass heightening of the population... - i.e. If everyone was over 6ft, BA would have to have more leg room, or everyone, would be like me, and avoid them...

Anyway, one bad thing I did notice on the Thai flight from Japan last year... - the seatback TVs mean there was a metal box under one of the seats in each set of 3, which cut down on leg room (but not on seat pitch - which is simply a measure from the back of one seat to the back of the next).

It seems that Thai have very good legroom in economyclass compared to most other airlines with a 34", where most airlines, including Singapore Airlines only have 32". BA is even worse at 31".

The better quality of the seats on Singapore Airlines must be the reason why you feel more conftable on SIA than Thai, because according to the numbers Thai should feel better.

For a list the legroom in different classes on different airlines see the following list:

http://www.airlinequality.com/Product/seats_global.htm

[Kaysfeld]

According to http://www.airlinequality.com/StarRanking/5star.htm

there is only 5 airlines with top ranking these are:

Asiana Airlines

Malaysia Airlines

Qatar Airways

Singapore Airlines

Cathay Pacific Airways

The highest Quality performance 5 Star status recognizes airlines at the forefront of product innovation, that generally set trends to be followed by other carriers.

A 5 Star ranking recognises highest standard of Product across the different quality assessment categories, and consistently high standards of Staff Service delivery in Onboard and Airport environments.

Thai Airways is ranked a 4 star arlines, which is awarded to airlines supplying a good Quality performance across the range of Product and Service delivery rating areas.

A 4 Star ranking signifies airlines providing a good standard of Product across all travel categories - and a good standard of Staff Service delivery in Onboard and Airport environment.

As many know the can be considerable quality difference between a new Thai Airbus A340-500 or A340-600 and an old Boeing 747-400 or 747-300. They don't compare.

As a comment to my previous posting in this topic 34" on Thai is SEAT PITCH not legroom.

This is the distance between a row of seats - the measurement from the same position on two seats, one behind the other - it is NOT the legroom area as some believe. (For example, the back face of the seat in front of you, measured to the same point on the back face of the seat you are sitting in).

The 34" of Thai Airways may be their new standard on new product installations like the Airbus A340 that may not be completed or available across an airline's whole fleet of aircraft. So the Seat Pitch may or may not be smaller than the 34" on the old 747-400's.

[cdnvic]

Are these 18-year-old 747s safe? Thai hasn't crashed on this route yet, but guess it depends on maintenance and pilot skill.

Their oldest one is 17, the rest were delivered over a few years and are somewhat newer. The average age of Thai's 747 fleet is 11.9 years, slightly older than the fleet average of 10.7 years. The age is well within the range of many other airlines.

Edited June 2, 2007 by cdnvic

[pampal]

I think their Domestic flights are better than the International flights, mainly because the of the short duration of the flight

[lomatopo]

Thai Airways fleet age

AFAIK the plan to purchase the A330-300's has been put on hold by the transportation minister pending further review. Boeing has been doing some last minute lobbying via the U. S. Ambassador in hopes of selling 777's into the A300 replacement application. Personal revenue enhancement opportunities will probably affect the final decision as the transport minister probably didn't participate in the Airbus deal.

In addition to the A340's (-500/-600), four B777-200ER's have seat-back IFE in Y (economy).

TG has been refitting their 747-es with new C (business class) and F (first class), and I thought they were adding IFE in Y but this is apparently not the case. They have re-fitted 6+ of 18 747 aircraft.

I fly TG often, more segments domestically (12 segments in C) than internationally (4 segments, BKK-FRA-BKK, in F). I find TG's domestic service above average, far superior to SQ's domestic service ( they don't have any domestic service of course), and their international service, as I experience it, is equal to or better than SQ and NH (I've not experienced SQ's new C or F cabins, which U understand are quite impressive.)

I fly NH, SQ, TG, LH and UA only, and rank them in terms of overall experience (excluding frequent flier programs) in that order.

[Ping]

Thai should be highly profitable, but it is forever cancelling so-called unprofitable routes. While it claims to have remained in profit for each of the past forty years, it blames high fuel cost as contributing to a substantial decline in the level of profit (thus the cutbacks to remain in the black). One would suspect this to be the reason for lack of fleet churn. Of course, whether there could be any other reasons...

[tw25rw]

Thai should be highly profitable, but it is forever cancelling so-called unprofitable routes. While it claims to have remained in profit for each of the past forty years, it blames high fuel cost as contributing to a substantial decline in the level of profit (thus the cutbacks to remain in the black). One would suspect this to be the reason for lack of fleet churn. Of course, whether there could be any other reasons...

They should be up there with Singapore. They have their precious 'hub' at BKK. They have routes to the US, Europe, Asia and Australasia. They have relatively low labour costs. They have a domestic network, which SIA lacks. All that's lacking is management with some business accumen.

[Ricardo]

Thai should be highly profitable, but it is forever cancelling so-called unprofitable routes. While it claims to have remained in profit for each of the past forty years, it blames high fuel cost as contributing to a substantial decline in the level of profit (thus the cutbacks to remain in the black). One would suspect this to be the reason for lack of fleet churn. Of course, whether there could be any other reasons...

They should be up there with Singapore. They have their precious 'hub' at BKK. They have routes to the US, Europe, Asia and Australasia. They have relatively low labour costs. They have a domestic network, which SIA lacks. All that's lacking is management with some business accumen.

The management & high-fuel-cost problems are linked. A more-modern fleet would have lower fuel-burn per-seat, as airframes & engines become more-efficient, but management need to finance fleet-renewal.

It is simpler to plod on with an ageing fleet, and raise your prices to customers, but you gradually lose loyal customers to the competition.

Splitting your domestic & international hubs was also a master-stroke ... NOT !

[cdnvic]

It is simpler to plod on with an ageing fleet, and raise your prices to customers, but you gradually lose loyal customers to the competition.

Thai Air's fleet age is actually about the same as many other "first world" fleets such as BA, JAL, Air Canada, Alitalia, Delta, Northwest, etc.

Edited June 6, 2007 by cdnvic

[Soju]

Splitting your domestic & international hubs was also a master-stroke ... NOT !

That had to be one of the all-time biggest blunders made by TG. Amazing that they allow that idiot president to run their airline into the ground. I really hope someone wakes up and realizes what a bunch of fools they have on their board.

[bkkandrew]

It is simpler to plod on with an ageing fleet, and raise your prices to customers, but you gradually lose loyal customers to the competition.

Thai Air's fleet age is actually about the same as many other "first world" fleets such as BA, JAL, Air Canada, Alitalia, Delta, Northwest, etc.

Which is why I fly with none of the above...

[tso310]

I think their Domestic flights are better than the International flights, mainly because the of the short duration of the flight

I think alot of the shorter flights have a number of trainee cabin crew and are thus usually more enthusiastic in giving a good service. The last short haul Thai flight I had was to Singapore and they were really good. Back to London and it was back to the usual not really bothered attitude. To be fair alot of other airlines are the same. Oh to be able to afford Business class.

2 of the older A300 have already been sold and are now in the US (Louisville Kentucky ?) where they will be broken up for spares. Not even good enough to be converted into freighters.

[cdnvic]

It is simpler to plod on with an ageing fleet, and raise your prices to customers, but you gradually lose loyal customers to the competition.

Thai Air's fleet age is actually about the same as many other "first world" fleets such as BA, JAL, Air Canada, Alitalia, Delta, Northwest, etc.

Which is why I fly with none of the above...

Aircraft age is an issue, but it's far less important than cycles, maintenance practises, etc. None of the above have fleets that are old enough to cause a concern.

[Heng]

EVA and Sing Air thanks. Haven't had to fly THAI since I was 5 when I didn't have a choice.

[Heng]

.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Heng

[onethailand]

As I now regularly have to travel around the region, I usually fly Thai Airways.

In short - every single flight had problems. From never getting the seat you reserved, to inept stewardesses, to seat or entertainment equipment failure, not once this year has there been an uneventful flight. I have already decided that I will stick to Star Alliance flights until I get my 2-year ROP Gold for access to the lounges - then I am avoiding Thai Airways like the plague.

By contrast, I flew Singapore Airlines on one trip, four total segments - and everything went smoothly on every single segment. Paid a higher price for the privilege but it was worth every penny. Also flew Cathay once and they were also excellent.

Flew Emirates to HK once - boy, they've gone downhill as quickly as Thai, though service is still good.

[Kaysfeld]

As I now regularly have to travel around the region, I usually fly Thai Airways.

In short - every single flight had problems. From never getting the seat you reserved, to inept stewardesses, to seat or entertainment equipment failure, not once this year has there been an uneventful flight. I have already decided that I will stick to Star Alliance flights until I get my 2-year ROP Gold for access to the lounges - then I am avoiding Thai Airways like the plague.

By contrast, I flew Singapore Airlines on one trip, four total segments - and everything went smoothly on every single segment. Paid a higher price for the privilege but it was worth every penny. Also flew Cathay once and they were also excellent.

Flew Emirates to HK once - boy, they've gone downhill as quickly as Thai, though service is still good.

[Kaysfeld]

A350 and 787 set to vie for Thai A300 replacement deal

Two widebodies likely to go head-to-head to succeed flag carrier's ageing Airbus fleet

Thai Airways International is drawing up a new business plan that should include proposals for the replacement of dozens of older aircraft in its fleet.

At a recent board meeting directors tasked management with drawing up a 10-year corporate plan covering the 2008-2017 period. The plan will be presented to the board in August.

Airline executives say fleet renewal will make up a key part of the plan and several dozen new aircraft may be ordered to replace older aircraft. Types to be considered are not being identified, although it is expected that the carrier will primarily look to acquire aircraft in the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 categories, in part to replace its 20 Airbus A300-600s.

Senior airline executives said last year that they had already been evaluating the two types, although studies covered the longer-range variants on offer which would not necessarily be intended as A300 replacements.

Thai could also look at replacements in the years ahead for some of its older Boeing 777s and 737-400s as well as older Airbus A330s.

Earlier this year Thai agreed to order eight more A330-300s at discounted prices in part as compensation for delays in the delivery of six Airbus A380s on order. It said at the time that delivery of the A330s would take place between 2008 and 2010, although it has yet to firm up the order.

From Flight International:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...ement-deal.html