Thai Airways Cancels New York Flights As Of July 1st

[FLL-BKK]

I am surprise no one caught this bit of news: FLAG carrier Thai Airways will cancel its direct flight from Bangkok to New York and sell four planes used on the route as rising fuel prices cut into profits, a company official said on Friday.

'As of July 1, Thai Airways will not fly to New York because of high fuel prices. We have enough passengers, but the high fuel prices have put the airline in a difficult position,' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Thai Airways will maintain its direct flight to Los Angeles, which will be the carrier's only remaining US destination, the official said.

But the airline may reduce the frequency of that route and other less profitable destinations later in the year, she added.

The airline's board of directors also decided to swiftly sell all four of its Airbus 340-500, which are only used for long-haul flights, she said. -- AFP

[cclub75]

Expensive oil is a good excuse.

This line was a commercial mistake since.... the beginning.

Furthermore, they could have tried to increase price... Instead, just "okay people, we close and we sell our airplanes, ciao !" (by the way, a few month before they were complaining that they... couldn't buy -new airplanes- enough...)

Anyway, Nation has other details (about orther routes, like London)...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/06/07...ss_30074952.php

The sxxx is about to hit the fan. Not because only oil. But also because Thai Airways has a bad management... since too long.

I am surprise no one caught this bit of news: FLAG carrier Thai Airways will cancel its direct flight from Bangkok to New York and sell four planes used on the route as rising fuel prices cut into profits, a company official said on Friday.

'As of July 1, Thai Airways will not fly to New York because of high fuel prices. We have enough passengers, but the high fuel prices have put the airline in a difficult position,' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Thai Airways will maintain its direct flight to Los Angeles, which will be the carrier's only remaining US destination, the official said.

But the airline may reduce the frequency of that route and other less profitable destinations later in the year, she added.

The airline's board of directors also decided to swiftly sell all four of its Airbus 340-500, which are only used for long-haul flights, she said. -- AFP

Edited June 6, 2008 by cclub75

[Spee]

I am surprise no one caught this bit of news: FLAG carrier Thai Airways will cancel its direct flight from Bangkok to New York and sell four planes used on the route as rising fuel prices cut into profits, a company official said on Friday.

'As of July 1, Thai Airways will not fly to New York because of high fuel prices. We have enough passengers, but the high fuel prices have put the airline in a difficult position,' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Thai Airways will maintain its direct flight to Los Angeles, which will be the carrier's only remaining US destination, the official said.

But the airline may reduce the frequency of that route and other less profitable destinations later in the year, she added.

The airline's board of directors also decided to swiftly sell all four of its Airbus 340-500, which are only used for long-haul flights, she said. -- AFP

Dang, I'm bummed. I'm getting ready to move back to the states and the JFK-BKK flight on Thai would have been my future flight of choice. On the other hand, I understand the business decision. The changing market is going to affect everyone.

It's still 18 hours to LoS from most places in the states, whether non-stop or via one or two hops, and whether going east or west. Unfortunately, this decision means my future business will likely go to the likes of BA, AA, Cathay, etc., instead of Thai Airways. Unfortunate perhaps, but it is what it is.

I hope that maybe someday the market conditions will change in such a way that these flights are able to be restored.

[geriatrickid]

It's still 18 hours to LoS from most places in the states, whether non-stop or via one or two hops, and whether going east or west. Unfortunately, this decision means my future business will likely go to the likes of BA, AA, Cathay, etc., instead of Thai Airways. Unfortunate perhaps, but it is what it is.

I hope that maybe someday the market conditions will change in such a way that these flights are able to be restored.

Not unless something happens to reduce capacity and jetfuel costs.

In the interim. the EVA flight: EWR (tech. stop Anchorage) - TPE offers some cost advantages. You can either do the BKK segment on EVA or grab a deal on TG 609 TPE-HKG-BKK. (Even though BR is now uncompetitive vs some China Airlines/ Star Alliance routings. (Star Alliance using ANA), EVA used to be the best option but is now middle of the pack on most North American routes with Philippine Airlines the cheapest routing (especially in Bizz) followed by China Airlines. Never flown either of them, but I doubt they can be any worse than the flying cattle cars of UA/AA/NW/. If anyone uses Continental for connections, be warned, CO has some of the worst on time performances at connecting airports like EWR. If you miss the BR flight you are cooked since it flies near full and is not daily. Same goes for connections in ORD & JFK. It's reprehensible that the airlines will book a ticket with only 50 minutes conecting time between terminals when everyone knows it is not unusual for these airpports to have arrival delays of 1hour+

If people are booking at christmas peak, be sure to leave lots of time between key connections. Between regular flight delays and security lineups of 1 hr+, you'll be happy to have the extra time.

[think_too_mut]

IThe airline's board of directors also decided to swiftly sell all four of its Airbus 340-500, which are only used for long-haul flights, she said. -- AFP

However fuel hungry the 4-engined plane is, it must be better and more efficient than 25 years old jumbos still in service.

Then, why don't they retire 4 scrap metal 747s and replace them wih A-340?

Further bad news: could be, for the A-340s they may get something, for the old jumbos nothing.

That's how bad the situation is. If that kind of cash is going to save them (and it might, for this year), the entire company might go belly up altogether.

[britmaveric]

Great route, will be missed.

[scrunchielaura]

Having flown LAX-BKK-LAX three times on the Thai A340-500, I'm saddened to see these flights canceled.

The airline's board of directors also decided to swiftly sell all four of its Airbus 340-500, which are only used for long-haul flights, she said.

Hah! They've been trying to sell them for a year or more. There just isn't a market for this niche aircraft. I think Thai is stuck with them.

My proposal for what Thai should do with the A345's: Remove the 42 premium economy seats and replace them with 56 economy seats @ 36" seat pitch. This will result in an aircraft with 60 business and 169 economy seats. Next, on Thai's A340-600's, replace the 8 first class seats with 12 business seats resulting in 72 business and 199 economy seats. Then pretend the A345's are A346's for scheduling purposes. On any given day, whichever flights have the lowest load factor get an A345 substituted. If their booking engine sees too many flights exceeding an 84% load factor on one day, some of the flights could have their seat availability reduced so as to not overbook an A345.

[think_too_mut]

Having flown LAX-BKK-LAX three times on the Thai A340-500, I'm saddened to see these flights canceled.

The airline's board of directors also decided to swiftly sell all four of its Airbus 340-500, which are only used for long-haul flights, she said.

Hah! They've been trying to sell them for a year or more. There just isn't a market for this niche aircraft. I think Thai is stuck with them.

The plane is a commercial flop, like DC-10. It sold 389 vs 386 of DC-10.

In 2006. they sold only 15. This year it looks like Airbus will be lucky if they sold 1-2 of A340s.

Hope Thai Airways use them on other routes while they are on sale, which may be for longer than thought.

Edited June 7, 2008 by think_too_mut

[lomatopo]

I wouldn’t say the A340 family has been unsuccessful; plenty of operators happy with their -300’s and -600’s. The A340-500 has obviously been a bust.

Not much market for TG -500’s, someone is already hawking two and they are competing against the manufacturer who would probably give (at cost) the things away to maintain cash-flow, and EU jobs.

Kingfisher are going to use the -500 for direct non-stop flights between India and the U.S.A.

SQ’s strategy is to reconfigure their -500’s with all business seats (lower weight/fewer pax, higher revenue) to maintain the direct, non-stops between SIN and EWR (New York) and LAX. And they will continue to run one-stops to LAX, SFO and JFK (via FRA). SQ feels like there is enough premium cabin market for these flights, and there may be. Unlike BKK which is more of a tourist destination and not enough people willing to pay a premium to save three hours. I hope TG analyzed this all J option but probably rejected it as still losing money. Loads on TG’s long-hauls to JFK and LAX have been reported at 80%.

The A340-500 is hobbled for so many reasons: the amount of fuel it has to carry just to make the trip means it has to work its way up to a serviceable altitude incrementally as it burns off fuel. On my most recent BKK-JFK trip 2 weeks ago we started out at 27,000 feet before finally getting up to 38,000 feet (16:35 flight time, nearly directly over the North Pole). Operators need two aircraft for a single route. There is no real room for cargo, except for the self-loading type, so no extra revenue. And overall weight is limited so total number of pax/weight needs to be managed. And you need extra crew. Well I think most understand that these long-thin routes are just not suited for TG and its markets.

As I understand it TG will be operating two-class 777-200ERs on BKK-KIX-LAX 5 times daily.

[thaigene2]

I remember a front-page news story a few years back in either Nation of Post (probably the latter) that said THAI had huge debts, largely due to the aircraft leasing agreements (I guess?), that totalled hundreds of billions of baht. Never saw the story again - or any mention of THAI's debts. That was a few months before the first public offering - in which Thais filled their boots with the shares.

I think THAI is a great airline competing for quality service with Simgapore and Cathay - I enjoy flying it and the crews are very nice. But as mentioned above I also think THAI is one of those boondogle state-owned corporations that are ok to have in countries with transparancy - but not in a country like this. Poo-yais will get rich off it and then stick the country with the debts they racked up through their little 'deals' - whether through public share disbursements or outright bankruptcy.

[meandwi]

The JFK - BKK flight was the best for us out of Miami. 22 hours plus the 12 hour time change was great! Now we go from Miami to Atlanta, 3 hours plus 3 hours layover. Atlanta to Soule Korea, 18 hours plus 4 hour layover. Soule to BKK, 8 hours plus overnight layover! BKK to Krabbi 1.5 hours, then I move my watch ahead 12 hours for the time change! 61 hours or so later we arrive at home. There MUST be a better way! Any ideas? Is there a flight out of The US that doesn't fly over Alaska? The flights to UK Then to BKK will cost us over 600,000 baht. Thaiair will be missed!

[FLL-BKK]

As far as routing now from Miami, I prefer using AA/Cathay. You can catch an evening flight to LAX or SFO on AA, connect just after midnight in California, arrive Hong Kong early AM, and then catch a morning flight to BKK. Recently I have flown Star Alliance carriers with other routing, but Cathay is still my favorite with nice connections back to Miami, too.

The JFK - BKK flight was the best for us out of Miami. 22 hours plus the 12 hour time change was great! Now we go from Miami to Atlanta, 3 hours plus 3 hours layover. Atlanta to Soule Korea, 18 hours plus 4 hour layover. Soule to BKK, 8 hours plus overnight layover! BKK to Krabbi 1.5 hours, then I move my watch ahead 12 hours for the time change! 61 hours or so later we arrive at home. There MUST be a better way! Any ideas? Is there a flight out of The US that doesn't fly over Alaska? The flights to UK Then to BKK will cost us over 600,000 baht. Thaiair will be missed!

[thaigene2]

As far as routing now from Miami, I prefer using AA/Cathay. You can catch an evening flight to LAX or SFO on AA, connect just after midnight in California, arrive Hong Kong early AM, and then catch a morning flight to BKK. Recently I have flown Star Alliance carriers with other routing, but Cathay is still my favorite with nice connections back to Miami, too.

Agreed. Don't know why anyone in the US would do it any other way. It's the easiest and on a quality airline (Cathay) with good flight times. That said, I recognize the connection times might be a bit tough from some cities. Still ..

Edited June 7, 2008 by thaigene2

[ilyushin]

Great route. I really enjoyed that way into the US. It will be missed.

They should put them on Bangkok-Amsterdam route. Open up the route again.

Not as easy to sell those planes as it sounds.

Second time they announced they would get rid of the A345s. Not many buyers at book value now so they may consider leasing them out for Olympics and ad-hoc for AOG.

Heard a year ago they would love to replace them with 777s anyway.

[Rinrada]

'As of July 1, Thai Airways will not fly to New York because of high fuel prices. We have enough passengers, but the high fuel prices have put the airline in a difficult position,' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Also NO more Air Miles for us steerage Class passengers....W-V....

and yet we came back this week ...(squeezed in a long bank holiday weekend to Mae-On (CM)) and the TG flight was....great ...shush...mai phut....4 seats to lounge on ,smashing nosh-Bevs -Vinos and the service...lads and lassies... very professional...and friendly....and even the Iris scan at Heathrow was working....

so...a wee message to TG ...give us back the MILES......krup....

[Spee]

As far as routing now from Miami, I prefer using AA/Cathay. You can catch an evening flight to LAX or SFO on AA, connect just after midnight in California, arrive Hong Kong early AM, and then catch a morning flight to BKK. Recently I have flown Star Alliance carriers with other routing, but Cathay is still my favorite with nice connections back to Miami, too.

The JFK - BKK flight was the best for us out of Miami. 22 hours plus the 12 hour time change was great! Now we go from Miami to Atlanta, 3 hours plus 3 hours layover. Atlanta to Soule Korea, 18 hours plus 4 hour layover. Soule to BKK, 8 hours plus overnight layover! BKK to Krabbi 1.5 hours, then I move my watch ahead 12 hours for the time change! 61 hours or so later we arrive at home. There MUST be a better way! Any ideas? Is there a flight out of The US that doesn't fly over Alaska? The flights to UK Then to BKK will cost us over 600,000 baht. Thaiair will be missed!

I suspect the ORD-NRT-BKK route on UAL will become more popular because the flight is on the same aircraft and the only delay is for turn-around on the aircraft and air crews.

Since it is almost equidistant to BKK going E-W or W-E from anywhere on the US east coast, there is the benefit (??) of being able to look for European carriers (E-W) or Asian carriers (W-E). From Miami, I would think the easiest is a non-stop to LHR during the daytime, then an evening non-stop to BKK.

Either way, it's going to be 24-30 hours of total travel time. For me, one thing I can't stand is lengthy airport layovers. Time is too valuable. I would rather pay a bit of a premium and get a connection with minimum layover (an hour or less). Anything more than a couple hours is unacceptable.

The higher fuel surcharges and baggage surcharges (thanks for nothing AA) also, I think, put a premium on traveling light (minimum carry-on baggage and no checked baggage). This is mainly to minimize the amount of time that has to be spent in transit (check-in, customs, bag claim, etc.).

Another thought is booking "around the world" flights to get the time savings from always flying east with the prevailing winds. For example, US east coast to LHR to BKK outbound, then BKK to US via HKK, KIX, NRT or other coming back. I would suspect that flying in the same direction on all flights would probably save several hours in total flying time. Booking through the same alliance (e.g., One World or Star) should allow booking on a single ticket and maybe get some cost savings and mileage benefits.

[Spee]

As far as routing now from Miami, I prefer using AA/Cathay. You can catch an evening flight to LAX or SFO on AA, connect just after midnight in California, arrive Hong Kong early AM, and then catch a morning flight to BKK. Recently I have flown Star Alliance carriers with other routing, but Cathay is still my favorite with nice connections back to Miami, too.

The JFK - BKK flight was the best for us out of Miami. 22 hours plus the 12 hour time change was great! Now we go from Miami to Atlanta, 3 hours plus 3 hours layover. Atlanta to Soule Korea, 18 hours plus 4 hour layover. Soule to BKK, 8 hours plus overnight layover! BKK to Krabbi 1.5 hours, then I move my watch ahead 12 hours for the time change! 61 hours or so later we arrive at home. There MUST be a better way! Any ideas? Is there a flight out of The US that doesn't fly over Alaska? The flights to UK Then to BKK will cost us over 600,000 baht. Thaiair will be missed!

I suspect the ORD-NRT-BKK route on UAL will become more popular because the flight is on the same aircraft and the only delay is for turn-around on the aircraft and air crews.

Earlier today, I priced out US east coast to BKK going west on UAL via ORD & NRT. For an itinerary in the 3rd quarter, the round trip fare was under $1500. There is a brief layover in ORD and about a 3 hour layover in NRT for the aircraft turnaround. All things considered, the $1500 is a pretty darn good price.

Similar itinerary going east via LHR on BA is just over and just under $2k. The problem this way is there is some potentially major layover time in LHR depending on whether or not an overnight or daytime trip can be found on the outbound leg. Even $2k is a pretty good price with the fuel surcharges these days, but time is too valuable to have a 12 hour layover in LHR.

[britmaveric]

1256rt from IAD-NRT-BKK, BKK-NRT-IAD

[lomatopo]

Earlier today, I priced out US east coast to BKK going west on UAL via ORD & NRT. For an itinerary in the 3rd quarter, the round trip fare was under $1500. There is a brief layover in ORD and about a 3 hour layover in NRT for the aircraft turnaround. All things considered, the $1500 is a pretty darn good price.

Similar itinerary going east via LHR on BA is just over and just under $2k. The problem this way is there is some potentially major layover time in LHR depending on whether or not an overnight or daytime trip can be found on the outbound leg. Even $2k is a pretty good price with the fuel surcharges these days, but time is too valuable to have a 12 hour layover in LHR.

You should be able to do better via a Consolidator, a W fare (upgradeable with SWUs) should be closer to $1,200 currently. My most recent ticket issued for travel into 2009 was ~ $1,190. Sometimes you can still find W fares on some of the web outlets, including ual dot com. UA has many dailies into NRT (IAD, ORD/2x, SFO/2x, SEA, LAX) which allow connections to NRT-BKK, but alas no JFK-NRT anymore. The 2nd daily (883) from ORD allows for an even tighter connection at NRT; I always allow for longish connections at ORD due to frequent ground stop/penalty box/WX/IRROPS issues. (I avoid ORD in the winter/snow months and even deep Summer t'storm season, preferring the relative saftey of an SFO routing.) Typically the aircraft arriving from LAX, rather than ORD, is used of NRT-BKK. NRT-BKK is changing back to a 747 in early November, when LAX-NRT changes from a 777 to a 747, according to UA sources here. From the east coast you can typically find better, tighter connections at FRA and/or LHR, but the price is quite steep. I prefer this routing as it is only one-stop for me (LH/TG via FRA), vs. 2-stop via UA/transpac.

If you make a lot trips to Asia from the U.S.A. you are much better off buying USA-BKK-USA tickets these days and stringing them together.

I think a lot of people liked the TG direct, non-stop offering because of the decent seating (good pitch in economy and premium economy), the price and the travel time. I'm not sure they had cracked the corporate contract market so were really relying on the leisure market.

[ericg1953]

As far as routing now from Miami, I prefer using AA/Cathay. You can catch an evening flight to LAX or SFO on AA, connect just after midnight in California, arrive Hong Kong early AM, and then catch a morning flight to BKK. Recently I have flown Star Alliance carriers with other routing, but Cathay is still my favorite with nice connections back to Miami, too.

Agreed. Don't know why anyone in the US would do it any other way. It's the easiest and on a quality airline (Cathay) with good flight times. That said, I recognize the connection times might be a bit tough from some cities. Still ..

I am going to Miami in Sept. and was going to fly BKK-JFK on Cathay Pacific, spend a nite in NY at a friends house and then jet blue to ft.lauderdale..........seems like going to LAX is far out of the way but I am not sure...what do you think?

[wilko]

If they hadn't stopped it the planes would have probably dropped out of the air anyway.

[london]

For me, TG management have been off the mark for too long.

Short term thinking.

Ill researched decisions.

Thats why I've been flying Singapore for the last 2 years....having previously been one of TG's frequent flyers.

The 340 is a good aircraft. Economical. As someone queried earlier, why not sell the 747-400's or earlier aircraft ? They are fuel hungry.

But, as with all TG Management's decisions, you can only wonder "why" ?

Great airline. Great crews. Poor management.

[wilko]

One of the best days of my life was when I cashed in my FF points with Thai for one last round trip and then knew I would NEVER have to fly with them again.

I believe they are managed (reluctantly) by the Thai Royal Air Force

Edited June 8, 2008 by wilko

[beechstreet]

What I love about this whole thing is that I have 2 BKK-JFK tickets booked for the middle of August...

You'd think they would contact me directly and initiate some sort of solution to their problem. Now I get to call and play the irritated consumer.

Wonder how they are going to deal with the fact that I paid for economy deluxe and physically don't fit in economy seats (too tall).

[london]

What I love about this whole thing is that I have 2 BKK-JFK tickets booked for the middle of August...

You'd think they would contact me directly and initiate some sort of solution to their problem. Now I get to call and play the irritated consumer.

Wonder how they are going to deal with the fact that I paid for economy deluxe and physically don't fit in economy seats (too tall).

Sadly Beechstreet, unless you are a Premium Passenger (first or regular business class) they just don't care.

[wilko]

They are the international face of Thai customer service....and they live up to it with incredible accuracy....they don't give a dam_n!

[ilyushin]

For me, TG management have been off the mark for too long.

Short term thinking.

Ill researched decisions.

Thats why I've been flying Singapore for the last 2 years....having previously been one of TG's frequent flyers.

The 340 is a good aircraft. Economical. As someone queried earlier, why not sell the 747-400's or earlier aircraft ? They are fuel hungry.

But, as with all TG Management's decisions, you can only wonder "why" ?

Great airline. Great crews. Poor management.

London,

I agree on most points.

The only reason to sell the the A340 is it doesn't have any practical benefits for the airline excepy non-stop long range. Almost zero cargo and only two class. The wide body 747-400 has higher number of pax, better configuration options, cargo capacity and can fly lower hr/cycle ratios meaning shorter flights without much interruption to the maintenance programs,

TG has been trying to sell the aged A300s HS-TAE ( Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta sold) HS-TAE stored and TAF will be removed soon. These are 1985 -87 airframes. They would be converted to feeders for FedEx so TG can get some nice new 737-800s, 767-400s, 777-200 or A330-200s or order the 787s. Remember TG has options on the massive A380 too.

TG sold the old 747-300s last year and now they have been scrapped so I expect more aircraft to go and new more economical planes to replace them.

They could do much better, but they only call me in times of crisis. Not fuel prices.

TG's fleet:)

Total Number of Aircraft 88 Update : May 2008

* including 4 aircraft leased out to Nok Air

**including 1 aircraft leased out to Nok Air

TB delivered:

HS-TEN Airbus A330-343E; c/n 990; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TEO Airbus A330-343E; c/n 1003; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TEP Airbus A330-343E; c/n 1031; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TER Airbus A330-343E; c/n 1037; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TES Airbus A330-343E; c/n 1057; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TET Airbus A330-343E; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] 2009

HS-TEU Airbus A330-343E; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] 2009

HS-TEV Airbus A330-343E; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] 2009

Thanks to Steve's site at http://www.thai-aviation.net/airlines%20-%...20AW%20Intl.htm

Edited June 8, 2008 by ilyushin

[meandwi]

What I love about this whole thing is that I have 2 BKK-JFK tickets booked for the middle of August...

You'd think they would contact me directly and initiate some sort of solution to their problem. Now I get to call and play the irritated consumer.

Wonder how they are going to deal with the fact that I paid for economy deluxe and physically don't fit in economy seats (too tall).

Contact your credit card company. You will get a faster result.

[wilko]

For me, TG management have been off the mark for too long.

Short term thinking.

Ill researched decisions.

Thats why I've been flying Singapore for the last 2 years....having previously been one of TG's frequent flyers.

The 340 is a good aircraft. Economical. As someone queried earlier, why not sell the 747-400's or earlier aircraft ? They are fuel hungry.

But, as with all TG Management's decisions, you can only wonder "why" ?

Great airline. Great crews. Poor management.

London,

I agree on most points.

The only reason to sell the the A340 is it doesn't have any practical benefits for the airline excepy non-stop long range. Almost zero cargo and only two class. The wide body 747-400 has higher number of pax, better configuration options, cargo capacity and can fly lower hr/cycle ratios meaning shorter flights without much interruption to the maintenance programs,

TG has been trying to sell the aged A300s HS-TAE ( Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta sold) HS-TAE stored and TAF will be removed soon. These are 1985 -87 airframes. They would be converted to feeders for FedEx so TG can get some nice new 737-800s, 767-400s, 777-200 or A330-200s or order the 787s. Remember TG has options on the massive A380 too.

TG sold the old 747-300s last year and now they have been scrapped so I expect more aircraft to go and new more economical planes to replace them.

They could do much better, but they only call me in times of crisis. Not fuel prices.

TG's fleet:)

Total Number of Aircraft 88 Update : May 2008

* including 4 aircraft leased out to Nok Air

**including 1 aircraft leased out to Nok Air

TB delivered:

HS-TEN Airbus A330-343E; c/n 990; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TEO Airbus A330-343E; c/n 1003; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TEP Airbus A330-343E; c/n 1031; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TER Airbus A330-343E; c/n 1037; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TES Airbus A330-343E; c/n 1057; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] early 2009

HS-TET Airbus A330-343E; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] 2009

HS-TEU Airbus A330-343E; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] 2009

HS-TEV Airbus A330-343E; due for Thai Airways International Co Ltd [suvarnabhumi] 2009

Thanks to Steve's site at http://www.thai-aviation.net/airlines%20-%...20AW%20Intl.htm

My God, does that look like Aspergers or what??

[london]

Dear Ilyushin,

thanks for your reply.

You obviously have better knowledge of TG than myself...(my knowledge being based on just being a former very regular pax) ...so thank-you for your information...appreciated.

However, the last A340 I was on with TG had First, Business and Economy classes...mind you, that was 2 years ago....and the pilot did say to me that it is one of the most fuel efficient aircraft in the sky...at that time. I didn't know anything about the cargo limitations. He did also say that as far as maintenance and joy of flying were concerned, Boeing were better aircraft.

FYI, the only comment I have had from cabin crew is that ALL Airbus galleys are too small.

The A300's are just tired workhorses.

However, as far as I am concerned, the Management just don't care about their passengers......and certainly, after being one of their most frequent (over 20 A class flights a year) longhaul pax, were not interested in even responding to my written concerns. They have short term thinking as their raison d'etre....and sadly, even that decision making is based on flawed research.

Says it all !

Thanks again Ilyushin.