Thai Airways Cancels New York Flights As Of July 1st

[london]

Beechstreet,

Meandwi's post is spot on.

That is without a doubt the best way to handle this issue.

Your credit card provider will issue you with a full refund....often immediately.

[think_too_mut]

Beechstreet,

Meandwi's post is spot on.

That is without a doubt the best way to handle this issue.

Your credit card provider will issue you with a full refund....often immediately.

One of the favouite discount ticket agencies among foreigners in JApan, etour japan has stopped accepting CC payments, giving "system maintenance" as the reason.

What is strange here is - that "maintenance" is from June 6th to June 30th, 24 days of maintenance!

Impossible for a japanese company, I would not believe even if it were only 24 hrs maintenance window.

Most likely scenario is: they have no idea which of the fights will never happen from July 1. and can't simply tell their customers to stop buying. So they reduced the trade to bank transfer only, that is easier and quicker to refund than CC payments.

I once cancelled my ticket with ANA and CC refund took 10 weeks, which is what they (ANA) told me in their letter with the copy of the refund voucher.

There could be much more to come, not only TG BKK-JFK route and not only TG.

Edited June 9, 2008 by think_too_mut

[wileycoyote]

I find this a worrying precedent,at this rate a lot of the budget airlines will bound to be affected as well by the high cost of fuel

[SeaVisionBurma]

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,

This is spot on, IMHO.

Although a number of posters in this thread have said how much they like the A340 - I am guessing this is from a passenger point of view.

AFAIK the A340 offered great range, but the cost of this was payload.

Friends who fly these aircraft for other airlines have always said that there was a constant compromise between the number of pax carried, and the amount of freight. Freight usually wins in revenue (depending upon destination), at the expense of pax - meaning that if there was a full cargo load, the number of pax carried on a sector would be significantly cut.

This compromise was especially apparent on long range sectors - with the aircraft sometimes flying with less than half the passengers it can actually seat - or if carrying a full load of pax, no cargo (less revenue, running at a loss)

If the A340 was limited in range to alleviate the above - it could certainly carry a greater payload both of pax and cargo - but there are other aircraft far more efficient to do this in medium haul.

wileycoyote - although your concerns are warranted as far as rising fuel costs for low-budget carriers - in this particular case the A340 was always going to be a casualty for Thai given the reasons above.

[tw25rw]

Maybe they could fly them Phuket-Europe direct.

[ACMIKE]

It is very difficult from a cost perspective to maintain a fleet of 4 aircraft, I am not an Airbus fan but that is not relevant. The decision is not all bad, look at carriers the world over, everyone is grounding aircraft. By the way to one post above about the DC-10/MD-11, it was not a commercial flop, it has become the mainstay of express cargo carriers. Take a look at balance sheets and see who is making money and who is not, the express cargo companies are still in the black.

ACMike

[britmaveric]

Most are grounding older planes - not brand new shiny fuel efficient ones.

[GeorgeW]

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,

This is spot on, IMHO.

Although a number of posters in this thread have said how much they like the A340 - I am guessing this is from a passenger point of view.

AFAIK the A340 offered great range, but the cost of this was payload.

Friends who fly these aircraft for other airlines have always said that there was a constant compromise between the number of pax carried, and the amount of freight. Freight usually wins in revenue (depending upon destination), at the expense of pax - meaning that if there was a full cargo load, the number of pax carried on a sector would be significantly cut.

This compromise was especially apparent on long range sectors - with the aircraft sometimes flying with less than half the passengers it can actually seat - or if carrying a full load of pax, no cargo (less revenue, running at a loss)

If the A340 was limited in range to alleviate the above - it could certainly carry a greater payload both of pax and cargo - but there are other aircraft far more efficient to do this in medium haul.

wileycoyote - although your concerns are warranted as far as rising fuel costs for low-budget carriers - in this particular case the A340 was always going to be a casualty for Thai given the reasons above.

There really is no practical need for a lot of cargo on these flights is there? It would be much more economical to fly frieght on two shorter hops rather than one ultra long flight where the fuel costs so much more. In that respect the A340 used by Thai is well suited. The problem is that the fuel just costs too much these days and they can't make the flight work anymore because if they raised the prices to where they need to be almost nobody would fly them. The A340 is a great plane from a passenger point of view but a nightmare with respect to airline operations and it's fuel consuption.

This hasn't been a good week for the airline industry and expect things to get even worse. I haven't seen any news yet about Asian based LCC's but expect it won't be long before some of them go belly up or drastically reduce their routes.

[piken]

Besides canceling the flight, a memo has not been sent out to all staff and most don"t even know about this yet.The big problem is that i spent 494,000 baht for 3 business class tickets for the family end of july the travel agent says it will take 3 months to get a refund we're flying in 6 weeks, then after rebooking on another airline with multible stopovers, i'm told to just pay another 471,000 baht for the next 3 tickets.Also i've been told that Thaiairways may endorse the tickets over to the other airline but although the amount is different i won't get a refund of the difference. I can understand this if i canceled my flight plans but i did't ,they did !Needless to say i will be throughing my frequent flyer cards in the garbage and never flying on Thai again, and my travel agent will no longer receive my or my friends business again.

[Jimjim]

That seems incredibly expensive even for business class.

[JBStuart]

I have Premium Economy seats booked for December LAX-BKK-LAX so I'm paying particular attention. My flight's still scheduled, but now that they've changed planes, Premium Economy doesn't seem to exist so I'm in limbo...

from the Thai Air site:

THAI Announces Board Meeting Results

On 6th June 2008, Thai Airways International Public Company Limited (THAI) held a Board of Directors’ Meeting at THAI’s Head Office, chaired by Mr. Chaisawasd Kittipornpaiboon, THAI’s Chairman, with the following results:

1. Flight Operations between Bangkok and New York

Effective as from 1st July 2008, THAI will cease flight operations between Bangkok and New York due to the continual surge in oil prices.

2. Restructuring of flight operations to Los Angeles

THAI will reduce direct flight operations between Bangkok and Los Angeles from 7 flights to 5 flights per week, utilizing A340-500 aircraft type until September 2008. For THAI winter schedule, THAI will operate flights to Los Angeles via Osaka, Japan, utilizing Boeing 777-200 ER aircraft.

Currently, THAI operates daily flight to two US destinations, Los Angeles and New York, utilizing Airbus A340-500 aircraft.

[HYENA]

GREAT this adds 10 hours to my next trip (I've gone twice this year already)....was going to go next month....great!

And to think I was actually going to get something out of my freq flyer card going 4-6 times a year

ARRRGGGHHH!

[britmaveric]

Star alliance, so all is not lost!!!!

[FairwayJack]

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

I read the Nation article....US $400 for a gallon. Is this true or a typo ??

[roger7748]

On the 7th of June a small article appeared in the Bangkok Post stating that all flights from Bangkok to New York on the Thai Airways direct flight (which they introduced about 4-5 years ago) have been fully cancelled. And effective July 1st, Thai Airways will no longer fly to New York at all.

What is serendipitous about this, and not to my advantage I might say, is that I have a ticket booked and paid for to fly to NYC in the first week of July. But what is catastrophically pathetic about this decision by the airlines is that Thai Air has not made any formal announcement at all about this yet or contacted any of the passengers directly, like myself who is fully booked and paid to take this flight, to simply let them know that the flight no longer exists.

In fact, had my friend not seen that article and bought it to my attention there is a very good chance I would have shown up at the airport with my bags packed to go to New York on the day of the flight and only to find out there is no plane. I can imagine since there has not been any formal announcement you will have passengers showing up for this flight after the 1st of July expecting also to get on a plane. But given that my flight is less than 4 weeks away now, and the announcement was made nearly a week ago, you think they would have notified me right?!??!?!!?

In addition, Thai at the management level, has not even set an official policy on what to do yet about those passengers who booked and paid for their tickets through an agent. If you booked through Thai directly then the official policy, just released today in fact (6 days after the announcement), is that you will get a full refund. If you booked through an agent though the answer is still pretty much "go fish". But if you did want a refund, and you booked though an agent like I did, then that will take 3 weeks at least, and by then I will have already needed to be in New York.

So after 2 hours of wrangling with them today at one of the Thai ticket offices they have put me on a Thai flight routing through Los Angeles and then on United Airlines for the leg from Los Angeles to New York, but in economy class of course, when in fact I have paid for a premium economy seat on Thai which costs much more than cattle class.

So, what have I got instead of the premium economy class direct flight ticket on Thai to NYC I paid 70,000 Baht for?

1 – 3 hours of added flying time.

2 – A 2 hour layover in LA.

3 – A downgrade to economy class on the second leg of the flight.

4 – I now have to change planes and unload my bags from the Thai flight and then reload my bags in LA onto the United flight.

Am I happy about this… Would you be???

[britmaveric]

Thai and UAL are star alliance, your bags will be checked all the way through, so no worries there.

[roger7748]

Thai and UAL are star alliance, your bags will be checked all the way through, so no worries there.

Thanks, I would like to believe that is true, but it is actually the least of my worries I am afraid of all the disadvantages of what has happened. I will also be going from an international flight into LA and then switching to the domestic terminal to get onto another flight and another carrier. I would say 90% chance I will have to pick up my bags and recheck them in LA, both coming and going.

[britmaveric]

No you won't I've traveled that route - BWI to LAX, LAX to BKK. No re-check necessary for your bags though did have to walk from domestic to international.

[roger7748]

No you won't I've traveled that route - BWI to LAX, LAX to BKK. No re-check necessary for your bags though did have to walk from domestic to international.

Thank you, lets hope you are right, but only a minor relief. I think though the added flying time each way is more like another 5 hours and not 3 as I said earlier. Ugh!

[pmarlin]

No matter what you will have to re-check your bags because of customs.

[jimmi]

Thai and UAL are star alliance, your bags will be checked all the way through, so no worries there.

I'm sorry Britmavric, that is simply not true. I routinely fly BKK to LAX. Travelers, by law, HAVE to clear customs at LAX regardless of your final destination. I did it less then 30 days ago. It is a pain in the a$$ at LAX. Imigration lines there are usually very long there. Good luck.

[roger7748]

Thai and UAL are star alliance, your bags will be checked all the way through, so no worries there.

I'm sorry Britmavric, that is simply not true. I routinely fly BKK to LAX. Travelers, by law, HAVE to clear customs at LAX regardless of your final destination. I did it less then 30 days ago. It is a pain in the a$$ at LAX. Imigration lines there are usually very long there. Good luck.

Thanks, that is exactly what I expected the case to be. Need to clear customs to switch from an internaitonal flight to a domestic flight in LAX and/or when changing carriers. But I could live with that if it didn't mean another 7 hours in transit each way and 5 hours of the tranist sitting in cattle class having my knees banging agianst the seat in front of me. That Royally Silks!

[lomatopo]

Did you buy BKK-JFK-BKK? You could cancel, get a full refund and buy a potentially less expensive ticket.

Some are getting re-routed BKK-NRT-JFK, NRT-JFK as a codeshare operated by NH which has a similar PE product.

It sounds as though you are on a direct, non-stop TG flight for BKK-LAX, then UA for LAX-JFK? Are you on one of the red-eyes LAX-JFK? I think one might be able to make the latter red-eye (11:30 PM departure). UA has Economy Plus, not quite the same pitch as TG PE but not too bad.

As LAX you would clear Immigration, retrieve any checked bags, clear Customs, then immediately hand your bags off to UA just outside Customs. TG will tag your bag through to JFK. Then you'll need to get over to T 6/7, clear TSA and find your flight. Returning you would check bags through to BKK, and not have to handle them again.

These days you really have to stay on top of your travel plans. It's a pain in the rear but necessary.

[Naam]

Thai and UAL are star alliance, your bags will be checked all the way through, so no worries there.

no checking through anywhere in the U.S. of A., customs at first port of entry.

[ilyushin]

Thai and UAL are star alliance, your bags will be checked all the way through, so no worries there.

I'm sorry Britmavric, that is simply not true. I routinely fly BKK to LAX. Travelers, by law, HAVE to clear customs at LAX regardless of your final destination. I did it less then 30 days ago. It is a pain in the a$$ at LAX. Imigration lines there are usually very long there. Good luck.

True, you must clear customs at LAX. The lines are extremely long unless you are Selected.

[nrvs]

well, i'm glad i had the opportunity to fly on the jfk-bkk nonstop at least once!

it was a real pleasure. not even considering thai airlines' superior service, flying to the west coast of the u.s. from philadelphia and then onward to bangkok via narita (on united) isn't much fun. i flew bkk-jfk-bkk last winter -- it was so exciting seeing that thai airbus waiting for me at the gate in new york city.

i was hoping to fly that route again this december. i think the ewr-sin nonstop on singapore airlines might be a good replacement. or should i just fly via japan as usual? what do all of you think?

[geriatrickid]

i was hoping to fly that route again this december. i think the ewr-sin nonstop on singapore airlines might be a good replacement. or should i just fly via japan as usual? what do all of you think?

How can I argue against SQ the jewel of the skies? However, you may find the evening flight on EVA (EWR- ANC-TPE-BKK) to your liking cost wise and the B777 is comfy. The stop in anchorage is for refueling and the arrival in BKK can be either 11:05am or 12:05pm (approx.) You change planes in TPE. I like the opportunity to stretch my legs for a bit.

In the past year, I will have done the east coast trip 6X in and just booked using EVA (via YVR) to go with ANA or JAL combined with star alliance partners to return because business class was affordable on the route. The SQ pricing was $2,500.-$4,000. more per trip. For sure SQ is better, but I don't think the difference in flight quality is covered by the cost differential.

I now avoid LAX as a departure point and paid more to do so. SFO is ok, but the connections suck. You might want to consider SEA to use EVA as they are having a seat sale and the conenctions to SEA from NYC aren't bad.

I'd love to know if China Air is worth using since they have the lowest cost flights of anyone.

[britmaveric]

Actually thought you were going JFK-LAX-BKK, not BKK-LAX-JFK. Quite correct - you need clear customs with your bags, however there is a drop off for those in transit once you clear customs for UAL. Drop bags off and then you are on your way, so not as bad as you think. I repeat you do not need to haul your bags with you to the domestic terminal. I've done this many times, so DO NOT WORRY!!! If you were not with a star alliance partner, you are quite correct you would have to transfer the bags to the domestic terminal yourself.

[roger7748]

Did you buy BKK-JFK-BKK? You could cancel, get a full refund and buy a potentially less expensive ticket.

Some are getting re-routed BKK-NRT-JFK, NRT-JFK as a codeshare operated by NH which has a similar PE product.

It sounds as though you are on a direct, non-stop TG flight for BKK-LAX, then UA for LAX-JFK? Are you on one of the red-eyes LAX-JFK? I think one might be able to make the latter red-eye (11:30 PM departure). UA has Economy Plus, not quite the same pitch as TG PE but not too bad.

As LAX you would clear Immigration, retrieve any checked bags, clear Customs, then immediately hand your bags off to UA just outside Customs. TG will tag your bag through to JFK. Then you'll need to get over to T 6/7, clear TSA and find your flight. Returning you would check bags through to BKK, and not have to handle them again.

These days you really have to stay on top of your travel plans. It's a pain in the rear but necessary.

Yes, I booked BKK-JFK-BKK originally and the new flight Thai booked me on yesterday was a non-stop TG flight from BKK-LAX and then UA for LAX-JFK.

I didn't want a refund at this point since ticket prices have gone up and it would take at least 3 weeks to get the refund. I am also out of cash so if I have to wait 3 weeks for a refund it means I can't book a new ticket in time to fly at the beginning of July as planned.

Thanks for that bit of unknown information about ANA being an option though. I called Thai back and have also reserved a booking now on that flight/airlines as well. I did not know about that option so I am happy you pointed that out, again many thanks. The layover in Narita is 3 hours though versus 2 hours in LA, but definitely palatable still. The good thing is though that I won't have to mess around with customs like I would in LA or possibly have to sit in cattle class for the LA to NY leg flight on UA. Also, UA just announced on Thursday, and affective as of yesterday like on all other US carriers, that they will start charging US$25 per bag for checked baggage beyond the first piece.

The only thing Thai cannot confirm yet on this new ANA booking though is if they can guarantee me a premium economy seat!?!?!? Seems the booking code they are giving to passengers on this alternative flight option is not actually a premium economy seat as you thought, but it could be, although subject to availability on the day of the flight. I will call Thai back next week and, if they can confirm the premium seat on ANA, then I will go with that instead.

The last thing I want to do is get on an American carrier if I don't have to, particularly in an economy seat!

Edited June 14, 2008 by roger7748

[rowyco]

i think the ewr-sin nonstop on singapore airlines might be a good replacement. or should i just fly via japan as usual? what do all of you think?

I read online that the Singapore Airlines flight from ewr to sin is now Business class only. I'v also checked on their website and when you search for economy it comes up that there are either no seats or no flights for those dates. A search of business class, however, does show flights available on those dates. So, I guess its true. Can anyone confirm this?