Thai Airways May Cancel A380 Jet Order

[Kunz]

Well this is no wonder. Thailand has been doing everything possible lately, to sabotage it's tourism industry. If Thai Airways is

so serious about reviving it's business, would it not make sense to lower prices? I am always checking their prices, and they

are always much higher than either bangkok air, for domestic routes, and Eva Air for international routes. The one time I

tried them I did not think they were much better. And their surly attitudes did not help. What about the Thai visa policies?

When all of their neighbors are making visas easier for foreigners, one would think Thailand would follow the lead. Eliminating

visa fees accomplishes nothing. Anyone considering a trip here is not going to make that decision based on a tiny savings on

visa fees. How about lengthening the visa periods? How about making it far easier to re-new the visa? Policy of substance is

what we are looking for, and what the Thai government seems incapable of. What about eliminating this heinous ATM fee?

Thailand should be subsidizing ATM withdrawals, not taking them. With 30% hotel occupancy nationwide, one would expect some

constructive policy. Do we see any? Do we see any cooperation between the immigration office, the tourism dept, and the central

govermnent? Is this too much to ask? Why is this country so fabulously dysfunctional?

I totally agree with you!

[bangon04]

Well this is no wonder. Thailand has been doing everything possible lately, to sabotage it's tourism industry. If Thai Airways is

so serious about reviving it's business, would it not make sense to lower prices? I am always checking their prices, and they

are always much higher than either bangkok air, for domestic routes, and Eva Air for international routes. The one time I

tried them I did not think they were much better. And their surly attitudes did not help. What about the Thai visa policies?

When all of their neighbors are making visas easier for foreigners, one would think Thailand would follow the lead. Eliminating

visa fees accomplishes nothing. Anyone considering a trip here is not going to make that decision based on a tiny savings on

visa fees. How about lengthening the visa periods? How about making it far easier to re-new the visa? Policy of substance is

what we are looking for, and what the Thai government seems incapable of. What about eliminating this heinous ATM fee?

Thailand should be subsidizing ATM withdrawals, not taking them. With 30% hotel occupancy nationwide, one would expect some

constructive policy. Do we see any? Do we see any cooperation between the immigration office, the tourism dept, and the central

govermnent? Is this too much to ask? Why is this country so fabulously dysfunctional?

I totally agree with you!

Isn't the most scary thing about the nonsense uttered by the esteemed Chairman of THAI - that they have a PLAN to extend the average working life of their already decrepit fleet from average 12 years to average 20 years. Just think - to make an average of 20 years the clunkers which are already 20 years old will need to be 30 years old. Or is THAI actually planning to buy the One-to-Go fleet cast offs??

[bkkdawg]

Sad news, I'd always assumed that the reason for two daily 747-400 flights to LHR, was that eventually there would be just one daily A380, with cheaper-fares & competitive-quality again, and the same would be true for other core-routes to Europe/Aussie/USA.

But this is probably a sensible financial step, for a failing 2nd-rate airline, which seems to have lost its way strategically. One supposes that the government has made it clear, the cheque-book is not unlimited, at least until Thai Airways can demonstrate that they can organise a drinks-party in a brewing-establishment.

Also this may help Airbus catch-up on previously-delayed deliveries to the likes of Singapore, Qantas & Emirates or Qatar, who can put these beautiful aircraft to good use, like carrying people to Bangkok at-a-profit !

How do you plan to fit 700 passengers on a plane that only seats 460? The A380 only has 100 more seats than a 747-400

[Carib]

Sad news, I'd always assumed that the reason for two daily 747-400 flights to LHR, was that eventually there would be just one daily A380, with cheaper-fares & competitive-quality again, and the same would be true for other core-routes to Europe/Aussie/USA.

But this is probably a sensible financial step, for a failing 2nd-rate airline, which seems to have lost its way strategically. One supposes that the government has made it clear, the cheque-book is not unlimited, at least until Thai Airways can demonstrate that they can organise a drinks-party in a brewing-establishment.

Also this may help Airbus catch-up on previously-delayed deliveries to the likes of Singapore, Qantas & Emirates or Qatar, who can put these beautiful aircraft to good use, like carrying people to Bangkok at-a-profit !

How do you plan to fit 700 passengers on a plane that only seats 460? The A380 only has 100 more seats than a 747-400

In a in single-class configuration (economy) the airbus A380 has seating for 853 passengers, but it is up to the airlines to decide their chair/class/freight configuration.

Evacuation tests were done with 853 passengers + crew.

[bkkdawg]

Sad news, I'd always assumed that the reason for two daily 747-400 flights to LHR, was that eventually there would be just one daily A380, with cheaper-fares & competitive-quality again, and the same would be true for other core-routes to Europe/Aussie/USA.

But this is probably a sensible financial step, for a failing 2nd-rate airline, which seems to have lost its way strategically. One supposes that the government has made it clear, the cheque-book is not unlimited, at least until Thai Airways can demonstrate that they can organise a drinks-party in a brewing-establishment.

Also this may help Airbus catch-up on previously-delayed deliveries to the likes of Singapore, Qantas & Emirates or Qatar, who can put these beautiful aircraft to good use, like carrying people to Bangkok at-a-profit !

How do you plan to fit 700 passengers on a plane that only seats 460? The A380 only has 100 more seats than a 747-400

In a in single-class configuration (economy) the airbus A380 has seating for 853 passengers, but it is up to the airlines to decide their chair/class/freight configuration.

Evacuation tests were done with 853 passengers + crew.

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Singapore...Airbus_A380.php

I count 471 seats altogether, maybe they tested evacuation etc with this many people on board, but this plane cannot carry 853 passengers in service.

Edited June 10, 2009 by bkkdawg

[Frezie]

<br />

Sad news, I'd always assumed that the reason for two daily 747-400 flights to LHR, was that eventually there would be just one daily A380, with cheaper-fares & competitive-quality again, and the same would be true for other core-routes to Europe/Aussie/USA.<br /><br />But this is probably a sensible financial step, for a failing 2nd-rate airline, which seems to have lost its way strategically. One supposes that the government has made it clear, the cheque-book is <b>not</b> unlimited, at least until Thai Airways can demonstrate that they can organise a drinks-party in a brewing-establishment. <img src="style_emoticons/default/sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="sad.gif" /> <br /><br />Also this may help Airbus catch-up on previously-delayed deliveries to the likes of Singapore, Qantas & Emirates or Qatar, who can put these beautiful aircraft to good use, like carrying people to Bangkok at-a-profit ! <img src="style_emoticons/default/cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cool.gif" />

<br /><br />How do you plan to fit 700 passengers on a plane that only seats 460? The A380 only has 100 more seats than a 747-400<br />

<br /><br /><br />

[Frezie]

<br />

Sad news, I'd always assumed that the reason for two daily 747-400 flights to LHR, was that eventually there would be just one daily A380, with cheaper-fares & competitive-quality again, and the same would be true for other core-routes to Europe/Aussie/USA.<br /><br />But this is probably a sensible financial step, for a failing 2nd-rate airline, which seems to have lost its way strategically. One supposes that the government has made it clear, the cheque-book is <b>not</b> unlimited, at least until Thai Airways can demonstrate that they can organise a drinks-party in a brewing-establishment. <img src="style_emoticons/default/sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="sad.gif" /> <br /><br />Also this may help Airbus catch-up on previously-delayed deliveries to the likes of Singapore, Qantas & Emirates or Qatar, who can put these beautiful aircraft to good use, like carrying people to Bangkok at-a-profit ! <img src="style_emoticons/default/cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cool.gif" />

<br /><br />How do you plan to fit 700 passengers on a plane that only seats 460? The A380 only has 100 more seats than a 747-400<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I am booked on a 380 with Emirates in July which has over 800 seats

[Ricardo]

what is a company going to do with 53 A380 if only less the 10 airports worldwide can service them?

Perhaps Emirates know that there are more airports than that, which can accomodate their new planes, which they're already operating from DUB to LHR/SYD/BKK amongst others ?

Airbus themselves say that the A380 has now visited more than 80 airports world-wide, certainly it has been to BKK & CNX, here in Thailand, so your figure of 10 airports may be out-of-date ?

Sad news, I'd always assumed that the reason for two daily 747-400 flights to LHR, was that eventually there would be just one daily A380, with cheaper-fares & competitive-quality again, and the same would be true for other core-routes to Europe/Aussie/USA.

But this is probably a sensible financial step, for a failing 2nd-rate airline, which seems to have lost its way strategically. One supposes that the government has made it clear, the cheque-book is not unlimited, at least until Thai Airways can demonstrate that they can organise a drinks-party in a brewing-establishment.

Also this may help Airbus catch-up on previously-delayed deliveries to the likes of Singapore, Qantas & Emirates or Qatar, who can put these beautiful aircraft to good use, like carrying people to Bangkok at-a-profit !

How do you plan to fit 700 passengers on a plane that only seats 460? The A380 only has 100 more seats than a 747-400

Airbus's company web-site gives a standard-layout 3-class capacity of 525, not 460, perhaps you're using a different configuration ? And the evacuation-trials were done for 872 or 873 PAX, I believe, that being the theoretical capacity of the current (unstretched) model with high-density all-economy seating.

If Thai Airways feel that they need 80% load-factors, to break-even on their current planned-configuration, then perhaps they need to look more-closely at that configuration, and consider whether it still meets their needs in the changed-market ?

[steve187]

Cannot say when Thai Airways took delivery of their first 777-200 but the very first one was delivered to United Airlines in May 1995.

b777-200 1996/1997 see here http://www.airfleets.net/listing/b777-3.htm

[wackysleet]

Cannot say when Thai Airways took delivery of their first 777-200 but the very first one was delivered to United Airlines in May 1995.

b777-200 1996/1997 see here http://www.airfleets.net/listing/b777-3.htm

Page one shows N777UA delivered to United Airlines 25/04/1995.

[wackysleet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

[clioclio]

what is a company going to do with 53 A380 if only less the 10 airports worldwide can service them?

Perhaps Emirates know that there are more airports than that, which can accomodate their new planes, which they're already operating from DUB to LHR/SYD/BKK amongst others ?

Airbus themselves say that the A380 has now visited more than 80 airports world-wide, certainly it has been to BKK & CNX, here in Thailand, so your figure of 10 airports may be out-of-date ?

My mistake i should have explained my self better, what i meant with airport able to service the A380 efficiently , is logisticly: with structure such as aerobridges for boarding and de boarding passengers

can you imagine this operation done in the middle of the tarmac with stairs? A B747 fully loaded on aerobridge will do it in 20 minutes a fully loaded A380 with two decks and two internal stairs

will surely take more then that. So a special aerobridge should be present such as those i have seen in Frankfurt, Tokyo [Narita] and Bangkok. On top of this is loading and

unloading of cargo, catering, cleaning , servicing, mantenaince, etc... All major airport can welcome the A380 but how many can do it efficiently, at the moment i think 10 should be the right number

for sure in the future with more airline operating her, more will be able to handle her commercialy and not like a world tour demonstration,

[bTW: do you know that when in Bkk swampy for the world tour , while being towed the A380 had one of the winglets niked, she was going to CNX, what they did was take out the opposite winglet and just fly...hehehe]

Emirates has a large capital from where to tap almost unlimited money, 53 A380 how much is it? All other airlines including Thai if with the same capital will have

new aircrafts, spendid entertainment, internet, chef on board, ballerinas, casinos and spas, but this is not the case.

Thai will modernize her fleet eventualy, but not now in this economic situation, she should as all other airline streamline her fleet, 3 or top 4 aircaft type, one short range (B737/A320) Two medim short (A330/B777) and one long range

(B747/B77ER/A380) .... Of course this depend on how "Tea thirsty" the new managment will be....

Thai decision to pospone/ renegotiate or cancel the A380 acquisition sounds right to me, after all even us, all of us, even with money we are not buying new cars or new houses, we put on hold our shopping....

cheers

[howzat]

Thai airways is not the only company suffering from the global money problems, and the related travel cutbacks. All mayor airlines are hurting bad. Contracts are being cancelled, aircraft are being stored, you name it, and it is happening.

Very true but how is it that a carrier as large as Virgin are making profits, is it because of the superior service they offer in relation to most other airlines?.

Just seen in Telegraph that BA's cabin crew earn average nearly GBP 30,000 per year where as Virgin's earn less than half that. Good service and lower opverheads. !!

[Datsun240Z]

I do think, this fat fuc_ker of an A380 isn't the future at all. Supersonic travel is the future. Who want's to sit 10 hours, while he can do it in 3? The main problem is fuel, the Russians are allready doing a Supersonic liner project, but it remains silent for the world. Concorde was a fine piece of engineering, I't never crashed during it's 27 years of operation, only 1 due debry on the runway from an old plane, take took of before the Concorde. BA wanted the plane to remain functional, but Airbus said NO. They blaim the plane to suck fuel with it's afterburners on, that's nonsense. 2 engines of an A380 produce almsot the same thrust as all 4 Concorde's engines.

The whole reason: MONEY, MONEY, MONEY as always. A380 can stuff more people, so more money.

yes but an A380 carry till 800 folks and concorde only 100 witch make a big difference when you pay the ticket if i remember well the price for a Paris/NY was around 5000 euros with concorde so i'd rather sit 10 hours in the plane than work a couple of month just to pay the plane ticket

The only reason why they made Concorde's ticket that expensive, because they wanted to use it as something exclusive, only first class business travellers with money, so that's why the high ticket price.

[steve187]

Thai Airways have on order 6 A380s, everyone knows that their fleet is getting past it's sell by date and needs renewing sooner rather than later.

So as the A380 is one of the only planes that can be delivered in freightliner configuration from new why not exchange some of the A380s they have on order for something more suitable, Air Bus have several smaller wide bodied planes.

Thai Air could fly once a day from BKK to LHR with passengers and fly A380s for their cargo business on their second daily slot, this application could of course be used on other routes as well.

By the way, for you cynics out there Fed Ex has 10 A380s on order in freightliner configuration, just a thought.

all freight a380 have been canceled see here _ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbu..._and_deliveries

[wackysleet]

The only reason why they made Concorde's ticket that expensive, because they wanted to use it as something exclusive, only first class business travellers with money, so that's why the high ticket price.

Thats not true at all BAs and Air Frances Concordes were purchased at a knock down price, the initial developement costs of these planes was never going to be recouped after certain countries refused to buy them, but concordes were rented to fly within the states but at sub-sonic speeds.

[Datsun240Z]

I do think, this fat fuc_ker of an A380 isn't the future at all. Supersonic travel is the future. Who want's to sit 10 hours, while he can do it in 3? The main problem is fuel, the Russians are allready doing a Supersonic liner project, but it remains silent for the world. Concorde was a fine piece of engineering, I't never crashed during it's 27 years of operation, only 1 due debry on the runway from an old plane, take took of before the Concorde. BA wanted the plane to remain functional, but Airbus said NO. They blaim the plane to suck fuel with it's afterburners on, that's nonsense. 2 engines of an A380 produce almsot the same thrust as all 4 Concorde's engines.

The whole reason: MONEY, MONEY, MONEY as always. A380 can stuff more people, so more money.

yes but an A380 carry till 800 folks and concorde only 100 witch make a big difference when you pay the ticket if i remember well the price for a Paris/NY was around 5000 euros with concorde so i'd rather sit 10 hours in the plane than work a couple of month just to pay the plane ticket

True, you cannot compare these two planes. Each cover(ed) a completely different segment in the market.

Datsun, you are saying the Concorde was a fine peace of engineering, but it was fly by wire, and you seem to be very much against that if I remember well, please correct me if I am wrong.

The engines on Concorde did use a lot of fuel, the optimum fuel performance ratio was at mach 2 or above. At lower speeds or even taxiing they drained the tanks.

It was a very very expensive plane to maintain and fly.

Not completely fly by wire, still uses the center yoke. It was once of the first commercial liner, with this system, fighter jet's allready used it. Concorde HAS to have fly-by-wire control at those speeds.

True that I not like fly-by-wire. About the fuel:

Let's say you fill your Toyota Hilux with 15 liter of 91, and travel 100 km.

- Hit the pedal to the medal, be there in half the time, use all the fuel.

- Drive normal, take more time but still use all the fuel.

It's the law of physic, if you travel faster over the a certain distance than you do slower, you use the same amount of energy, only in a different way.

[Priceless]

Not completely fly by wire, still uses the center yoke. It was once of the first commercial liner, with this system, fighter jet's allready used it. Concorde HAS to have fly-by-wire control at those speeds.

True that I not like fly-by-wire. About the fuel:

Let's say you fill your Toyota Hilux with 15 liter of 91, and travel 100 km.

- Hit the pedal to the medal, be there in half the time, use all the fuel.

- Drive normal, take more time but still use all the fuel.

It's the law of physic, if you travel faster over the a certain distance than you do slower, you use the same amount of energy, only in a different way.

Did I hear the word "oversimplification"? You completely forget a large number of factors, e.g.:

- Even if you consume the same amount of energy, an engine produces that energy more or less efficiently depending on a number of factors. Foremost of these factors is the rpm, every engine has an optimal rpm.

- In aircraft you have to consider drag. In particular in supersonic aircraft, this varies greatly with speed.

- To achieve supersonic speed, Concorde had to utilize afterburners. These are an extremely fuel inefficient way to produce more thrust.

I have never been involved with Concorde, but I know from delta winged fighters of about the same generation that their fuel consumption with afterburner, and at low altitude, was 10-15 times what it was without afterburner and at high altitude.

As anybody with a car would know, your statement that fuel consumption per distance travelled is constant, regardless of speed, is absolute nonsense.

/ Priceless

[wackysleet]

Not completely fly by wire, still uses the center yoke. It was once of the first commercial liner, with this system, fighter jet's allready used it. Concorde HAS to have fly-by-wire control at those speeds.

True that I not like fly-by-wire. About the fuel:

Let's say you fill your Toyota Hilux with 15 liter of 91, and travel 100 km.

- Hit the pedal to the medal, be there in half the time, use all the fuel.

- Drive normal, take more time but still use all the fuel.

It's the law of physic, if you travel faster over the a certain distance than you do slower, you use the same amount of energy, only in a different way.

Did I hear the word "oversimplification"? You completely forget a large number of factors, e.g.:

- Even if you consume the same amount of energy, an engine produces that energy more or less efficiently depending on a number of factors. Foremost of these factors is the rpm, every engine has an optimal rpm.

- In aircraft you have to consider drag. In particular in supersonic aircraft, this varies greatly with speed.

- To achieve supersonic speed, Concorde had to utilize afterburners. These are an extremely fuel inefficient way to produce more thrust.

I have never been involved with Concorde, but I know from delta winged fighters of about the same generation that their fuel consumption with afterburner, and at low altitude, was 10-15 times what it was without afterburner and at high altitude.

As anybody with a car would know, your statement that fuel consumption per distance travelled is constant, regardless of speed, is absolute nonsense.

/ Priceless

Only if your car doesn't understand Datzun240z comprehension of physics

[Carib]

I do think, this fat fuc_ker of an A380 isn't the future at all. Supersonic travel is the future. Who want's to sit 10 hours, while he can do it in 3? The main problem is fuel, the Russians are allready doing a Supersonic liner project, but it remains silent for the world. Concorde was a fine piece of engineering, I't never crashed during it's 27 years of operation, only 1 due debry on the runway from an old plane, take took of before the Concorde. BA wanted the plane to remain functional, but Airbus said NO. They blaim the plane to suck fuel with it's afterburners on, that's nonsense. 2 engines of an A380 produce almsot the same thrust as all 4 Concorde's engines.

The whole reason: MONEY, MONEY, MONEY as always. A380 can stuff more people, so more money.

yes but an A380 carry till 800 folks and concorde only 100 witch make a big difference when you pay the ticket if i remember well the price for a Paris/NY was around 5000 euros with concorde so i'd rather sit 10 hours in the plane than work a couple of month just to pay the plane ticket

True, you cannot compare these two planes. Each cover(ed) a completely different segment in the market.

Datsun, you are saying the Concorde was a fine peace of engineering, but it was fly by wire, and you seem to be very much against that if I remember well, please correct me if I am wrong.

The engines on Concorde did use a lot of fuel, the optimum fuel performance ratio was at mach 2 or above. At lower speeds or even taxiing they drained the tanks.

It was a very very expensive plane to maintain and fly.

Not completely fly by wire, still uses the center yoke. It was once of the first commercial liner, with this system, fighter jet's allready used it. Concorde HAS to have fly-by-wire control at those speeds.

True that I not like fly-by-wire. About the fuel:

Let's say you fill your Toyota Hilux with 15 liter of 91, and travel 100 km.

- Hit the pedal to the medal, be there in half the time, use all the fuel.

- Drive normal, take more time but still use all the fuel.

It's the law of physic, if you travel faster over the a certain distance than you do slower, you use the same amount of energy, only in a different way.

So it doesn't have fly by wire because of the centre yoke..., but it HAS to have fly by wire control because of the speed. Now what is it to be, make up your mind, but better still, educate yourself first, and not just about this but take a look at your fuel " story" too, it is a bit too simple. There is much more to be taken into that equation.

[robint]

I had the misfortune to have to fly Tha back to LHR. The plane was dirty, scruffy and smelly. I first cam to LOS 20 years ago when Thai was nearly No 1 along with Singapore in beautiful service etc (and Quantas was the pits and the but of pit bull hostie jokes)

What a huge change, Probably the same hosites (only 20 years older, haggard, sullen and having leanred serious attitude problems)

I would never use Thai today, rather fly Khazak with Borat.

BTW, beware of Qatar. They used to be very good (yet still have a great fleet of new airbuses and well trained hosties), sadly they have become a victime of their own success and their Doha airport is far too small to cope with through traffice - nightmare getting through transit 1/12 hours standing in a queue - torture.

Also they park the aircraft 10 miles away in the desert and it takes 1/2 hour to deplane - NEVER AGAIN

[atyclb]

The A380 is dead meat...as it was, since it's inception. A modern day Edsel...

Reading that statement leads me to believe you know absolutely nothing about the aircraft industry....I've only spent 42 years as a 'Licensed Aircraft Engineer'...............

Do mean to say there are actually people posting that have little or no factual knowledge about what they profess to be lecturing about? Amazing!

[Lopburi99]

Reminds me of LIAT Airlines I used to take when going to St. Vincent from Barbados in the Caribbean many times. LIAT surely stood for "Leave the Islands Another Time!" They'd often just close the ticket counter and go home if there were too few customers...and they didn't give a rip about doing it either.

Ahhhh.... LIAT... great memories- typical Caribbean. Loved and hated them at the same time for the kind of stunts you describe! Another apt anagram for them: Luggage In Another Terminal.

Yes LIAT ...say no more.. but..... they are still around for 50 years now. It is beyond me how they did it. On the other hand it is a part of the Caribbean ways and lifestyle, there always is another day..

Greetings fellow LIAT travelers.

It was a steamy summer day in June 1980 at St. Vincent's sole airport. Located near it's capital, Kingstown, the government had managed to level off just enough land to accommodate (almost) a runway at Arnos Vale Airport. Unfortunately, since a mountain bordered the west, takeoffs were permitted from one direction only, easterly - WITH the wind! I sat in my window seat in the fully loaded LIAT turboprop (about 50 people) nervously awaiting our takeoff, as did everybody I remember observing. I heard the pilot start one engine, then the other shook and sputtered to life. He taxied on to the runway then headed west to the runway's end and made a sharp button hook turn at the very very end near the grass and stopped abruptly. He then stood on the brakes and he began to rev the engines. Louder and louder the engines screamed as he laid on the power, brakes still somehow preventing the plane from moving. Finally, with the plane shaking wildly, the pilot released the brakes and the plane lurched forward. I stared out my window as the plane accelerated (not quickly) down the runway. I saw the passing ground as the plane gained speed but soon became anxious as I knew we were still not able to lift off yet. Then, seconds before I saw the sea water and rocks below, the plane somehow lifted off the asphalt. The pilot leveled off at about 10 feet (in ground effect space) for more than a few seconds until finally gaining enough airspeed to begin his ascent, Barbados being only 20 minutes away. The passengers (as well as the goat, chickens, and woman giving birth in the rear) sighed in relief, once again surviving a plane departure from St. Vincent.

Memories I will never forget from that enchanting, beautiful Caribbean county where my grandfather was born and raised years ago.

And then there was my dangerous takeoff from Grenada's jungle airport... but that's for another post.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Lopburi99

[Abrak]

For all their faults and there are many I will readily admit, I try and remain loyal to Thai Airways.

Today I tried to take advantage of their 2 for 1 First Class (or premium business as it should be better known) offer to the UK and was given a price including taxes of about Bt340k for 2 return. Not brilliant I thought and compared it to last year only to find the price had risen some 22%.

This I find surprising given that an airlines largest operating costs amounting to about 40% is jet fuel and jet fuel prices are down 52% yoy indicating that prices should have fallen....

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fue...nitor/index.htm

It is not as though occcupancy levels would be rising with tourists numbers down 25%. Raising prices as well can only mean an increasing loss of competitiveness which leads to cancellation of A380 orders which is something of a vicous spiral. Somebody might as well switch out the light.

I always thought the whole idea of raising prices in the face of falling sales was pretty crazy when applied to the property market, in international business it is sheer lunacy.

[Lopburi99]

For all their faults and there are many I will readily admit, I try and remain loyal to Thai Airways.

Today I tried to take advantage of their 2 for 1 First Class (or premium business as it should be better known) offer to the UK and was given a price including taxes of about Bt340k for 2 return. Not brilliant I thought and compared it to last year only to find the price had risen some 22%.

This I find surprising given that an airlines largest operating costs amounting to about 40% is jet fuel and jet fuel prices are down 52% yoy indicating that prices should have fallen....

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fue...nitor/index.htm

It is not as though occcupancy levels would be rising with tourists numbers down 25%. Raising prices as well can only mean an increasing loss of competitiveness which leads to cancellation of A380 orders which is something of a vicous spiral. Somebody might as well switch out the light.

I always thought the whole idea of raising prices in the face of falling sales was pretty crazy when applied to the property market, in international business it is sheer lunacy.

I agree, kinda like increasing taxes during a recession (listening, Barak?). I remember when someone could go to the airport (in the U.S.) and purchase "stand-by" seats at the last minute for a big discount. This was many years ago but I never understood why this practice was discontinued. Why not try to fill all the seats on all flights? If somebody were willing to go to the airport without a confirmed ticket in hopes of getting a cheap stand-by, so be it. Let them save a hundred bucks or three. Seems like a win-win for the lucky customer and the airlines.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Lopburi99

[bino]

In a in single-class configuration (economy) the airbus A380 has seating for 853 passengers, but it is up to the airlines to decide their chair/class/freight configuration.

Evacuation tests were done with 853 passengers + crew.

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Singapore...Airbus_A380.php

I count 471 seats altogether, maybe they tested evacuation etc with this many people on board, but this plane cannot carry 853 passengers in service.

Jeez- was Carib's post so hard to understand? The SQ A380 is definitely not a "single class configuration" aircraft. They offer a lot of business class seats and the first class "suites" on their A380.

Imagine that SQ A380 diagram without business class seats and suites, and crammed full of rows of economy seats.

[Ricardo]

My mistake i should have explained my self better, what i meant with airport able to service the A380 efficiently , is logisticly: with structure such as aerobridges for boarding and de boarding passengers

can you imagine this operation done in the middle of the tarmac with stairs? A B747 fully loaded on aerobridge will do it in 20 minutes a fully loaded A380 with two decks and two internal stairs

will surely take more then that. So a special aerobridge should be present such as those i have seen in Frankfurt, Tokyo [Narita] and Bangkok. On top of this is loading and

unloading of cargo, catering, cleaning , servicing, mantenaince, etc... All major airport can welcome the A380 but how many can do it efficiently, at the moment i think 10 should be the right number

for sure in the future with more airline operating her, more will be able to handle her commercialy and not like a world tour demonstration,

The Airbus company website says, in current commercial operations, the A380 is being turned-round regularly in as little as 90 minutes, which isn't too bad, also airlines can load via just 2 airbridges on the main-deck only, thanks to the extra internal-stairs, so no different from a regular Jumbo.

Given that the A380-requirements have been known for several years, surely more major hub-airports will have modified a few gates, in preparation ?

[bTW: do you know that when in Bkk swampy for the world tour , while being towed the A380 had one of the winglets nicked, she was going to CNX, what they did was take out the opposite winglet and just fly...hehehe]

Yep, remember it well, as my boys & I were amongst the enthusiasts, waiting for its arrival up in CNX.

As I recall, despite having 2 wing-walkers and using the centre-line of a taxiway supposedly-designed to accomodate the A380, a winglet nicked a hanger. And the plane flew just fine, without its winglets, but at several percent less fuel-efficiency.

<snip for brevity>

Thai decision to pospone/ renegotiate or cancel the A380 acquisition sounds right to me, after all even us, all of us, even with money we are not buying new cars or new houses, we put on hold our shopping....

cheers

(my comments in bold above)

Interesting discussion.

Agree that it's right (if not standard practice !) to regularly reappraise aircraft-acquisition plans, to ensure that they still match an airline's revised-requirements, and also their ability to pay for them ! We're all making savings, where we can, in these troubled-times.

That should perhaps include looking-again at the previously-chosen configuration, maybe to put in more economy-seats & reduce the other classes, if that's what the new market-demand appears to be.

They might also look at different patterns of operation, on these few high-density routes, perhaps a mix of A380s/B747-400s & A340s might suit them better, flexing the mix for different days of the week or to match seasonal demand ?

But if the root-problem is finance, rather than suitability, one wonders how they will manage to acquire their other new aircraft also on-order from both Boeing & Airbus ? Are they unable to lease these aircraft, as many other carriers do, rather than buying outright ? Perhaps more lunch-boxes are the real objective !

P.S. Sorry for my error, on the numbers for the evacuation-drill, I must have been mixing-up passengers & people (including crew) when I quoted 873.

[bkkdawg]

Thai has lost the plot. They have recently increased fares whilst other airlines have reduced theirs. For the last four years I've been making 5-6 trips a year on TG in first class to Europe. Not any more. Changes to ROP rewards and the "we're Thai you farang you not understand thai people" attitude means I'm saving myself 100 - 120 000 baht RT and flying Etihad biz. Flat seat is just as comfortable as TG first (TG biz is a joke). OK no third rate caviar but 120k baht buys alot on the ground. And noone's gonna arrest you for using reading lights either......

Typical 'Thai Logic' there... When business is bad put the price up! Makes sense doesn't it!?

[Ricardo]

How do you plan to fit 700 passengers on a plane that only seats 460? The A380 only has 100 more seats than a 747-400

The som-tam lady just told me, Thai Airways latest new economy-class service-enhancement idea, is to have another passenger sitting on your lap ?

Come to think of it, some people might actually pay extra for that service, honeymooners & so on !

[grantbkk]

Good grief...what a bunch of miserable s.o.b.'s the vast majority of you people on here are! Such colonialist, superior and arrogant attitudes and points of view. While maybe not as great as Quantas or some others, THAI is vastly superior to many (if not most) international airlines. And the belief that all things Thai must come with a back story, hidden agenda or potential scam is ridiculous. Why do so many of you live in Thailand and continue to travel there if you are so jaded and dissatisfied? Do all of us (and the Thai people as well) a favor and pack your bags or zip your lips!

For a Thai Airways International employee your grasp of the English language is quite adequate. You really can't compare Thailand's flag carrier to the likes of Indonesia or some of those take a chance airlines from Africia. You may not be aware that executives up the food chair at Thai are corrupt and there is your "back story". It is just a fact of life in the region. Closing your eyes and slipping into denial mode does not make it go away.