Thai Airways Stuck With Airbus Jumbo

[zorro1]

.

Edited July 11, 2009 by zorro1

[hazz]

having the whole top floor for first and business class is inspired. It means that they will still have some seats available for paying customers after they have given out all the freebies to their staff and politicians. You see they really knew what they were doing back in toxin's time

Edited July 11, 2009 by hazz

[cdnvic]

No Concorde wasn't an Airbus product but the consortium that built it later became Airbus

It was built in partnership between British Aerospace and Aerospatiale. British Aerospace is now BAE Systems and not part of Airbus, Aerospatiale was privatised by the French government and the only link to Airbus was that EADS purchased Aerospatiale's missile division.

[theoldgit]

OK so I was wrong, but Airbus decided they couldn't or wouldn't maintain it any longer so that was one of the reasons it was retired - or is that wrong as well?

[cdnvic]

OK so I was wrong, but Airbus decided they couldn't or wouldn't maintain it any longer so that was one of the reasons it was retired - or is that wrong as well?

I've never heard that before. The Concorde was a money pit and it just wasn't feasable to run them in the post 9-11 downturn. Had that not have finished them, the fuel prices of a year ago certainly would have. Most of the parts would have come from BAE in any case.

Edited July 11, 2009 by cdnvic

[theoldgit]

I remember reading it at the time, this was from the BA website, and where I got some of my info:

Airbus specifies the maintenance regime and supplies spare parts which make Concorde fly. Airbus has made it clear that it will not support Concorde operations, by any airline, beyond October 2003.

Noel Forgeard, Airbus chief executive was quoted in the Financial Times : "The costs of operating Concorde, and in particular maintenance and support, have become such that operations are unrealistic for any operator."

One of my offices used to overlook Heathrow, I got a thrill watching it take off right to the end.

[cdnvic]

I remember reading it at the time, this was from the BA website, and where I got some of my info:

Airbus specifies the maintenance regime and supplies spare parts which make Concorde fly. Airbus has made it clear that it will not support Concorde operations, by any airline, beyond October 2003.

Noel Forgeard, Airbus chief executive was quoted in the Financial Times : "The costs of operating Concorde, and in particular maintenance and support, have become such that operations are unrealistic for any operator."

One of my offices used to overlook Heathrow, I got a thrill watching it take off right to the end.

I did not know that. Be interesting to find out how Airbus wound up being the source for Concorde Parts, though I'm sure they would have carried on for the right price.

[jackdanielsesq]

Like the Concord has nothing to do with the OP, neither does the Paris wreck have anything to do

with them going kaput, nor the multimillion Dollar wrongful death lawsuits.

Ultimately the A380 will bankrupt Airbus, sooner after one goes down, as the airframe matures.

Who is buying bigger SUV's.

BR>Jack

[cdnvic]

Like the Concord has nothing to do with the OP, neither does the Paris wreck have anything to do

with them going kaput, nor the multimillion Dollar wrongful death lawsuits.

Ultimately the A380 will bankrupt Airbus, sooner after one goes down, as the airframe matures.

Who is buying bigger SUV's.

BR>Jack

Ok, I swear, they must have fired you at some point.

[jackdanielsesq]

I wish!!

BR>Jack

Ok, I swear, they must have fired you at some point.

[Datsun240Z]

Concorde is not an Airbus product. Airbus had nothing to do with it's retirement.

No Concorde wasn't an Airbus product but the consortium that built it later became Airbus, and one of the reasons it was retired is because Airbus was no longer willing to service it or provide the parts for others to do so.

Do you ever look anything up before making statements?

I think he probably did.

http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html

I was lucky enough to fly on Concorde once from London to New York, fantastic.

Problem with concord is, it's should be made economy class. The old engines which use afterburners, can nowadays easily be replaced by an newer model, without afterburners with the same thrust levels or greater. Offcourse there are Thousands of other people having things like:

- It's not allowed to fly supersonic over land ( But fighterjets do daily? )

- It's maintenance costs are very high

- It's not economical

- and bla bla.

So it's never gonna be back anyhow.

[eastlight]

It is being kept alive by the Government to the tune of billions and billions of taxpayers' money.

Only a matter of time now before it collapses completely IMO.

As an aside, I just booked a return flight on Air Asia from BKK to KL then MEL round trip less than 8,000thb inclusive. I was quoted 32,000thb for Thai direct in economy, and I usually fly with them on that route, but I've switched allegiance.

Same with me - I've booked with Air Asia to go to Perth in October - return flight via KL- 7300 baht.

[Oberkommando]

It is being kept alive by the Government to the tune of billions and billions of taxpayers' money.

Only a matter of time now before it collapses completely IMO.

As an aside, I just booked a return flight on Air Asia from BKK to KL then MEL round trip less than 8,000thb inclusive. I was quoted 32,000thb for Thai direct in economy, and I usually fly with them on that route, but I've switched allegiance.

Same with me - I've booked with Air Asia to go to Perth in October - return flight via KL- 7300 baht.

I'm meant to be on a brand new A330 with wi-fi internet.

[crocodilexp]

The flag carrier had earlier sought to terminate the A380 contract or change to another future Airbus model, the A350-1000, as it had come to believe the world's largest commercial aircraft would not be economical to operate.

They try to make it sound like it's the fault of the aircraft ... whereas it's clearly the airline itself that has almost been driven into the ground. A380 specs are roughly on target, but Thai airways growth projections are a bit off, I reckon.

[Wiresok]

I remember reading it at the time, this was from the BA website, and where I got some of my info:

Airbus specifies the maintenance regime and supplies spare parts which make Concorde fly. Airbus has made it clear that it will not support Concorde operations, by any airline, beyond October 2003.

Noel Forgeard, Airbus chief executive was quoted in the Financial Times : "The costs of operating Concorde, and in particular maintenance and support, have become such that operations are unrealistic for any operator."

One of my offices used to overlook Heathrow, I got a thrill watching it take off right to the end.

I did not know that. Be interesting to find out how Airbus wound up being the source for Concorde Parts, though I'm sure they would have carried on for the right price.

I thought it was the cost of modifying all the concordes to fit kevlar protection to the wings and fuel tanks, after the Paris crash, which finally did for it.

[tw25rw]

I'm looking forwards to travelling on Thai Airways A380s. Hopefully, I'll be able to travel london to Australia on one.

Awkwardly, the 747s with the newest cabins are also the oldest planes, so replacing them will mean either transferring the cabins to a new plane, or having 747s with cruddy cabins in service even longer.

I like TG. Never had a problem with them and never found them expensive for the routes I fly. They are always the best option for me.

[tw25rw]

Concorde had reached the end of it's service life. The only reason it was noticed was because no natural successor was in service.

It was economics that finally killed it and the only reason it had been airborne so long was that the UK and French govts had subsidised it.

Edited July 11, 2009 by tw25rw

[gbswales]

I have seen a few posts about Concorde - engineering marvel that it was the concept quickly became outdated - relative to the fuel load it carried a very small number of passengerw. The bulk market, even for many business fliers, is for more comfortable economy class accommodation and cheap prices that tourists can also afford. Both of these arguments can only take the aviation world in one direction towards larger aircraft.

However what is even more important is that there are too many flights by national carriers which are aimed at their X flights a day prestige rather than a real economic need. The only thing that will work is fewer flights, larger aircraft, greater use of capacity. Airlines should not be required to stick rigidly to schedules

I had an idea a long time ago regarding aviation taxes - airlines should be taxed according the payload they are carrying. On a scale of something like

85% + usage - zero passenger tax - after that they should be charged a high passenger tax for each empty seat (of any class) The fact that the tax would be applied after the flight would make it more or less impossible to pass it on to passengers directly - instead the airlines would be forced to better manage their flights, giving discounts to fill extra seats, consolidating seriously under used flights, codesharing on less used parts of routings and carefully consdering aircraft and configurations for each route.

Airlines who operate scheduled flights which take off consistently under occupied over a period should lose the right to fly the route

[brahmburgers]

having the whole top floor for first and business class is inspired. It means that they will still have some seats available for paying customers after they have given out all the freebies to their staff and politicians. You see they really knew what they were doing back in toxin's time

Similar to the failing Elite Card program, one reason Thai Airways is on the ropes is because of the many freebies given to VIP's and insiders.

[toret]

The Concorde was built mainly to show off, financial gain was never part of the equation.

[bkk_mike]

Thai had originally ordered these planes for delivery starting in 2008. They then got compensation from airbus because they got delayed, on the basis that Thai would have to fly their crappy-interior (no seat-back TVs) 747s for longer...

Now they want to delay the delivery, I assume so that they can give even more European/Australian tourists a bad impression every time they enter one of their decrepit 747 interiors.

Bring on the A380s. It's the only thing likely to get me back on Thai for the flights to London again. (Qantas refurbished all their interiors, and have direct flights. and the only issue with Emirates is that it isn't direct... After all theirs is the in-flight entertainment system that wins all the awards.)

[bayrider1505]

It saddens me that Thai Airway is not doing well. IMHO Thai Air has absolutely the best First Class service anywhere. Love the Thai People and Thailand. I hope they just Jae yen yen and get their act together.

[barryofthailand]

Thai had originally ordered these planes for delivery starting in 2008. They then got compensation from airbus because they got delayed, on the basis that Thai would have to fly their crappy-interior (no seat-back TVs) 747s for longer...

Now they want to delay the delivery, I assume so that they can give even more European/Australian tourists a bad impression every time they enter one of their decrepit 747 interiors.

Bring on the A380s. It's the only thing likely to get me back on Thai for the flights to London again. (Qantas refurbished all their interiors, and have direct flights. and the only issue with Emirates is that it isn't direct... After all theirs is the in-flight entertainment system that wins all the awards.)

I've always preferred the Boeing 747 to the airbus. Much more comfortable, and business class is really luxurious. Sure you cannot compare the A380 to the 747, but when Boeing unveils the dream liner, then you can make the comparison.

Barry

[glegolo]

Regardless, it's probably too late to change the configuration Thaksin era THAI ordered which requires an 88.8% passenger capacity just to break even...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thaksin was not interested in more than kick backs , he dont care about 88,8%....

Glegolo

[hansnl]

The contrarotating turboprop might be the future.

Back to basics.

The new turboprops engines can fly 20% cheaper and with nearly the same speed as jets,

It is murmured that a lot of builders are thinking about the change to turboprops.

Maybe the end of jet powered airplanes?

[hansnl]

The "unwashed" (very inaccurate) backpackers who develop a relationship with Thailand at 19 are the ones who will return on their honeymoon in their twenties, family holidays in their thirties and forties, conventions in their fifties and retirement in their sixties, each time increasing their spending. It's too bad that the politicians can't think beyond the short term.

Ahhhhhhhh

You see it.

I see it.

Loads of other people see it.

But the Thai people, do they see it?

Not only the above, but you forgot to mention the positive influence from these people on other would be holidaymakers.

[Spee]

I had an idea a long time ago regarding aviation taxes - airlines should be taxed according the payload they are carrying. On a scale of something like

85% + usage - zero passenger tax - after that they should be charged a high passenger tax for each empty seat (of any class) The fact that the tax would be applied after the flight would make it more or less impossible to pass it on to passengers directly - instead the airlines would be forced to better manage their flights, giving discounts to fill extra seats, consolidating seriously under used flights, codesharing on less used parts of routings and carefully consdering aircraft and configurations for each route.

That's some truly scary shit my main man. Governments trying force behaviour upon a business under threat of taxation and more constraining legislation?? Are you for real?

Your idea was way wrong then and is horrendously wrong now. Maybe you forgot but raising taxes during a recession is one of the main factors that led to the great depression.

Businesses NEVER pay higher taxes. They pass the cost on to consumers. All your idea would do is compel people to conserve their money stay closer to home, for example, driving to a vacation in the states or Europe instead of flying to a vacation in Thailand.

As for the A380, who is to tell at this point whether it is a good or bad decision. There are so many issues with Thai Airways right now, it's hard to say that the A380 problems are the biggest ones.

Maybe it's rose colored glasses for me, but the A380 situation seems to be indicative of the problems facing the Thai tourist industry. Thai Airways made these contracts before the fiascos of the last 12-18 months. The whole issue with the Thai tourism industry is one of "bums on seats" so to speak. I find it hard to believe that if Thai Airways was filling these airplanes, that they would have a hard time turning a nice profit on them.

The question is really one of what is Thailand as a country going to do to help Thai Airways fill up these aircraft?

[khunsateeb]

The problem is no one can fill the plane on a regular basis so its efficiency is negated. The Boeing 787 does the same thing with a smaller plane that is easier to maintain and fill. Instead of a super jet made in too many countries with late delivery that had trouble raising its landing gear.

Airbus made the SO wrong mistake by retiring the concorde and instead built the a380. I hope the a380 lands on a scrapyard! I want to go back to the future. Concorde flew for 27 years without one single accident! , The one in Paris wasn't caused by the concorde itself but by debrie on the runway throwen up by the tires and hitting the fuel tanks.

How many times do you see people complianing about the price of plane tickets????? I agree it is a shame that the Concorde has been grounded but it was way too expensive to operate, people are not prepared to pay the extra cost. A380 is designed to move more people at a lower cost per passenger than any other long distance jet.

[eastlight]

Thai had originally ordered these planes for delivery starting in 2008. They then got compensation from airbus because they got delayed, on the basis that Thai would have to fly their crappy-interior (no seat-back TVs) 747s for longer...

Now they want to delay the delivery, I assume so that they can give even more European/Australian tourists a bad impression every time they enter one of their decrepit 747 interiors.

Bring on the A380s. It's the only thing likely to get me back on Thai for the flights to London again. (Qantas refurbished all their interiors, and have direct flights. and the only issue with Emirates is that it isn't direct... After all theirs is the in-flight entertainment system that wins all the awards.)

All the people that I know who have flown in the A380 are full of praise for it saying that it's a totally differenct experience.

When I make my next return trip to the UK I'll be making sure that I too fly on it preferably with Emirates. No more clapped out Thai Airways 747s!

[cdnvic]

The problem is no one can fill the plane on a regular basis so its efficiency is negated. The Boeing 787 does the same thing with a smaller plane that is easier to maintain and fill. Instead of a super jet made in too many countries with late delivery that had trouble raising its landing gear.

You mean the 787 that is built in 8 countries and the first one had to be re-assembled because the original fasteners would have failed to keep the plane together in flight? It's now more than two years late in delivery and hasn't even flown yet. I'm sure it will be a beautiful machine when it's finished but as you can see, most jets go through glitches in their early stages. It's just important to look at the whole story rather than pick and choose what facts you use in order to suit the story you'd prefer.

Edited July 12, 2009 by cdnvic