No question TG will return to the US market. The question will be at what frequency, schedule and with which aircraft type. Their A350s and B789s should have the legs, but can they command a premium for the nonstop?

Nimish wrote:

and I think I once flew a A346 non-stop on that sector too (though I might be dreaming now)

Probably happened during the time that the JFK flight was still operating. If an A345 needed mtx, they could short the payload on an A346 and it could do BKK-LAX.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

If LAX wont work (which is where the overwhelming bulk of O&D to Thailand is based), no where will.

It's also where the overwhelming bulk of competition is, so there's that.

Do agree with you that a 1stop isn't going to work in the modern market, especially when both the 789 and A359 can do the route nonstop, and TG has both. Fares probably wouldn't support either though, and seems their government isn't interested in subsidizing.

Fares might not support it, but Thai probably have lower unit costs than any other Asian airlines flying to mainland USA, certainly lower than NH, JL, KE, OZ, SQ and CX and more similar to CA, CZ, etc. So they need not attract the same yields as other players to make it work. You're also all assuming that everyone else is flying profitably to the US which is unlikely the case.

The business case to TG to fly to the US might not simply be about the operating profit on the route, and suggesting that short run operating profit should be their only consideration is just as ludicrous.

The place I've met the most Thai people outside of Thailand is Vancouver. Perhaps they want their own metal even it is not a money maker. But by going via ICN, they could carry on as a 2nd or 3rd flight to YVR, while allowing their passengers to connect to LAX, JFK, SFO, etc..., on Asiana & AC.

A year or so ago, the CEO of Thai at the time stated that they would never return to LAX. In my opinion, if TG were to come back to the US via SEA or YVR (Canada...close enough), they should fly through Osaka Kansai. It will be interesting to see where they decide to return when it comes to North America.

Has Thailand regained Cat 1?

evanb wrote:

Fares might not support it, but Thai probably have lower unit costs than any other Asian airlines flying to mainland USA, certainly lower than NH, JL, KE, OZ, SQ and CX and more similar to CA, CZ, etc.

Any minute advantage in static costs is going to quickly be overwhelmed by the amount of fuel required to fly a nearly 3000mi longer distance, if nonstop.

Should they 1stop, then they're up against the power of the JVs and the dual-hub situations.

LAX772LR wrote:

Any minute advantage in static costs is going to quickly be overwhelmed by the amount of fuel required to fly a nearly 3000mi longer distance, if nonstop.

Should they 1stop, then they're up against the power of the JVs and the dual-hub situations.

You'll find there unit cost advantages over NH, JL, KE, OZ, SQ and CX to be quite substantial. With more modern equipment like the A350 and B787, the fuel penalties for long haul have also declined quite substantially.

It's a very different world to when they last flew to the US. Joint ventures have reduced competition meaning less pressure on thin yields. Lower fuel prices and modern equipment have shifted the cost nexus a little further away from operational costs to capital costs opening up a whole range of previously non-viable long-haul opportunities. I doubt TG can do this profitably, but I suspect profit isn't the goal.

LAX772LR wrote:

Any minute advantage in static costs is going to quickly be overwhelmed by the amount of fuel required to fly a nearly 3000mi longer distance, if nonstop.

Should they 1stop, then they're up against the power of the JVs and the dual-hub situations.

Also, North America-Asia JVs are just simply not nearly as powerful as their trans-Atlantic counterparts. Many major players in the North America-Asia market are not in JVs and in most cases they are bilateral rather than multilateral JVs. They simply don't cover a nearly high enough percentage of the market to dominate. For example, United-ANA (Star Alliance) excludes AC, CA, OZ, SQ and BR, Japan Airlines-American Airlines (One World) excludes CX and Delta-Korean (Sky Team) excludes CI, MU and CZ. All of these often exclude travel to third countries where regulatory approval cannot or wasn't gained, which is very different to the TAJVs which are covered by open skies agreements which provide much greater market access.

TG could do worse than look at BKK-MAN-JFK.

Each of the sectors would serve one of the top 4 unserved long haul routes on the planet, per OAG.

https://3rxg9qea18zhtl6s2u8jammft-wpeng ... Report.pdf

The above report illustrates that:

1 - MAN-BKK is the third largest unserved market on the planet, with 133,631 one stop bookings in 2015.
2 - BKK-JFK is the fourth largest unserved market on the planet, with 127,994 one stop bookings.

Connecting these two unserved markets on one direct (but one stop) flight also incorporating a large MAN-JFK (and New York area) markets seems to be a solid overall proposal.

Yield remains the key issue, but the underlying strength of demand should warrant closer attention from TG.

DobboDobbo wrote:

TG could do worse than look at BKK-MAN-JFK.

Each of the sectors would serve one of the top 4 unserved long haul routes on the planet, per OAG.

https://3rxg9qea18zhtl6s2u8jammft-wpeng ... Report.pdf

The above report illustrates that:

1 - MAN-BKK is the third largest unserved market on the planet, with 133,631 one stop bookings in 2015.
2 - BKK-JFK is the fourth largest unserved market on the planet, with 127,994 one stop bookings.

Connecting these two unserved markets on one direct (but one stop) flight also incorporating a large MAN-JFK (and New York area) markets seems to be a solid overall proposal.

Yield remains the key issue, but the underlying strength of demand should warrant closer attention from TG.

BKK-JFK is unserved as a non-stop route. There are plenty of 1-stop options through NE Asia. JFK-MAN-BKK is in the same general GC range as those one-stop options which is helpful.

I wonder how they would do serving MAN-JFK. SIN-FRA-JFK has seemed to work really well because they can get good loads on JFK-FRA alone.

dmstorm22 wrote:

BKK-JFK is unserved as a non-stop route. There are plenty of 1-stop options through NE Asia. JFK-MAN-BKK is in the same general GC range as those one-stop options which is helpful.

I wonder how they would do serving MAN-JFK. SIN-FRA-JFK has seemed to work really well because they can get good loads on JFK-FRA alone.

It's a different market, but SQ are starting to do well on the MAN-IAH sector of SQ51/52 (SIN-MAN-IAH). MAN-JFK is a much more mature market, albeit a crowded one.

The overall proposition is strong because all three route sectors (BKK-JFK, MAN-BKK & MAN-JFK) should stand on their own merits. That is discounting onward connections at all three ports, including the kangaroo route where transfer traffic via BKK would be significant.

It depends what equipment TG could use. A380 would have its challenges for loads/yield but a smaller aircraft (such as the A350) would be much easier on the economics.

evanb wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Any minute advantage in static costs is going to quickly be overwhelmed by the amount of fuel required to fly a nearly 3000mi longer distance, if nonstop.

You'll find there unit cost advantages over NH, JL, KE, OZ, SQ and CX to be quite substantial.

Not enough to counteract that, and I would challenge you to show the slightest bit of empirical evidence to that effect.

evanb wrote:

With more modern equipment like the A350 and B787, the fuel penalties for long haul have also declined quite substantially.

787s and A350s still run on fuel, not magic.

evanb wrote:

It's a very different world to when they last flew to the US. Joint ventures have reduced competition meaning less pressure on thin yields.

Less pressure on yields?? Hmm-- something about a flood of Chinese capacity from subsidized markets......

evanb wrote:

For example, United-ANA (Star Alliance) excludes AC, CA, OZ, SQ and BR

Incorrect. OZ is included in the UA/NH j/v

LAX772LR wrote:

Not enough to counteract that, and I would challenge you to show the slightest bit of empirical evidence to that effect.

CAPA did an extensive analysis of costs for Asian airlines a few years ago. I don't believe much has changed since then.
https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... ost-118729

Oliver Wyman does more American-centric work, but includes some more up-to-date data on some carriers and show that TG's cost advantage may have increased over some carriers.
http://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/ ... 13_WEB.pdf

LAX772LR wrote:

787s and A350s still run on fuel, not magic.

I never suggested otherwise, but as aircraft become more fuel efficient, it reduces the fuel as a percentage of trip cost thereby making thinner and longer routes more viable. This becomes more pronounced on longer routes where fuel as a percentage of trip cost increases.

LAX772LR wrote:

Less pressure on yields?? Hmm-- something about a flood of Chinese capacity from subsidized markets......

No idea where you're going with this. In one breath you're talking about how powerful JVs are, and in another breath you're talking about flooding capacity. You're turning left and right simultaneously.

LAX772LR wrote:

Incorrect. OZ is included in the UA/NH j/v

No they're not. UA and OZ received ATI from US Justice Department, but never implemented a JV. UA and NH ATI is also separate of that from UA and OZ, meaning that even if UA has a JV with OZ, it cannot be the same JV as UA-NH.

evanb wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Not enough to counteract that, and I would challenge you to show the slightest bit of empirical evidence to that effect.

APA did an extensive analysis of costs for Asian airlines a few years ago. I don't believe much has changed since then.
https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... ost-118729

Did you even read this? It in itself contradicts what you're trying to say: five seconds + a calculator will tell you that.

Just as an example, TG with a CASM of 8.5cents per seat mile on an 8300mi route to LAX, isn't going to come anywhere near as low of a cost as OZ with a 10.5cent CASM on a 6000mi trip to the same. TG attempting to 1stop wil only drive its costs up, whereas the competitor's stays largely static.

Of course that's overly simplistic, but the more detailed it gets, the worse the picture becomes for TG.
Which of course common sense would tell-- seeing as if it weren't the case, TG wouldn't be so reluctant to return in the first place.

LAX772LR wrote:

Less pressure on yields?? Hmm-- something about a flood of Chinese capacity from subsidized markets......

No idea where you're going with this. In one breath you're talking about how powerful JVs are, and in another breath you're talking about flooding capacity. [/quote]
What I just said has nothing to do with the JVs, of which no Chinese carrier is (or can be) in.

Rather it's a response to your (incorrect) notion that yield pressure over the Pacific is down. It isn't. Mainland Chinese carriers have been flooding the market to secondary cities with fares often below $500. While US airlines haven't felt as much of a pinch, it's put significant pressure on the likes of CX.

LAX772LR wrote:

Did you even read this? It in itself contradicts what you're trying to say: five seconds + a calculator will tell you that.

Just as an example, TG with a CASM of 8.5cents per seat mile on an 8300mi route to LAX, isn't going to come anywhere near as low of a cost as OZ with a 10.5cent CASM on a 6000mi trip to the same. TG attempting to 1stop wil only drive its costs up, whereas the competitor's stays largely static.

Of course that's overly simplistic, but the more detailed it gets, the worse the picture becomes for TG.
Which of course common sense would tell-- seeing as if it weren't the case, TG wouldn't be so reluctant to return in the first place.

Yes, I read it, and yet you didn't read what I said. My argument was that TG has a lower cost base than most other Asian carriers flying to North America. That is what the evidence suggests. I never made any other claim that they could sustain a US route profitably (in fact I said the opposite). I made that point, as my previous posts indicate to contextualize how TG operates in a slightly lower yield environment compared to other Asian airlines. Your capacity to engage in more than one sound bight at a time notwithstanding I'll restate for the umpteenth time that TG isn't likely thinking about the US market on the basis of single route profitability, but rather a broader strategy.

Also,trying to apply system-wide unit costs to individual routes is not simplistic, just useless, but I think you acknowledge it to some extent.

LAX772LR wrote:

Rather it's a response to your (incorrect) notion that yield pressure over the Pacific is down. It isn't. Mainland Chinese carriers have been flooding the market to secondary cities with fares often below $500. While US airlines haven't felt as much of a pinch, it's put significant pressure on the likes of CX.

I never said yields are or are not declining across the Pacific, although I would be interested in seeing actual evidence rathe rather than just an anecdote (you suggest others should provide evidence to pack claims, so maybe you should to). I suspect you love to shoot before you even read what you're shooting at. I made a general statement regarding the purpose of JVs globally, that "It's a very different world to when they last flew to the US. Joint ventures have reduced competition meaning less pressure on thin yields". This was said in the context of arguing that JVs across the Pacific don't dominate enough of the market to consider them as effective in protecting yields sufficiently, my follow up comment being "North America-Asia JVs are just simply not nearly as powerful as their trans-Atlantic counterparts." I suspect that you're trying to read into what I said to justify the attack you're trying to make, rather than the argument I'm actually making, or that the evidence actually suggests.

DobboDobbo wrote:

MAN-BKK is the third largest unserved market on the planet, with 133,631 one stop bookings in 2015.

Interesting. Has anyone ever flown it before?
Be interesting to know the strength of fares.

evanb wrote:

Yes, I read it, and yet you didn't read what I said. My argument was that TG has a lower cost base than most other Asian carriers flying to North America. That is what the evidence suggests.

There problem there is that I DID read what you said. And your statements were implicitly inconsistent, which is why I've spent this time trying to figure out what you're even trying to get at, in the first place.

For example:

evanb wrote:

I never made any other claim that they could sustain a US route profitably (in fact I said the opposite).

Sure, but just two sentences before that:
"It's a very different world to when they last flew to the US. Joint ventures have reduced competition meaning less pressure on thin yields. Lower fuel prices and modern equipment have shifted the cost nexus a little further away from operational costs to capital costs opening up a whole range of previously non-viable long-haul opportunities."

evanb wrote:

Your capacity to engage in more than one sound bight at a time notwithstanding

...it's "bite," genius.

evanb wrote:

I'll restate for the umpteenth time that TG isn't likely thinking about the US market on the basis of single route profitability, but rather a broader strategy.

Congratulations on such a profound conclusion. It's just that, well, EVERY AIRLINE thinks of the US (or any national) market in terms of network over individual benefit.

evanb wrote:

to justify the attack you're trying to make

Oh, get off the freakin' cross already.
If my intent was to "attack" you, I'd do a better job of it than simply rebutting highly-generalized unsupported statements about aviation matters, in an attempt to see if you actually had any info worth learning from. Grow a pair dude.

Does TG have traffic rights via HKG to USA/Canada?

Would it be reasonable for TG to explore the idea of operating BKK-LAX/SFO/SEA/YVR/YYZ/JFK/EWR or ORD via HKG?

LAX772LR wrote:

There problem there is that I DID read what you said. And your statements were implicitly inconsistent, which is why I've spent this time trying to figure out what you're even trying to get at, in the first place.

For example:

evanb wrote:

I never made any other claim that they could sustain a US route profitably (in fact I said the opposite).

Sure, but just two sentences before that:
"It's a very different world to when they last flew to the US. Joint ventures have reduced competition meaning less pressure on thin yields. Lower fuel prices and modern equipment have shifted the cost nexus a little further away from operational costs to capital costs opening up a whole range of previously non-viable long-haul opportunities."

I was not making this statement in reference to TG, but in reference to the global market (hence "world", not TG's world). Seeing it otherwise if your own contextual reading. TG isn't in a joint venture. They have not opened any major long haul routes, rather closed several in this time period. Yet, the "world" has seen greater emphasis on JVs and the "world" has seen a bunch of new long haul opportunities open. If I had said TG instead of "world" you'd probably be onto something, but no, you're not.

LAX772LR wrote:

Congratulations on such a profound conclusion. It's just that, well, EVERY AIRLINE thinks of the US (or any national) market in terms of network over individual benefit.

Congratulations of missing the point entirely. I don't think TG are doing this for any network benefit. I thought that I made it clear that I thought there was little business case (that would preclude network benefit). Once again, you're reading into it what you want to see rather than what I said. Rather, they're looking at the US because of prestige and pressure from government.

LAX772LR wrote:

Oh, get off the freakin' cross already.
If my intent was to "attack" you, I'd do a better job of it than simply rebutting highly-generalized unsupported statements about aviation matters, in an attempt to see if you actually had any info worth learning from. Grow a pair dude.

Easy snowflake ... I'm just getting on your case because you like to make unsubstantiated challenges, yet ask people for evidence, don't acknowledge when evidence is presented and positions defended, and all while not seeing any need to substantiate your own.

A very underestimated market would be Houston. A United hub were most of the international flying is done by partner airlines. Additionally, while most people say that Houston is hurting from the oil crisis, the city really hasn't seen it. Nobody's flights have been particularly hurt by it. (Yes I'm aware of the downgrade from Emirates, but their loadfactors have been proportionally the same.) One thing Thai would have going for them is the large amount O/D there is from Houston to the region. Vietnam, the Philippines, and Thailand are top destinations for Houston travelers. One airline to capitalize on this is EVA Air, who's been contemplating a second flight to Houston in recent months because their flights are overbooking in the double digits every day. Without citing anybody specifically, I have connections in the market analyst business, who claim that Houston's top destinations on paper are SGN, HAN, MNL, HKG, and BKK in that order.

Still though, it would be interesting to see Thai back in the US.

AirAfreak wrote:

Does TG have traffic rights via HKG to USA/Canada?

Would it be reasonable for TG to explore the idea of operating BKK-LAX/SFO/SEA/YVR/YYZ/JFK/EWR or ORD via HKG?

Yes, the bilateral agreements allows it.

LAX772LR wrote:

Interesting. Has anyone ever flown it before?
Be interesting to know the strength of fares.

I'm not well placed to answer, but I don't think anyone has recently flown MAN-BKK.

I suspect BA and Qantas did when they flew between Manchester and Australia but these have not been flown for some time.

I think TG were on the cusp of launching the route a year or so back - they have apparently been for years - but chose VIE instead.

Strength of fares will be the issue. On both BKK-MAN and BKK-JFK the MEB3 will almost certainly dominate. If this commercial issue can be addressed the route has potential. A350 or B77W would be about right in my view.

DobboDobbo wrote:

and BKK-JFK the MEB3 will almost certainly dominate.

I wouldn't be surprised if CX is the dominant carrier there, considering that HKG is a shorter distance with more different cnnx opportunities + the option of EWR as well. But then again, there's always EK's raw capacity.

Be interesting to see the numbers either way.

LAX772LR wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if CX is the dominant carrier there, considering that HKG is a shorter distance with more different cnnx opportunities + the option of EWR as well. But then again, there's always EK's raw capacity.

Be interesting to see the numbers either way.

I'm afraid I don't have a breakdown of numbers to hand (I have not searched for any so there may be some out there somewhere).

However, a quick search indicates multiple one stop BKK-JFK routes via north Asia (e.g. HKG, ICN, TYO) so your feeling may be right.

There are plenty of routes via Europe and the Middle East - there is only an hour or two time difference between these routings, so other things being equal the traffic is probably quite dispersed.

TG codeshares with BR on BKK-TPE-US, which is probably the best decision they've ever made regarding US service.

While SEA may have fewer carriers to Asia vs. LAX, I would not characterize it as having less competition. The size of the market is the key here and I would argue that given the O&D demand, SEA actually has more competition than LAX. For sure it will be tougher for TG to try to carve out a niche in SEA than going back to LAX. BR, KE, OZ, NH, DL are not just going to rollover and let TG take a piece of the SEA-Southeast Asia O&D market.

TG vice president of alliances and commercial strategy Krittaphon Chantalitanon says the carrier plans to return to the U.S. market once US FAA raises the countries safety rating.

He says "part of the carriers strategic plan is to have the aircraft that would be able to fly nonstop from Thailand to the U.S. efficiently," with nonstop link between Bangkok to California or New York being eyed.

Asia's Worst-Performing Airline Stock Hopes for Boost From U.S.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-from-u-s

=

Seems like another political/prestige pipe dream. TG CEO previously stated in two decades of service to the US it never earned a profit. Cant see it being any different now. Competition is just as strong, and many others carriers likewise enjoy the same efficiency benefits of the new generation of aircraft afford.

I have a feeling that even if a non-stop BKK-SFO, BKK-LAX, and BKK-JFK were launched, it would not do well at all. First of all, Thailand is a low yielding tourist market which doesn't really seem to attract business travelers. Most people who visit Thailand seem to be tourists. If Thai Airways flew non-stop to the US, it would most likely be filled with low yielding travelers without any chances of a profit. Finally, the competition will be too much for Thai Airways to handle. Asiana, Korean Air, Cathay Pacific, etc can handle the market way better than Thai Airways.

I also find it funny how they can't even make profit off a one-stop flight to the US. If they failed on BKK-ICN-LAX, then a non-stop isn't going to fix anything and even be profitable.

They must want to reverse their restructuring plans and see how fast they can burn Baht. This sounds very much like a prestige ego trip.

As we know filing a plane to Thailand is not an issue, its going to be earning enough money doing it from largely leisure and ethnic traffic.
Economics of US-Thailand must be a brutal market considering both US airlines DL+UA also have withdrawn themselves.

They should instead play it safe, and enter into a cooperative agreement with another airline like ANA, Asiana, etc to provide links to their respective US services.

This move has losses written all over it

While the 789/A359 would be much more efficient to operate than the A345, I still have serious doubts that this time around the nonstop service to the U.S. would be profitable. As explained by NichCage, Thailand is a very low-yielding market (the only upside or positive element in this new plan is that TG would have a much lower operating cost than U.S. carriers). TG would need a lot of help from a U.S. carrier (e.g., UA) in order for said U.S. codeshare partner to feed TG passengers at the airports they choose to serve nonstop (LAX, SFO and/or EWR).

From a passenger P.O.V., this seems quite nice. Nonstop service from one, two or three top metro areas in the U.S. to Bangkok on a brand new, cutting-edge airplane by a super exotic (for Americans) carriers. Other than this, I think TG should focus more on its established markets and simplify its fleet.

And people wonder why airlines lose money.

Per OAG, BKK-JFK is the 4th largest unserved route by passenger numbers. Conveniently, MAN-BKK is the third, and lies broadly on a GC route BKK-JFK:

https://3rxg9qea18zhtl6s2u8jammft-wpeng ... Report.pdf

Therefore, why not get back into the New York market by BKK-MAN-JFK. Similar to SQ's SIN-FRA-JFK?

DobboDobbo wrote:

Per OAG, BKK-JFK is the 4th largest unserved route by passenger numbers. Conveniently, MAN-BKK is the third, and lies broadly on a GC route BKK-JFK:

https://3rxg9qea18zhtl6s2u8jammft-wpeng ... Report.pdf

Therefore, why not get back into the New York market by BKK-MAN-JFK. Similar to SQ's SIN-FRA-JFK?

What good does that do? There are already ways on several carriers to fly BKK-XXX-NYC in a distant-efficient manner comparable to BKK-MAN-JFK.

DobboDobbo wrote:

Per OAG, BKK-JFK is the 4th largest unserved route by passenger numbers. Conveniently, MAN-BKK is the third, and lies broadly on a GC route BKK-JFK:

https://3rxg9qea18zhtl6s2u8jammft-wpeng ... Report.pdf

Therefore, why not get back into the New York market by BKK-MAN-JFK. Similar to SQ's SIN-FRA-JFK?

With dense 77Ws, might not be a bad play.

If timed properly for connections that may relieve making money only on O/D, TG in the past, has provided good schedules for India, Bangladesh & Nepal, while other options to SIN, CGK & other Asean countries will help fill seats.

While TG may not attract the premium traffic like SQ, it has a chance of offering a good W or J product that people will be happy with.

I've only flown TG SEA-YYZ-SEA, on an MD-11, in J, back in the 90's, but the service was amazing & the plane was on-time & brand new. If they offer a competitive J product with a lower cost, people will fly them. Whether they make any money, I'll reserve an opinion until I see them actually start the routes.

Didn't TG just announce that they were dropping their plans for LAX service, one-stop via ICN? I guess a change in security status would allow one to speculate they are only jumping while the getting is good, with little thought to the long term, that's no recipe for success.

I'd take the flight 5-6 times a year so I'm biased but I think there is enough business class traffic to make it work. A 788ULH version would be ideal.

It probably could work, ironically, I think more likely with a high density B77W via MAN as well would be better than direct routes on the B789. Main reason, as already stated, Thailand is mostly a leisure destination, and the Thai diaspora mostly would probably be fine with coach.

More than likely, they would do both (if they can get the 5th freedom rights on MAN-JFK-MAN).

Let's see!

They need to start MAN! It's the 3rd largest unserved long haul route in the world, and combining it with JFK initially could be the best way to get the route started.

MIflyer12 wrote:

What good does that do? There are already ways on several carriers to fly BKK-XXX-NYC in a distant-efficient manner comparable to BKK-MAN-JFK.

I agree, it's not a silver bullet. However via MAN makes its success much more about MAN-JFK and MAN-BKK and the kangaroo route ex MAN. Each are major markets. Spreads the risk and each sector can probably stand on its own.

Well, a 789/359 certainly has the capability to do it non-stop. I wish it becomes profitable, but I'm not sold on that.

California: Well, they do have the planes to do it nonstop, problem is they might not have the yields to make the route economically sustainable.

New York: Hahahahahahaha no.

SonOfABeech wrote:

California: Well, they do have the planes to do it nonstop, problem is they might not have the yields to make the route economically sustainable.

New York: Hahahahahahaha no.

The data on New York - Bangkok traffic suggests otherwise. These nonstop routes did not work in the past because airlines did not have the right equipment. Times have changed. Markets have grown. No US carriers currently serve Bangkok as they did in the past via Japan. I wouldn't say the route can't be successful.

Thing is, BKK-New York still requires a specialized ULH plane (unlike BKK-California, which can be done with standard currrent-gen longhaul widebodies like the 789 or A359), with plenty of fuel tankering and probably without the yields to cover the costs. And there are plenty of options to do it one-stop (not only the transpacific joint ventures, but from the East Coast the ME3 become a factor).

Planeflyer wrote:

I'd take the flight 5-6 times a year so I'm biased but I think there is enough business class traffic to make it work. A 788ULH version would be ideal.

Same here, albeit twice a year in J. I would take advantage of this for as long as I can, fully anticipating it to fail. I flew the JFK until the last month it operated back in 2008.

NZ321 wrote:

SonOfABeech wrote:

California: Well, they do have the planes to do it nonstop, problem is they might not have the yields to make the route economically sustainable.

New York: Hahahahahahaha no.

The data on New York - Bangkok traffic suggests otherwise. These nonstop routes did not work in the past because airlines did not have the right equipment. Times have changed. Markets have grown. No US carriers currently serve Bangkok as they did in the past via Japan. I wouldn't say the route can't be successful.

To your point, the tourist market from the US to Thailand has grown by 50% since 2008 (should break 1 million this year) and it's not really all lowest yield tourism as evidenced by the hundreds of five star hotels in Bangkok and the rest of Thailand.

Corporate ties are also up, but not necessarily out of New York. There have been a few acquisitions by Thai companies in US companies over the past few years (in food, energy, etc), though not enough yet to fundamentally change the makeup of the traffic.

The Thai diaspora is somewhat stagnant in the US. The ones living here mostly travel in Y as far as I can tell. The Thais that come here for visits are a mixed bag. Although most are traveling in Y, quite a few that I know buy J tickets to the US for travel or education. Before the TG LAX flight ended, I recall a few students seated in J going home for the holidays, and then coincidentally returning to the US on the same flight as I was. A decade ago I had a Thai roommate that would fly back to Thailand in J three times a year. I think a lot of Thai kids with means probably prefer Europe for schooling now though, although their parents complain about the cost.

Then there's just generally continued economic growth in Thailand and a decent amount of consumer spending on luxury goods in Bangkok. An Apple store is hiring for a new store there apparently.

I figured JFK was a for sure thing, and a toss up between SFO and LAX.

NichCage wrote:

I have a feeling that even if a non-stop BKK-SFO, BKK-LAX, and BKK-JFK were launched, it would not do well at all. First of all, Thailand is a low yielding tourist market which doesn't really seem to attract business travelers.

I would not discount the medical tourism market, where Thailand excels. On the other hand, having a military junta running the country is off-putting.

There is no shortage of 1-stop ways to get to BKK from the US so I'm struggling to visualize a profitable scenario for non-stop flight. BKK is not SIN in terms of yield. It's not even TPE which has decent business class and PE yields from the US (but low yields ex-Asia).

I'm curious to know what kind of passenger volume TG is seeing on its BR codeshare from the US.

B789 would be the perfect aircraft, there is a demand from Cali and NY, but yeah it can turn in to a loss too, I guess before they operated the A346 to LAX if I am not wrong, so well at the moment with the B789 it can be a profitable route.