LAXdude1023 wrote:

TG can preform much better in Europe for two main reasons I know of.

1) Thailand is a HUGE vacation market from Europe. The US, not so much at all.

2) TG carries a lot of passengers between Europe and Australia/New Zealand.

All of which makes me question why TG don't appear to view BKK-MAN-JFK as an attractive way of getting to NYC.

DobboDobbo wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

TG can preform much better in Europe for two main reasons I know of.

1) Thailand is a HUGE vacation market from Europe. The US, not so much at all.

2) TG carries a lot of passengers between Europe and Australia/New Zealand.

All of which makes me question why TG don't appear to view BKK-MAN-JFK as an attractive way of getting to NYC.

For the moment the SN flights BRU JFK BRU IAD and BRU YYZ are operated in code sharing with TG via BRU.

lawair wrote:

it's kind of amazing that there is that much demand for BKK-LAX given that the route is not currently being served and that there is such a small number of Thais in LA relative to Filipinos.

Might be less than Filipinos, but according to Wiki, Los Angeles has the worlds largest Thai community outside of Asia.

Demographics. Los Angeles, California has the largest Thai population outside of Asia. It is home to the world's first Thai Town. In 2002, it was estimated that over 80,000 Thais and Thai Americans live in Los Angeles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Americans

In addition to LA, there are other Thai clusters in nearby cities like Orange County, San Bernardino and San Diego.

According to Thai-USA association:

The biggest Thai community outside of Thailand is concentrated in/around the Los Angeles, California area, with an estimated 66% of all Thai Americans residing there. Los Angeles is often considered by many as Thailand’s 77th province (Thailand officially has 76 provinces), as it hosts the first and only ‘Thai Town’ in Hollywood.

http://thailand-usa.com/facts-figures/t ... n-thailand

mercure1 wrote:

lawair wrote:

it's kind of amazing that there is that much demand for BKK-LAX given that the route is not currently being served and that there is such a small number of Thais in LA relative to Filipinos.

Might be less than Filipinos, but according to Wiki, Los Angeles has the worlds largest Thai community outside of Asia.

Demographics. Los Angeles, California has the largest Thai population outside of Asia. It is home to the world's first Thai Town. In 2002, it was estimated that over 80,000 Thais and Thai Americans live in Los Angeles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Americans

In addition to LA, there are other Thai clusters in nearby cities like Orange County, San Bernardino and San Diego.

According to Thai-USA association:

The biggest Thai community outside of Thailand is concentrated in/around the Los Angeles, California area, with an estimated 66% of all Thai Americans residing there. Los Angeles is often considered by many as Thailand’s 77th province (Thailand officially has 76 provinces), as it hosts the first and only ‘Thai Town’ in Hollywood.

http://thailand-usa.com/facts-figures/t ... n-thailand

Do you work for the Mayor of Los Angeles? LOL

mercure1 wrote:

lawair wrote:

it's kind of amazing that there is that much demand for BKK-LAX given that the route is not currently being served and that there is such a small number of Thais in LA relative to Filipinos.

Might be less than Filipinos, but according to Wiki, Los Angeles has the worlds largest Thai community outside of Asia.

Demographics. Los Angeles, California has the largest Thai population outside of Asia. It is home to the world's first Thai Town. In 2002, it was estimated that over 80,000 Thais and Thai Americans live in Los Angeles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Americans

In addition to LA, there are other Thai clusters in nearby cities like Orange County, San Bernardino and San Diego.

According to Thai-USA association:

The biggest Thai community outside of Thailand is concentrated in/around the Los Angeles, California area, with an estimated 66% of all Thai Americans residing there. Los Angeles is often considered by many as Thailand’s 77th province (Thailand officially has 76 provinces), as it hosts the first and only ‘Thai Town’ in Hollywood.

http://thailand-usa.com/facts-figures/t ... n-thailand

Yep. My wife is Thai and grew up in Hollywood. That said, I still wouldnt consider the Thai community in LA big. It may be the largest outside Thailand, but its still so much smaller than most Asian communities in many other cities as well as LA.

mercure1 wrote:

lawair wrote:

it's kind of amazing that there is that much demand for BKK-LAX given that the route is not currently being served and that there is such a small number of Thais in LA relative to Filipinos.

Might be less than Filipinos, but according to Wiki, Los Angeles has the worlds largest Thai community outside of Asia.

Demographics. Los Angeles, California has the largest Thai population outside of Asia. It is home to the world's first Thai Town. In 2002, it was estimated that over 80,000 Thais and Thai Americans live in Los Angeles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Americans

In addition to LA, there are other Thai clusters in nearby cities like Orange County, San Bernardino and San Diego.

According to Thai-USA association:

The biggest Thai community outside of Thailand is concentrated in/around the Los Angeles, California area, with an estimated 66% of all Thai Americans residing there. Los Angeles is often considered by many as Thailand’s 77th province (Thailand officially has 76 provinces), as it hosts the first and only ‘Thai Town’ in Hollywood.

http://thailand-usa.com/facts-figures/t ... n-thailand

80k is sizeable but not anything near other nationalities in the region. In the context of what cityairline references, Greater Los Angeles has over 600k Filipinos, 7.5 times more than the number of Thais. The fact that LAX-BKK is half LAX-MNL traffic is what surprises me, although at the same time not surprising given the level of non-VFR traffic to Thailand.

Yes, 600-700k Filipinos in LA area and another 200k in San Diego for a total of around one million Filipinos in southern California.
The distance as you guys claim is a major obstacle for both TG and VN! PR's westboubd California-MNL flights are already at around 14 hours, then add another 2 hours to that!
When it comes to yields, all three countries are low, and the competition doesn't make it better. But I think what makes California-MNL profitable for PAL (it's their long-haul bread and butter), is that the market is big enough to lose half of it to low-price/one-stop options, while half the market opts for the mulitple daily nonstops by PAL even it would require a 10-20% higher price.

Earlier this year I helped 12 people book tickets from GOT to MNL for a weeding, all but one chose to pay a premium to avoid longer trips with more stops, so there is absolutetly a market for nonstops even among VFR even if the price is alittle higher.

DobboDobbo wrote:

All of which makes me question why TG don't appear to view BKK-MAN-JFK as an attractive way of getting to NYC.

Because what price advantage are they going to have over anyone else who can offer NYC-BKK via Europe?

The answer is of course: none.

And even then, it's not just Europe... Cathay is still a more formidable competitor to NYC than BA/AF/LH/etc.

BKK-HKG-JFK is still shorter than going via Europe, people/businesses in both Bangkok and New York know Cathay well, and CX offers way more options than TG ever could or would.

So it's basically nonstop or bust, for them.

Another issue against TG's favor is the fact that Thailand has a fair number of secondary cities that are served by intercontinental carriers that can easily connect multiple US cities to Thai secondary cities using a single stop. Other countries in the region like the Philippines don't have as much an impact from this (CEB and CRK have a couple of one-stop alternatives, but not to the same extent.)

HKT is served by a huge array of Middle Eastern, European, Korean, and Chinese carriers. And TG itself connects HKT with Europe.
KBV is served by AY, QR, and others.
CNX is served by several Chinese carriers, KE, and QR, KA, and others
UTP is about to get QR, and has CZ for other connection possibilities.
To a lesser extent, one stop options are available to USM via HKG as well.

The point being, it's easier to do a one-stop itinerary from many US cities (any city that is served by Korean, Middle Eastern, Chinese, or European carriers) than to take the nonstop TG flight from the one or two cities from which they might operate such flights.

Compare

ORD-(ICN/HKG/FRA/DXB/DOH, etc.)-HKT/CNX/USM/UTP/KBV (1-stop)

ORD-SEA-BKK-HKT (2-stop)

Other than taking a super long haul for fun, why take the nonstop TG flight for a 2-stop itinerary when you can take a 1-stop itinerary to get to Phuket?

Given that a good amount of traffic from the US might not be going to BKK, this could be an issue for TG.

BKK-LAX can be profitable for TG especially now there are no US carriers, and if TG can forge a code share relationship with anyone in LAX (not necessarily UA, could be even DL or AA or Alaska). However with carriers like Air China offering ridiculously low fare (I wonder how they can sustain these fares), it will be a battle. TG may have to offer low enough fares, not as low as Air china or similar carriers but may be 200 or so more, they could get back in business.

hohd wrote:

BKK-LAX can be profitable for TG especially now there are no US carriers, and if TG can forge a code share relationship with anyone in LAX (not necessarily UA, could be even DL or AA or Alaska). However with carriers like Air China offering ridiculously low fare (I wonder how they can sustain these fares), it will be a battle. TG may have to offer low enough fares, not as low as Air china or similar carriers but may be 200 or so more, they could get back in business.

Theyve already been down this road a number of times...

I'm staggered that everyone on here thinks that travel to/from Thailand and Bangkok is only about tourists and expats in LA. Thailand is the 26th biggest economy in the world, and overwhelmingly concentrated on Bangkok. Bangkok itself has the 6th highest per capita GDP of any Asian city and has a massive population of 14 million. Routes to/from Bangkok are not only about bringing tourists and expats home from LA, but there is genuinely significant local demand, for both business and leisure.

hohd wrote:

BKK-LAX can be profitable for TG especially now there are no US carriers, and if TG can forge a code share relationship with anyone in LAX (not necessarily UA, could be even DL or AA or Alaska). However with carriers like Air China offering ridiculously low fare (I wonder how they can sustain these fares), it will be a battle. TG may have to offer low enough fares, not as low as Air china or similar carriers but may be 200 or so more, they could get back in business.

Filing the plane is easy, but doing it at profit for TG will be virtually impossible since as you mention fares are extremely low already.
One can book LAX-BKK today for travel in January for as low as $398/rt - which means less than $300 net to the airlines pocket after taxes and fees are removed.

evanb wrote:

I'm staggered that everyone on here thinks that travel to/from Thailand and Bangkok is only about tourists and expats in LA. Thailand is the 26th biggest economy in the world, and overwhelmingly concentrated on Bangkok. Bangkok itself has the 6th highest per capita GDP of any Asian city and has a massive population of 14 million. Routes to/from Bangkok are not only about bringing tourists and expats home from LA, but there is genuinely significant local demand, for both business and leisure.

I completely agree.
The thing everyone seems so quick to dismiss is the fact that there *is* business travel (even if its not SIN-LHR), and that travel isn't required to connect thru the PRC just to grab an ultra low fare, and horrible connection timing (if US side isn't basically only LAX).
The fact that US carriers no longer serve BKK means the US biz traveller no longer has any obvious loyalty when headed to the region, and the Thai biz pax will have greater reason to fly TG to NA.

Even for VFR - those subsidized fares thru the PRC are not very good routes for those who do not care to spend long hours at transit airports.

TG may not make a killing, but times do change, and making a BKK - SFO/SEA/NYC route break even or mildly profitable is not impossible.
Despite the seeming A.net consensus, TG management aren't a bunch of blithering idiots who enjoy lighting mountains of baht on fire.

Per IATA GHC which was held in BKK last year, their own traffic statistics and country profile indicate that 96% of paid air travelers to Thailand do it in economy class (one of the highest in the world per presentation). The sliver of premium traffic is small in comparison and drowned out by leisure flow.

Also remember many airlines like LH, AF, SK have made mention of the problem of sending their widebodies with high premium content to Thailand due traffic mix composition, while TG even utilizes its business class section on 744 on routes to places like Scandinavia as regular economy seating.

The structure of Thai market is such that its extremely heavily skewed towards leisure and VFR demand, and not a market built on premium demand. You'll also notice BKK often has some of the cheapest longhaul premium class tickets in the region (particularly from Europe which I witness).

FlyHappy wrote:

The fact that US carriers no longer serve BKK means the US biz traveller no longer has any obvious loyalty when headed to the region, and the Thai biz pax will have greater reason to fly TG to NA.

Actually, US biz travelers will certainly still have loyalty - especially now in the day of JV's.

Corporate contracts and their benefits push travel on JV partner for markets like BKK such as United using partner ANA flights. Even AA which does not have a JV with Cathay Pacific uses CX to BKK as part of its corporate pricing. (I know as I do work for a client with AA agreement that sends us on CX to BKK)

evanb wrote:

I'm staggered that everyone on here thinks that travel to/from Thailand and Bangkok is only about tourists and expats in LA. Thailand is the 26th biggest economy in the world, and overwhelmingly concentrated on Bangkok. Bangkok itself has the 6th highest per capita GDP of any Asian city and has a massive population of 14 million. Routes to/from Bangkok are not only about bringing tourists and expats home from LA, but there is genuinely significant local demand, for both business and leisure.

Given that one of the larger business hubs in SE Asia that is more or less as far from the US as BKK is needs to order a niche aircraft type and go heavy J to make it work would indicate TG will also have a tough time making it work.

As others have said, they can fill the plane. Can they fill it at a profit? That remains to be seen, when the majority of travelers are still VFR/Vacationers that are more price sensitive and can more easily justify switching to one-stop options.

They can go the SQ route and have a J-heavy plane, but then it becomes harder to fill it.

LAXintl wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

The fact that US carriers no longer serve BKK means the US biz traveller no longer has any obvious loyalty when headed to the region, and the Thai biz pax will have greater reason to fly TG to NA.

Actually, US biz travelers will certainly still have loyalty - especially now in the day of JV's.

Corporate contracts and their benefits push travel on JV partner for markets like BKK such as United using partner ANA flights. Even AA which does not have a JV with Cathay Pacific uses CX to BKK as part of its corporate pricing. (I know as I do work for a client with AA agreement that sends us on CX to BKK)

I am aware. But there's plenty of smaller business which is not contract-bound. Personally, I enjoy a wide latitude of autonomy in booking business travel. I do not choose the cheapest, nor am I fascinated with rewards. I choose good times and connections, cost is not paramount; I am not the only one.

mercure1 wrote:

The structure of Thai market is such that its extremely heavily skewed towards leisure and VFR demand, and not a market built on premium demand. You'll also notice BKK often has some of the cheapest longhaul premium class tickets in the region (particularly from Europe which I witness).

True. But not the case to and from non-gateway N. America. These premium fares are rather high, totally commensurate with the generally high TPAC travel, when not LAX/SEA/HOU.

mercure1 wrote:

Per IATA GHC which was held in BKK last year, their own traffic statistics and country profile indicate that 96% of paid air travelers to Thailand do it in economy class (one of the highest in the world per presentation). The sliver of premium traffic is small in comparison and drowned out by leisure flow.

Also remember many airlines like LH, AF, SK have made mention of the problem of sending their widebodies with high premium content to Thailand due traffic mix composition, while TG even utilizes its business class section on 744 on routes to places like Scandinavia as regular economy seating.

The structure of Thai market is such that its extremely heavily skewed towards leisure and VFR demand, and not a market built on premium demand. You'll also notice BKK often has some of the cheapest longhaul premium class tickets in the region (particularly from Europe which I witness).

To add nuance to your point, a relatively high percentage may be in economy, but the market is so huge that even 4% is a pretty substantial amount of premium traffic. The problem is that aircraft aren't really configured for 96/4 splits. BKK has significant premium demand, just not in a large enough proportion to the leisure traffic. That being said, some routes like northern Asia and certain European routes are doing well on the premium end. Lufthansa also is sending A380s, though it's unclear whether that is indicative of premium traffic at all.

To your point about the cost of premium tickets, I recently booked business class tickets for an Asian trip from the US. My default is usually to fly to Bangkok, but the Bangkok J fares through United's website turned out to be more expensive than either Hong Kong or Singapore. Instead I decided to go to Singapore and do a quick run from there into Thailand. Anecdotal, I know, but an example of J class fares at least occasionally being more expensive to BKK than to SIN or HKG. If I looked at SQ, I'm sure that would've been more expensive than all of them though.

No doubt Thailand has a stable economy, and that Bangkok has its fair share of investments.
But may I add that the Thai economy is performing quite badly, growth-wise, and has been for several years now. Out of the six major economies in Southeast Asia, the top performers in growth are actually Philippines & Vietnam (+6-7%) and Malaysia & Indonesia (+5%), while Thailand hovers around +3% together with Singapore (which is already a developed economy)...

TG served LAX with disastrous results. There's a LOT of competition there! TG once served SEA with extensions to DFW and YYZ. Just because TG is in Star Alliance doesn't mean they can't join another alliance or change alliances. I think, though, it would make more sense for TG to align with AS. In any case, I would definitely love to see TG in SEA (not biased or anything).

The #1 advantage of flying TG from LAX is the schedule. I don't think I will ever do that flight again though... just too long in a plane for me.

cityairline wrote:

No doubt Thailand has a stable economy, and that Bangkok has its fair share of investments.
But may I add that the Thai economy is performing quite badly, growth-wise, and has been for several years now. Out of the six major economies in Southeast Asia, the top performers in growth are actually Philippines & Vietnam (+6-7%) and Malaysia & Indonesia (+5%), while Thailand hovers around +3% together with Singapore (which is already a developed economy)...

Thailand is a laggard but it's either a larger or more developed economy than those countries, so it's more difficult to get growth rates as high. The population growth is also practically nonexistent. What has happened is that GDP per capita has nearly doubled since the cancellation of the last nonstop flights. The stronger baht and relatively slow growth at home has also led to a significant increase in Thai corporate purchases in Europe and North America. The result is more business traffic from Thailand, but the effects are probably more marginal in the US than in Europe.

Based on all the info posted in this thread, it does seem crazy that TG is talking about Seattle, Chicago, and New York when it seems LAX would be the most logical destination for a U.S. nonstop by far... Sure, they didn't do well the last time they flew to LAX, but they were also flying the route 4x weekly with a stop in ICN. Not a great way to distinguish yourself from competitors... It does seem to me that it would be worth trying LAX-BKK nonstop on the 789 - more fuel efficient aircraft, the only nonstop option, the biggest U.S.-Thailand market, etc. If that route doesn't work with 789, then it's probably not worth trying any others at this point. The only way I could see SEA-BKK being better is if the fuel savings from being a much shorter route cover for the lower demand...

Some recent news?

http://orientaviation.com/articles/3104 ... ute-launch

uwskier25 wrote:

Some recent news?

http://orientaviation.com/articles/3104 ... ute-launch

Interesting. IAF at SEA or other projects won’t be finished by Q4 2018, no?

Overthecascades wrote:

uwskier25 wrote:

Some recent news?

http://orientaviation.com/articles/3104 ... ute-launch

Interesting. IAF at SEA or other projects won’t be finished by Q4 2018, no?

It won't be finished then, but they could fly in and out during non-peak times, like, say, arrive at 8 am, depart at 10.

uwskier25 wrote:

Some recent news?

http://orientaviation.com/articles/3104 ... ute-launch

Despite the date, that's not even a new article... the quotes were all made several weeks ago, and IINM are in this thread if you look back far enough.

“We are looking at building partnerships with airlines that are not necessarily Star Alliance members,” Chaiyong said. “We are open to cooperation on many levels.”

... hello Alaska Airlines.

They could easily have an evening arrival with a late night departure. That would mirror their LAX flight that they previously offered and get people to BKK early in the morning to maximize connection opportunities.