Thai Airways Royal Orchid Plus - Any chance of Thai resurrecting nonstop to newark?

The nonstop flight to New York from BKK was cancelled when fuel prices were at insanely high levels. Fuel costs have come down... but then again, the economy bottomed out as well...

I remember coming across an article online in which a Thai airways executive said that the non-stop to New York might come back again, particularly as they had a number of long-range airplanes that they wanted to sell but didnt wind up getting rid of, and needed a use for them. This was the last I heard of that concept.

I would LOVE a nonstop BKK-new york route to come back again... anyone care to speculate on this? Or possibly offer actual information, if you have any??

(Edited to change EWR -> New York)

I think it has a chance. Prices to BKK have been up on other carriers so I would think with the ability to connect to other star alliance flights out of EWR would make a huge difference also. JFK was not very well served with connections for star alliance flights.

The previous non-stop TG route to the NYC area was BKK-JFK, but EWR seems the most likely future TG NYC destination given it is a *A hub for CO.

Newark already has the longest regularly scheduled non-stop commercial flight: the 18.5 hour EWR-SIN on Singapore Airlines.


SunLover

The nonstop flight to newark from BKK was cancelled when fuel prices were at insanely high levels. Fuel costs have come down... but then again, the economy bottomed out as well...

I remember coming across an article online in which a Thai airways executive said that the non-stop to EWR might come back again, particularly as they had a number of long-range airplanes that they wanted to sell but didnt wind up getting rid of, and needed a use for them. This was the last I heard of that concept.

I would LOVE a nonstop BKK-EWR route to come back again... anyone care to speculate on this? Or possibly offer actual information, if you have any??

Technically you cannot revive something that never existed ....
As far as resurrection is concerned , you might as well keep believing in your god who never was , because BKK-JFK ain't coming back .

Technically you cannot revive something that never existed ....
As far as resurrection is concerned , you might as well keep believing in your god who never was , because BKK-JFK ain't coming back .

I'm not christian actually and I don't believe in any resurrection of deities.

Looks like I made a mistake, it was BKK-JFK. I flew it once, it was very nice to go from BKK to new york without a stop.

I said BKK-EWR in this thread because the article which I read which quoted a thai airways official as saying the nonstop to new york might be resurrected/brought back/take your pick, said that if it were to come back, EWR would be the likely destination.

. . . because BKK-JFK ain't coming back .

Says who?

I would love to see a NYC flight return to THAI. And though EWR does seem to make the most sense, someone wrote here a month or two back that THAI was nosing around JFK, asking about Terminal and gate space availability. (Apparently Terminal 4 might not be available anymore with Delta moving over there to make way for the Terminal 3 demolition.)

The report seemed credible, and if true, it seemed odd as to why they were looking at JFK rather than EWR. Maybe they were just shopping airports? Maybe it was incorrect or false? But nothing would surprise me.

The report seemed credible, and if true, it seemed odd as to why they were looking at JFK rather than EWR. Maybe they were just shopping airports? .

Hi Sam, I keep reading the reports too & I must admit I have been hearing it for what seems forever. I asked, whom I deem to be a credible, about this last August and the reply was yes we will be going back but not the way you would expect us to go and the time frame depends on the release of their planes. It begs more questions than I got answers for, so I was none the wiser:)

Besides 340-500, I wonder anyone more knowledgeable can tell if any 777 or 787 model has sufficient range for this route?

Actually here's the reference I was thinking of, from
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4625699/


According to the interview of Mr. Wallop, one of Thai's board of directors, he said it is "Unavoidable" for the airline to resume flying to New York because A340-500s are still there and unable to be sold in a near future. The plan is to make all planes better utilized, add more seats from 207 to 260 (cut the Y+) and move from New York JFK to Newark EWR, which is a hub of new Star Alliance member, Continental Airlines.

Sources:
(sorry in Thai) http://www.prachachat.net/view_news....1152&sectionid=0208&day=2009-11-16

Besides 340-500, I wonder anyone more knowledgeable can tell if any 777 or 787 model has sufficient range for this route?

777-300 ER would just make it and 777-200 LR can easily make it with a few thousand Kms to spare. Both 787-8 and 787-9 should just about make it on a EWR-BKK as well.

777-300 ER would just make it and 777-200 LR can easily make it with a few thousand Kms to spare. Both 787-8 and 787-9 should just about make it on a EWR-BKK as well.

The 777-300ER wouldn't be able to fly BKK-JFK route - you need a 777-200LR for that. Winds and ETOPS adds up to 15% extra distance which pushes you into ULR aircraft.

A 787-9 without full load maybe could do it but I doubt it since the real world performance of the first 787's will be lower than expected due to added weight.

The 777-300ER wouldn't be able to fly BKK-JFK route - you need a 777-200LR for that. Winds and ETOPS adds up to 15% extra distance which pushes you into ULR aircraft.

A 787-9 without full load maybe could do it but I doubt it since the real world performance of the first 787's will be lower than expected due to added weight.

Well, Boeing thinks otherwise on the 777-300ER range, albeit with some weight management:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7489/screenshot20101226at813.jpg

Yes, the first few (as in 3-4) 787's will have a bit different range, but that's already considered in the maximum range estimates presented.

I think it's unlikely for the 777s or dreamliners to be used as I recall, the route has frequent strong winds. Although it is usually a strong 100+ kmh tail wind, it could easily be the opposite. In that case, it would be rather troublesome. The charts are probably a best case scenario.

I think it's unlikely for the 777s or dreamliners to be used as I recall, the route has frequent strong winds. Although it is usually a strong 100+ kmh tail wind, it could easily be the opposite. In that case, it would be rather troublesome. The charts are probably a best case scenario.

Why would this be a best-case scenario rather than a realistic actual-use estimate?

I found the page with this chart:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/specs.html

It's on the commercial site. This diagram is entitled "A flexible family to meet your payload and range requirements", and is under the "Full passenger" section (rather than "Freight"). The page is designed to market the planes to end-users. I would think they would be more likely to indicate routes the planes are, under practical everyday conditions (i.e., some fuel left over, anticipate possibility of adverse weather, etc.), actually capable of flying. Otherwise the sale would kind of go south when the potential buyer realized the plane isn't capable of the application for which they originally intended, no?

Today March 28 TG announced service to JFK six years ago. I was hoping for a similar announcement today, but no luck. I contacted TG in January, and TG said there was much talk about returning service but no decision yet. TG suggested I check back from time to time. Has anyone heard anything more about returning service to the east coast? I strongly suggest folks let TG know how much service is missed from the east coast. I will never understand the decision to terminate the service as TG is operating the same planes from LAX and the flying time is the same. How is it any more profitable to run that route. I have remained loyal to TG by travelling through LAX from Boston, but this means more time and expense. What do folks think about Cathay Pacific to Bkk from Jfk? Cheers

I agree to most of the posters here. I was three months late to miss the chance of flyiing the 17 hours non-stop. I think that TG is more popular in LAX becuase they have the A340 non-stop flights and they have the 777 flight via Narita. As for gate space in New York, TG could do the same thing that ANA borrowed United's gate C10 for a few hours everyday. Come on TG I have wait for you guys to resume this route as I been waiting for almost four years now. Can't TG just emulate Cathay's "polar-route" to avoid the strong pacific head wind and taking advantage of that strongwind on the way back? Complaining on having a hard time to fill-up your seats, just code share like how you code share with UA's domestic flight but not listing it up on your web-site.

Rabbz_*A

i just looked at the runway lengths, I think it would be really difficult for a 747 to get ariborne on newarks longest runway with the fuel load they would require to BKK, during periods when the tempature is over 80F

I agree to most of the posters here. I was three months late to miss the chance of flyiing the 17 hours non-stop. I think that TG is more popular in LAX becuase they have the A340 non-stop flights and they have the 777 flight via Narita. As for gate space in New York, TG could do the same thing that ANA borrowed United's gate C10 for a few hours everyday. Come on TG I have wait for you guys to resume this route as I been waiting for almost four years now. Can't TG just emulate Cathay's "polar-route" to avoid the strong pacific head wind and taking advantage of that strongwind on the way back? Complaining on having a hard time to fill-up your seats, just code share like how you code share with UA's domestic flight but not listing it up on your web-site.

Rabbz_*A

TG does not have a 777 flight to Narita (from the USA.) The only service they've been offering to the USA for almost three years now has been the LAX nonstop. Before that, they also had the JFK nonstop. Before (about) 2005 when THAI started getting the A340-500's and could offer nonstop service to points in the USA, they had one-stop 747 service from LAX to BKK via Japan (Tokyo Narita?)

In 2008 when they dropped the JFK nonstop, they talked about ending the LAX nonstop also, and replacing it with a 777-200ER one-stop service, probably via Japan. But they never did that, and instead continued the nonstop service to LAX.

As for using the Polar route, sometimes THAI did do that (in either direction) between BKK and JFK. But much of the time, they used a North Atlantic routing to BKK that flew across Sweden, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. And for flights to JFK they flew many times past Taipei and Tokyo, and across Alaska and Canada into JFK. These routings were longer (distance-wise,) but had tailwinds for most of the route, so flight time was similar to using the Polar routing (much of the time.) My understanding is that the Russians are (or were) charging a huge amount of money for airlines to fly over their Siberian airspace. Something on the order of $20,000 USD/flight.



i just looked at the runway lengths, I think it would be really difficult for a 747 to get ariborne on newarks longest runway with the fuel load they would require to BKK, during periods when the tempature is over 80F

A 747 does not have the range to fly from EWR to BKK with any runway length or take-off temperature. However, Singapore Airlines' A340-500 nonstop to Singapore flies nightly (year-round). That route is about 900 longer than the BKK route would be. Flying from EWR would not be a problem for THAI using the same A340-500 equipment they used from JFK. And, it would offer much better Star Alliance connection possibilities with United's hub at Newark.

For what it is worth my wife and I just flew BKK -FRA F class. Near the end of the flight the purser can around and thanked everyone individually. We asked him if Thai had any immediate plans on resuming service to the east coast. He seemed very doubtful citing the fuel issue. Flight TG 791/794 were great! Up once down once and there. Again, for what is its worth.

the timing of the JFK flight was nice. But for anyone not in the NYC area it's a connection anyway. So, connecting in NY or NRT or via Europe or the Gulf it's all pretty much the same. It's halfway around the world no matter what. So, personally I would rather fly a more comfortable product on another airline since I have to do a stop anyway.

The LAX flight probably works well for TG because there are more expat Thais on the west coast. I would also guess there is more traffic to SE Asia in general from the west coast so people going to that part of the world connecting at BKK makes sense.

Glennaa11,
You make excellent points!

TG does not have a 777 flight to Narita (from the USA.) The only service they've been offering to the USA for almost three years now has been the LAX nonstop. Before that, they also had the JFK nonstop. Before (about) 2005 when THAI started getting the A340-500's and could offer nonstop service to points in the USA, they had one-stop 747 service from LAX to BKK via Japan (Tokyo Narita?)

In 2008 when they dropped the JFK nonstop, they talked about ending the LAX nonstop also, and replacing it with a 777-200ER one-stop service, probably via Japan. But they never did that, and instead continued the nonstop service to LAX.

As for using the Polar route, sometimes THAI did do that (in either direction) between BKK and JFK. But much of the time, they used a North Atlantic routing to BKK that flew across Sweden, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. And for flights to JFK they flew many times past Taipei and Tokyo, and across Alaska and Canada into JFK. These routings were longer (distance-wise,) but had tailwinds for most of the route, so flight time was similar to using the Polar routing (much of the time.) My understanding is that the Russians are (or were) charging a huge amount of money for airlines to fly over their Siberian airspace. Something on the order of $20,000 USD/flight.





A 747 does not have the range to fly from EWR to BKK with any runway length or take-off temperature. However, Singapore Airlines' A340-500 nonstop to Singapore flies nightly (year-round). That route is about 900 longer than the BKK route would be. Flying from EWR would not be a problem for THAI using the same A340-500 equipment they used from JFK. And, it would offer much better Star Alliance connection possibilities with United's hub at Newark.
Thanks, any information is helpful. The oil prices were also my concern, but the airlines continue to fly. Cathay Pacific just added a fourth flight from JFK with daily service starting in May so there must still be profit.

I've taken the LAX-BKK flight a few times and find it just too long. It's a nice plane with proper amenities for such a long flight, 17:45 the last time.

Personally, I prefer stopping in NRT/HKG and stretching, showering, etc than the non-stop. And with the stop, it doesn't feel like it adds much more time over the NS.

As long as they are capturing the business with code-shares, I cannot see New York being a priority.

The jfk flight is ideal because it avoids a 6.5 hour flight to lax to take a TG light that takes the same 17.5 hour flight from JFK plus it adds the cost of the flight to LA. Shuttles to JFK are much lessmoney and more ready available from most east coast cities. Similarly, the flying time from the east coast through LHR to BKK is reasonable but much more expensive than the TG flight from JFK. I am not saying stop the LAX TG flight, only resume the JFK flight. Every major asian carrier flies out of JFK (some several times a day) and Newark so there is a big demand. As I said, Cathay Pacific has just added a fourth daily flight to HKG. I have strong loyalty to TG because of the great product, but why spend more time travelling half way around the world and money when other asian carriers provide a better schedule and price for east coast travellers?This is the business TG is losing.

Why continue the LAX flights and not the NY ones? Because the LAX flights always had a higher passenger load and the biggest Thai community in the USA is in Southern California.
IF Thai was to resume a NY to BKK flight, it would most likely not be a non-stop flight. Thai loses money on the LAX - BKK flights because the A340-500 is a gas hog and has a very limited weight/passenger capacity. The only reason Thai still flies the Non-stop LA to BKK route is because they have been unable to unload the A345-500s.
IF and When Thai does stop the non-stop flights to BKK from LA, they will see a big drop in passengers. Many people, myself included, only Fly Thai because of the advantages of the non-stop flight. Without that advantage, there are other airlines that provide better service at the same or cheaper price.

The jfk flight is ideal because it avoids a 6.5 hour flight to lax to take a TG light that takes the same 17.5 hour flight from JFK plus it adds the cost of the flight to LA. Shuttles to JFK are much lessmoney and more ready available from most east coast cities. Similarly, the flying time from the east coast through LHR to BKK is reasonable but much more expensive than the TG flight from JFK.

The other Asian carriers that fly from JFK go to hubs in places that have a high number of business travel though, right? HKG, NRT, ICN, PVG... BKK is just not a big business destination.

There's no need to fly from the east coast to LA just to take the TG flight. It's easier to go via one of those Asian carriers to HKG or NRT or ICN... (or frankly if you are in F or C some of the legacy US carriers are fine) It adds a stop I suppose but that 17+ hour flight is pretty grueling. I kind of like having a chance to stretch my legs and get off the plane for a little while after 12 hours or so. I also prefer arriving in BKK late at night on day +1 since then I can go straight to bed. The TG flight from JFK arrived later afternoon IIRC. Not terrible (and certainly better than 6 AM) but not ideal either.

The other Asian carriers that fly from JFK go to hubs in places that have a high number of business travel though, right? HKG, NRT, ICN, PVG... BKK is just not a big business destination.

There's no need to fly from the east coast to LA just to take the TG flight. It's easier to go via one of those Asian carriers to HKG or NRT or ICN... (or frankly if you are in F or C some of the legacy US carriers are fine) It adds a stop I suppose but that 17+ hour flight is pretty grueling. I kind of like having a chance to stretch my legs and get off the plane for a little while after 12 hours or so. I also prefer arriving in BKK late at night on day +1 since then I can go straight to bed. The TG flight from JFK arrived later afternoon IIRC. Not terrible (and certainly better than 6 AM) but not ideal either.
Any asian carrier travelling from any american city to the destinations you mention will have a good number of business travellers, but economy class is filled more by non-business travellers. More than 600,000.00 americans visited Thailand in 2010 according to the Thai tourism agency. How many of these tourists were serviced by TG's one flight per day from LAX? TG must decide whether it wants to compete for the american tourist and business market travelling to Thailand and those travelling onwards to other asian destinations. This cannot be done by running one flight per day servicing only the west coast. Cathay, Asiana, Korean, Singapore...all have presence in east and west coast cities. I know I have many options to BKK, but I prefer TG and loved the 17.5 hour flight of peace. Only time will tell the business strategy TG decides to pursue. Cheers

If TG thought they could make a decent return on the flight, they would bring it back. Apparently, they don't think they can. They are not going to run these planes simply because the non-stop is convenient for the passengers. They have to get a return and if that route won't do it, they will (or should) switch the aircraft to a route that will.

Pure and simple.

If TG thought they could make a decent return on the flight, they would bring it back. Apparently, they don't think they can. They are not going to run these planes simply because the non-stop is convenient for the passengers. They have to get a return and if that route won't do it, they will (or should) switch the aircraft to a route that will.

Pure and simple.

Apparently TG doesn't have anybody with brains whom can run the airline. Just look at the mess they made with the top tier membership. If 1kBill runs TG, TG would probably turn a profit....

Is TG really willing to risk the loss again when fuel price is over $100/barrel.

Remember that the only comparable flight, SQ's EWR-SIN nonstop, was converted to all business class years ago. The reason is that the cost to fly all that fuel all that way requires ticket prices so high no tourists will pay them. BKK does not have the business traffic (nor the business class product), so they won't be returning to NYC nonstop.

To those who have read my previous threads as stating TG would return with the A340-500, this is not what I am advocating. I know when TG cancelled service from JFK in 2008 the reason was the high price of fuel, and the price continues to keep climbing higher. However, TG said in 2008 that the passenger load factor was good. this makes me believe for all the reasons I previously stated that there is a demand for TG service from the east coast and TG can make it work as other asian carriers have. Whether this means different equipment or a new route configuration, I don't know. I certainly stated my preference for the non-stop flight, but I would happily accept a short stop along the way without a change of planes. Cathay makes the JFK-BKK route with a stop in HKG in just over 20 hours , surely TG can do the same or something similar.

The problem with making that route a 1 stopper is that it would not work well because the routings they take between NYC and BKK can be so different between NYC > BKK and BKK > NYC. If they fly polar, there's not a practical place to stop (traffic-wise) in Siberia or China. When they didn't fly polar, they were routing NYC > BKK across northern Europe and then across the middle east and India. Non-polar routings for BKK > NYC typically went past Taiwan, Japan, Alaska, and Canada.

If they made a stop along the NYC > BKK route (say in Stockholm), and boarded/let off passengers, then they'd need to stop in Stockholm when flying back to NYC. That flight would then be against the wind the entire way and much longer flying time (and higher fuel burn) compared to taking tail winds and a Pacific routing. Same if they made the stop at Anchorage or Tokyo

The other option would be to make Technical Stops (just for fueling; no passengers picked up or dropped off) at perhaps Stockholm or Moscow on the NYC > BKK sector, and perhaps Anchorage on the BKK > NYC sector. Technical stops used to be common 30+ years ago, but have all-but disappeared from passenger flights in the airline industry today.

Certainly less appealing to passengers cause you've added at least an hour to the journey; some savings (of carrying a smaller fuel load) would be negated by the added taxi, take-off and climb of the technical stop. It would be interesting to know how much fuel savings (if any) could be achieved doing this?

Dare I say it . . . if they were exeriencing good loads on the JFK-BKK nonstop flights before, I would think that moving the flights to EWR and aggressively syncing and promoting them to take advantage of the feed with United would allow THAI to experience even greater demand, thus gaining market power to set ticket prices higher and make it profitable. They are also not competing as directly with the Singapore nonstop now, which is all Business Class.

this might be totally ot...but a friend of mine who is a Thai national mentioned the only reason why BKK-NYC Express was started is because a member of Royal family was attending college (~circa 2006) in NY state....i know this sounds absurd but she told me this w confidence

However, TG said in 2008 that the passenger load factor was good.

Sure, but Load <> Yield, hence SQ flying fewer seats and charging more for them. A full plane can still lose a lot of money.

Sure, but Load <> Yield, hence SQ flying fewer seats and charging more for them. A full plane can still lose a lot of money.

This. And as I understand it, even the SQ flight is barely breaking even (over the last year or so, not including the recent spike in fuel prices)

[QUOTE=Sam Drucker;16119804]TG does not have a 777 flight to Narita (from the USA.) The only service they've been offering to the USA for almost three years now has been the LAX nonstop. Before that, they also had the JFK nonstop. Before (about) 2005 when THAI started getting the A340-500's and could offer nonstop service to points in the USA, they had one-stop 747 service from LAX to BKK via Japan (Tokyo Narita?)

Sorry for the typo,yep its the 747 BKK-NRT-LAX and back since NRT is the last main star hub before you cross the Pacific next emergency stop is either ANC or HNL depending on the flight path.

For the polar-route that I was talking about becuase there was a thread in Airliners talking about how CX run its equipment HKG-JFK in which one of the direction, their equipment needed the shorter polar-route in order to arrive in to their destination. Before saying hey CX use a different eqiupment than what TG uses, I would say if CX could do that, why wouldn't TG emulate how CX operate with the same equipment.

Maybe TG could put in one of their 12 A380 and use the code-shares and Anti-trust/Jointventure to fill the seats up.

Rabbz

this might be totally ot...but a friend of mine who is a Thai national mentioned the only reason why BKK-NYC Express was started is because a member of Royal family was attending college (~circa 2006) in NY state....i know this sounds absurd but she told me this w confidence

One of the princesses graduated from NYU in 2007.

One of the princesses graduated from NYU in 2007.
it is interesting that the flight was axed the following year 2008...it would not surprise me the route was started because of that one person....

it is interesting that the flight was axed the following year 2008...it would not surprise me the route was started because of that one person....

If fuel had been down at $60 a barrel when canceled this would be interesting.

What does it matter the reason it was started? it was a popular flight.

I heard some story back then that TG was losing $100m a year on the route. Kind of doubt the economics are there.

One of the princesses graduated from NYU in 2007.
If that's the case I hope the princess seeks graduate and some post graduate work at NYU.

I heard some story back then that TG was losing $100m a year on the route. Kind of doubt the economics are there.Maybe Continental could make the start up work with a 787 and some decent connecting traffic volumes at both ends.

JFK had few *A code share connection options, and the Airbus bird was a gas hog.


SunLover

Even the SQ SIN-EWR route is a money loser with a full business class. They only offer it as a prestige flight and because they want to service their business class clients. Thai will not revive this route unless the price of jet fuel is significantly lower. The only reason Thai is considering reviving the route is that they are stuck with the planes-which are very inefficient compared to the 777 or A330. In hindsight, it was a dumb move to buy the planes-they got hit by fuel price increases. They have shifted some A345's to northern Europe, but soon all 4 engine planes flying to Europe will be impractical due to new Carbon emission taxes that are on the horizon. TG will probably have to eat the cost of these planes. They have in general made really boneheaded decisions when it comes to acquiring new equipment.

In short, unless TG buys an NEW aircraft that can make money on this route, it will not be revived. At this moment, I do not see them having the financial means to do so-if such a plane existed. You will be waiting years for this route to be flown again or until we have $35 a barrel oil agian.

I don't think things are as black and white on this subject as you make them out to be.

Even the SQ SIN-EWR route is a money loser with a full business class.
Says who? Just curious what you've heard that can be substantiated and confirmed, as airlines don't generally disclose profit/loss data by route. Has Singapore stated the EWR route is a chronic money loser?


The only reason Thai is considering reviving the route is that they are stuck with the planes-which are very inefficient compared to the 777 or A330. In hindsight, it was a dumb move to buy the planes-they got hit by fuel price increases.
Yes, in hindsight there were better moves to be made. But keep in mind that the decisions made at the time had their reasons. The A340-500 was available years before the B777-200LR; It wasn't known at the time that the A345 would underperform; nor that the 777-200LR would meet claims or even slightly overperform.

It should also be stated that Singapore Airlines evaluated switching out their A345's and using 777-200LR's instead, yet decided against it. As a huge 777 operator (including the 777-300ER, which has much commonality including engines with the 777-200LR), if the difference in cost and performance of the A345 vs. 777-200LR was substantial enough, wouldn't they have done it?

Let's not confuse the inefficiencies of ultra longhaul operations with the airplane flying the route. While the A345 was first and the 777-200LR came along later and performed better, the basic problem is still ultra-longhaul flight, not the airplane. And really, that is not a problem if you can sell enough seats to passengers who are willing to pay enough to cover the added costs for this type of flight.

As for the A330, not sure why you mention it in this conversation, as it has no where near the range for this route. The A345 and 777-200LR are the only airliners that can service this route presently.


They have shifted some A345's to northern Europe, but soon all 4 engine planes flying to Europe will be impractical due to new Carbon emission taxes that are on the horizon.

Curious how this scheme will be set up? Wouldn't emissions be a function mainl of how much engine thrust is produced? If you have an aircraft with 4 engines producing 50,000 pounds of thrust each, wouldn't it have approximately the same carbon emissions as an aircraft with twin engines producing 100,000 pounts each? It's 200,000 pounds of thrust either way.


TG will probably have to eat the cost of these planes. They have in general made really boneheaded decisions when it comes to acquiring new equipment.

THAI could streamline their fleet to gain commonality for sure. They have too many types that overlap and perform similarly. But the decision to get the A345's (when it was made) was really no more boneheaded than was Singapore Air's.


In short, unless TG buys an NEW aircraft that can make money on this route, it will not be revived. At this moment, I do not see them having the financial means to do so-if such a plane existed. You will be waiting years for this route to be flown again or until we have $35 a barrel oil agian.

We need to remember that the NYC route is not much different from the LAX route that THAI continues to operate today. Though NYC is about 400 miles further, the LAX route actually has a longer duration in winter (sometimes 18 hours airborne LAX>BKK.) NYC was pretty consistent at 17 hours either direction.

THAI's latest fleet plan showed keeping the A345's until 2018, and I believe refurbing them (and possibly re-configuring interiors) in 2013. What happens beyond 2018? Even just keeping the LAX route will require getting something else to fly it. THAI is supposedly going to place a large aircraft order for "Phase 2" soon (maybe to be announced at the upcoming Paris Airshow?) that might have an answer to the continuation of their ultra long haul operations.

Since they already seem to be keen on the 777-300ER's and will probably get more, it wouldn't be a stretch to slip in some 777-200LR's, which would have high commonality with the -300ER's. But at this time, I'd be surprised if they did address the future of these routes with aircraft orders. Who knows?

The owner of a European travel agency uses SQ for most of his flights to SE asia. He is a friend of mine, and people at at SQ say yes, even full J, with cargo going to EWR, the flight still loses money. The SQ official called it a, "a flying gas can." (You can choose to believe this or not, but I trust what my friend says). In addition to the previous statement I made I would assume that SQ is able to funnel their J business to Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, KL and other destinations in the area.

My point about the A345 is that Thai is stuck with a good plane (it is very comfortable) that has poor economics. TG does not have the route network to distribute passengers that SQ has.

The 777 and A330 are much more fuel efficient than the A340. This is well known. This will hurt it on TG's European routes-I have heard that they fly an A340 to Stockholm. If the EU parliament passes carbon emission legislation, planes that are less efficient will get penalized more heavily. Therefore, as I implied earlier, an A330 or 777 would be better on this route. This addresses the point that TG can really only use this plane on the ultra long haul routes, and it only makes sense with very cheap jet fuel. Perhaps they can use it to fly to Australia, but it looks like Europe may be soon out of the question. This means they are stuck with $1,000,000,000 (yes that's 9 zeroes) worth of aircraft they cannot utilize effectively or sell to anyone else. That, to me, even in hindsight, is pretty boneheaded.

Even the people at SQ don't like the economics of the A340-500.

The owner of a European travel agency uses SQ for most of his flights to SE asia. He is a friend of mine, and people at at SQ say yes, even full J, with cargo going to EWR, the flight still loses money. The SQ official called it a, "a flying gas can." (You can choose to believe this or not, but I trust what my friend says). In addition to the previous statement I made I would assume that SQ is able to funnel their J business to Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, KL and other destinations in the area.

My point about the A345 is that Thai is stuck with a good plane (it is very comfortable) that has poor economics. TG does not have the route network to distribute passengers that SQ has.

The 777 and A330 are much more fuel efficient than the A340. This is well known. This will hurt it on TG's European routes-I have heard that they fly an A340 to Stockholm. If the EU parliament passes carbon emission legislation, planes that are less efficient will get penalized more heavily. Therefore, as I implied earlier, an A330 or 777 would be better on this route. This addresses the point that TG can really only use this plane on the ultra long haul routes, and it only makes sense with very cheap jet fuel. Perhaps they can use it to fly to Australia, but it looks like Europe may be soon out of the question. This means they are stuck with $1,000,000,000 (yes that's 9 zeroes) worth of aircraft they cannot utilize effectively or sell to anyone else. That, to me, even in hindsight, is pretty boneheaded.

Even the people at SQ don't like the economics of the A340-500.

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make in relation to SQ an TG on this route. First, to say TG does not have the "route network" that SQ does just doesnt make sense. I would say they have pretty much the same ability out of BKK that SQ does out of SIN as it relates to connecting flights from the NYC area to SE Asia. Second, the economics for the A345 are no different for TG than they are for SQ. So, if TG is boneheaded then so is SQ.

I am just curious: Does the A345 also have a poor fuel efficiency when flying normal long haul like on the BKK-OSL route where it is being used part of the year? I know that the cabin layout of the TG A345 is a bit special with a limited number of seats but let us just look at the a/c and not consider the seat config.

Then one would think that the main problem with this a/c is the load of the extra fuel that the poor a/c has to carry for the 17-18 hours it takes to cross the Pasific but there might of course also be other factors. To my knowledge the A343 and the A346 might not be known for their fuel efficiency but they are not being considered gas pigs like the A345.

Would the A345 not be able to perform like a A343 og A346 on a 10 hour flight if we assume that all three types had similar cabin layout? Any difference in cargo-capacity?

Cheers,

In that instance, SQ was boneheaded.

In that instance, SQ was boneheaded.

What did your travel agent friend say about SQ's decision to keep using the A345's (rather than swapping them out for 777-200LR's?) Does he know why they reached that conclusion?

Honestly for me, I enjoy the THAI A340-500. It is a wonderful airplane for passengers: Economy has 36" seat pitch, it has the best Premium Economy in the sky, and the Business Class is comparable to most others out there. What's not to love about that?

It amazes me, the animosity I read here on Flyer Talk for this airplane. Aren't we mostly all customers here? Maybe I could understand it if this was a group of share holders or airline finance people, but I don't think that's the core of Flyertalk. I would think this group would applaud anything that enhances passenger comfort and the passenger experience. Do you somehow gain comfort by being scrunched up in a plane with a more conventional configuration for 17-18 hours, knowing that your discomfort is helping put more profits in somebody else's pockets? :confused:

I don't think things are as black and white on this subject as you make them out to be.

Says who? Just curious what you've heard that can be substantiated and confirmed, as airlines don't generally disclose profit/loss data by route. Has Singapore stated the EWR route is a chronic money loser?

Perhaps not a definitive answer, but a definitive source -
http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2011/04/14/rising-jet-fuel-price-spells-more-challenges-for-ultra-long-haul-flights/page1



We need to remember that the NYC route is not much different from the LAX route that THAI continues to operate today. Though NYC is about 400 miles further, the LAX route actually has a longer duration in winter (sometimes 18 hours airborne LAX>BKK.) NYC was pretty consistent at 17 hours either direction.

Perhaps the same in terms of distance and route (weather) conditions, but the markets they serve are very different. There is a large Thai population on the west coast which keeps the LAX route pretty full with a good mix of business and leisure travelers. On the other hand, the East Coast market is different, having a mix that leans more towards business traffic, which is why SIN has been able to sustain the non-stop (well diversified and strong service economy, including Finance). Bangkok lacks sucks a diversified economy that would attract business clientele in large numbers.

Excellent article. Thanks for posting that link!

Excellent article. Thanks for posting that link!

Yeah, that firm is pretty cool. Unfortunately a membership starts are $3K USD, so its too rich for my blood... the free articles though are interesting nonetheless for aviation nerds :cool:

Honestly for me, I enjoy the THAI A340-500. It is a wonderful airplane for passengers: Economy has 36" seat pitch, it has the best Premium Economy in the sky, and the Business Class is comparable to most others out there. What's not to love about that?



I'm with you Sam. From the passenger's standpoint, this is one of my favorite planes. I'd love to see flat-beds in Biz but I can live with the current product.

However, I have a feeling that unless fuel prices go down by half, we won't see the NY route come back. Unless we can convince another member of the Thai Royal Family to attend university in the New York area. Now maybe that's an angle we should be working on...

So what if oil continues to go up & TG decides to reduce the frequency of the LAX flight? Let's assume they eliminate Tue & Wed departures, as SQ is doing. SQ can simply book passengers on their own one-stop, but TG can't. Which do you think is more likely for TG:


They would continue to operate daily, but with different equipment and/or a stop somewhere (KIX?) on Tue & Wed?
They would operate nonstop 5 days a week with no service at all to LAX on Tue & Wed?


David

So what if oil continues to go up & TG decides to reduce the frequency of the LAX flight? Let's assume they eliminate Tue & Wed departures, as SQ is doing. SQ can simply book passengers on their own one-stop, but TG can't. Which do you think is more likely for TG:


They would continue to operate daily, but with different equipment and/or a stop somewhere (KIX?) on Tue & Wed?
They would operate nonstop 5 days a week with no service at all to LAX on Tue & Wed?


David

When plans were in the air to switch over to the 777 with a stop in KIX they were already flying only 5 days a week. At some point in early 2008 they went back up to 7 days IIRC.

There is an "insider" rumor that direct flight to/from New York (no hint if EWR or JFK) will be resumed although today is the last direct flight to/from LAX. :( Has anyone heard if that is a completely unreliable rumor or there is some truth to it and just a matter of time?

Here we go again. It was approximately one year ago that we discussed this same rumor. I would love for it to be true. I did call TG at LAX for all it was worth. They were not aware of the rumor, but also said they are usually the last to know. Last year they said there was some discussion of the return to JFK. I found it odd for TG to ground the A345 planes to collect dust, and reduce service from LAX to five days a week. If the rumor is true, Maybe TG is thinking of using a different plane with a stop over. This would be a little disappointing as I loved the A345 and the non-stop service. I would welcome TG to New York or Newark under any circumstances as it is great service. QUOTE=kiam;18484001]There is an "insider" rumor that direct flight to/from New York (no hint if EWR or JFK) will be resumed although today is the last direct flight to/from LAX. :( Has anyone heard if that is a completely unreliable rumor or there is some truth to it and just a matter of time?[/QUOTE]

Here we go again. It was approximately one year ago that we discussed this same rumor. I would love for it to be true. I did call TG at LAX for all it was worth. They were not aware of the rumor, but also said they are usually the last to know. Last year they said there was some discussion of the return to JFK. I found it odd for TG to ground the A345 planes to collect dust, and reduce service from LAX to five days a week. If the rumor is true, Maybe TG is thinking of using a different plane with a stop over. This would be a little disappointing as I loved the A345 and the non-stop service. I would welcome TG to New York or Newark under any circumstances as it is great service. QUOTE=kiam;18484001]There is an "insider" rumor that direct flight to/from New York (no hint if EWR or JFK) will be resumed although today is the last direct flight to/from LAX. :( Has anyone heard if that is a completely unreliable rumor or there is some truth to it and just a matter of time?[/QUOTE]

The general speculation or belief has been that in a year or two once TG begins taking delivery of the 787, resurrection of the non-stop LAX service will occur because it will make this route cost competitive in terms of fuel versus with the A345. With EWR being a hub for UA, (and this is pure speculation) I think a BKK-EWR non-stop on the 787 could also be possible. I would at least like to see LAX return as this was one of my all time favorite flights. I am indeed also quite dissapointed though that TG seems to be permanently scrapping the Premium E they had on the A345.

Here we go again. It was approximately one year ago that we discussed this same rumor. I would love for it to be true. I did call TG at LAX for all it was worth. They were not aware of the rumor, but also said they are usually the last to know. Last year they said there was some discussion of the return to JFK. I found it odd for TG to ground the A345 planes to collect dust, and reduce service from LAX to five days a week. If the rumor is true, Maybe TG is thinking of using a different plane with a stop over. This would be a little disappointing as I loved the A345 and the non-stop service. I would welcome TG to New York or Newark under any circumstances as it is great service. QUOTE=kiam;18484001]There is an "insider" rumor that direct flight to/from New York (no hint if EWR or JFK) will be resumed although today is the last direct flight to/from LAX. :( Has anyone heard if that is a completely unreliable rumor or there is some truth to it and just a matter of time?

It's possible they could make BKK-LAX/EWR nonstop work with a 787- that's precisely the kind of ULH route (that has decent demand, but not enough for a larger plane) that becomes economically viable with a 787 that is a complete money-loser with other jets, and TG has them on order. My guess is the 777 going BKK-ICN-LAX is a holding pattern until the 787s show up, and I suppose they could add EWR/JFK into the mix as well.

But I don't find it odd that TG grounded their A345s- much as we would love airlines to have comfortable yet completely unprofitable longhaul service, it's not in the airline's best interest to do this (and it's really not in our long-term interest to have airlines do the virtual equivalent of setting bushels of dollars, baht and euro on fire every day). If you're in a hole, quit digging.

. If you're in a hole, quit digging.

I like that, but back to New York City, it would be great for the flyers down under, for 100K we could get Business all the way and a stop over in Bangkok. The push has always been there to bring it back, even in Indonesia, there is huge demand for NYC

I like that, but back to New York City, it would be great for the flyers down under, for 100K we could get Business all the way and a stop over in Bangkok. The push has always been there to bring it back, even in Indonesia, there is huge demand for NYC

100k using the Gold 50% discount you mean? Or have you got another secret? :)

I did MEL-BKK-LAX last year with the Gold discount. Great value J class all the way for 100k!!

Only Victoria's, who told you?

Yes it is the "gift", but you must try this next time you come over and want to add on. Down at the Thai office this morning and it is a holiday here, so had a HO girl, and I booked Bangkok to Melbourne and back, over to Japan and back then through to Europe for 85K, yes in Business, not exactly what I wanted, but at this rate, it is becoming hard to get rid of the mileage

Only Victoria's, who told you?

Yes it is the "gift", but you must try this next time you come over and want to add on. Down at the Thai office this morning and it is a holiday here, so had a HO girl, and I booked Bangkok to Melbourne and back, over to Japan and back then through to Europe for 85K, yes in Business, not exactly what I wanted, but at this rate, it is becoming hard to get rid of the mileage

Sounds great. So are you saying you got a flight BKK-MEL-BKK-Japan-BKK-Europe-BKK in Royal Silk for 85k miles?

How do you go about booking this? According to the TG website, this would be three redemptions: (1) BKK to MEL rtn, (2) BKK to Japan rtn, (3) BKK to Europe rtn.

Would love to know how you get all this in the one redemption for 85k.

Thanks.

I like that, but back to New York City, it would be great for the flyers down under, for 100K we could get Business all the way and a stop over in Bangkok. The push has always been there to bring it back, even in Indonesia, there is huge demand for NYC

Like I said, BKK-NYC (JFK or EWR, pick your poison) is a route that is perfect for TG's 787- probably not enough loads to fill a super-long range 777 consistently over other TG destinations, but probably enough demand to fill a smaller plane, especially if people want to avoid FRA (which I imagine folks do).

We can only hope that TG will do a C/Y+/Y config on the 787s...

Like I said, BKK-NYC (JFK or EWR, pick your poison) is a route that is perfect for TG's 787- probably not enough loads to fill a super-long range 777 consistently over other TG destinations, but probably enough demand to fill a smaller plane, especially if people want to avoid FRA (which I imagine folks do).

We can only hope that TG will do a C/Y+/Y config on the 787s...

Like I also said and as I have been dissapointed, it seems they have given up on the premium E but we can be hopeful at this point. Till now the only aircraft that had it were the A345s and so far it has not been announced for any new aircaft including the A380s to be delivered later this year. But I do indeed see both NYC and LAX non-stops returning with the 787 and as being very cost competitive routes once again due to the superior fuel efficiency.

We can hope on 787's taking on these routes, but it will be management attitudes that will determine it. And though the 787 will certainly result in lower fuel burn than current ultra-long-haul aircraft that can fly these routes, keep in mind that ultra-longhaul flight is still inherently more expensive to operate than flights with shorter stage-lengths. In addition to the fuel-carrying penalty, there's also the costs for the double-crew for the flight deck, and the flight attendants. I believe they all get credit/compensation for the total flight time aloft, even though they work in shifts and have significant rest periods. A lot of crew hours get burned on these flights.

We can hope on 787's taking on these routes, but it will be management attitudes that will determine it. And though the 787 will certainly result in lower fuel burn than current ultra-long-haul aircraft that can fly these routes, keep in mind that ultra-longhaul flight is still inherently more expensive to operate than flights with shorter stage-lengths. In addition to the fuel-carrying penalty, there's also the costs for the double-crew for the flight deck, and the flight attendants. I believe they all get credit/compensation for the total flight time aloft, even though they work in shifts and have significant rest periods. A lot of crew hours get burned on these flights.

Right, but if the demand is truly there, it should happen. And I would think you could get travelers on NYC-BKK and LAX-BKK that would be happy to skip FRA and ICN, and pay a modest premium for the privilege, especially if you're not flying a fuel pig like the A345.

Right, but if the demand is truly there, it should happen. And I would think you could get travelers on NYC-BKK and LAX-BKK that would be happy to skip FRA and ICN, and pay a modest premium for the privilege, especially if you're not flying a fuel pig like the A345.

One of the problems both Singapore and THAI have had with these ultra-longhaul nonstops was that they were not able to get the premium prices in economy that they needed to make them profitable. Singapore was able to take advantage of the greater business traffic in their market and convert the planes to all-business-class to make it work for them. THAI looked at options like reconfiguring the planes, but decided it wouldn't work for them.

I just don't get the "vibe" from THAI that they are intending to resurrect these routes at a later time. They've cut the service even further as a one-stop, down to 4x weekly. They never openly announced the end of the non-stop service publicly. The only place I saw anything written was buried deep in the THAI-USA website, and then an article in the Bangkok Post two months later. Think about it: They announce pointless events on their website like giving some Toyota dude in Bangkok an ROP Platinum card (complete with a photo-op and a few dollies standing with him), yet they don't announce this important change in the service on their longest route? I'd think if they were planning to restart the service(s) later, they'd have been making statements about the current changes being temporary until they receive new equipment better suited to serve the route(s) nonstop. If they'd wanted to try to put some positive spin on the changes we're seeing now, that was their opportunity. Instead, they're trying to keep it as low-key as possible and hope people don't notice.

maybe Thai has other new destinations in the pipeline for its B777. There was a rumour of flying to Vienna and other secondary cities in Europe, like Berlin or others..but nothing new has turned out so far....

Saw something on BKKpost today about Korean Airport authority prohibiting a stopover on US bound Thai flight. If that is true, I wonder where would the new stopover city be? Below is the article,

Korean tourism likely to decline if airlines lose licences

Operators are fretting that Korean tourism to Thailand will drop if the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) does not renew contracts for two South Korean carriers, T'way Airlines and Eastar Jet, whose licences expire on Oct 28.

Charoen Wangananont, secretary of the Association of Thai Travel Agents, said the lapses would directly affect tourism revenue.

T'way Air is temporarily allowed to operate seven flights from South Korea to Thailand a week. But from Oct 28, the DCA will allow only four airlines (Korean Air, Asiana Airlines, Jeju Air and Jin Air) to operate scheduled flights to Thailand.

If the two airlines' licences are not renewed, tour agents worry that the number of Korean tourists to Thailand could fall by 10% a year. Both carriers bring at least 100,000 visitors per year and generate revenue of 1.2 billion baht.

Last year, 1 million Koreans visited Thailand. During the first eight months of this year, arrivals stood at 520,305. Spending per person per day averages 4,140 baht.

Speculation is that the two Korean airlines will not have their contracts renewed because the Korean Airport Authority has prohibited US-bound Thai Airways flights from making stopovers.

The BKK post seems to be the only source on this so far with any regards to TG's opps, and TG has not announced any schedule/routing changes for the LAX route other than switching aircraft to the new 773ER later this month. Let's wait and see what happens, but if they did get banned from routing through ICN I would guess KIX or NRT. They planned to start using KIX for the LAX route back in 2008 when they initially announced plans to cancel the non-stop on the A345 but then subsequently continued the non-stops afterall. NRT would also make sense though because it's a *A hub.

I'm still thinking once TG comes into the possession of the 787 they may attempt a non-stop again though. Here's to hoping!

This Korean airport authority issue is interesting, and apparently fairly recent. I doubt THAI would have announced last month the upcoming change to the 777-300ER if the route was in jeopardy as it now seems to be.

The way the article speaks, it also sounds like the Korean Airport Authority is not going to budge. Wonder what the issue is, and why they let them start the route up last May in the first place?

Just saw another news piece on Bangkokpost (18 Oct 2012) and found that TG is actually trying to increase BKK-ICN-LAX flights from 4 to 7 per week but the Koreans Airport Authority is not allowing that. I guess the Koreans want something more in return before granting this. Booooo

Just saw another news piece on Bangkokpost (18 Oct 2012) and found that TG is actually trying to increase BKK-ICN-LAX flights from 4 to 7 per week but the Koreans Airport Authority is not allowing that. I guess the Koreans want something more in return before granting this. Booooo

This might have been precipitated a few months ago when AoT required one of the smaller Korean carriers to transition over to DMK for their planned increase in weekly flights. The airline in question, I don't recall which one, had already sold seats for flights into BKK and were put in quite a bind.

I haven't followed the saga since the initial info hit the papers.

Yeah, it's in the Bangkok Post this morning:
South Korean carriers get licenses (http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/aviation/317481/south-korean-carriers-get-licences)

Apparently the issue of taking TG692/693 up to daily service won't be resolved anytime soon. The article says they won't have meetings on it until February.

I am not a fan of ICN stop anyway. Maybe they can stop in Tokyo or Osaka on the other 3 flights. Is the landing fee in ICN cheaper than other places in East Asia?

NYC<>BKK would be great. I'd probably do it 1 or 2x a month. Maybe with the 380s coming in, they'll shift their 777-300ERs to that route. That would be perfect for me.

NYC<>BKK would be great. I'd probably do it 1 or 2x a month. Maybe with the 380s coming in, they'll shift their 777-300ERs to that route. That would be perfect for me.

I would be really surprised if TG open back up NYC... But then again, with Thai, anything is possible?! ;)

Cheers,

AG. :-:

NYC<>BKK would be great. I'd probably do it 1 or 2x a month. Maybe with the 380s coming in, they'll shift their 777-300ERs to that route. That would be perfect for me.

I'm pretty sure LAX non-stop would come back first before NYC, and while it "might" though unlikely be possible with the new 773ERs most likely it will have to wait until TG takes delivery of its 787s. One thing NYC does have going for it how is the UA hub at EWR, which would be very good for TG in terms of *A networking possibilities.

I would rather see TG brings back NYC with a European stop first since ULH flight economy is still years away. I can imagine that there is a market for an asian carrier between NY and Europe.

I would rather see TG brings back NYC with a European stop first since ULH flight economy is still years away. I can imagine that there is a market for an asian carrier between NY and Europe.

SQ already fly to NYC via FRA but I doubt TG would fly into the Big Apple via their European destinations.

Cheers,

AG. :-:

I am not saying that TG should go head to head with SQ. Maybe London or Paris stop. There is not a lot of *A (non stop) option from NYC.

I am not saying that TG should go head to head with SQ. Maybe London or Paris stop. There is not a lot of *A (non stop) option from NYC.

As BA no longer has 5th Freedom Service through BKK unlikley that LHR will be opened up to them. Although AF has some 5th Freedom BKK to SEA Countries I cant see CDG to Thailand being a fair exchange.

I am not a fan of ICN stop anyway. Maybe they can stop in Tokyo or Osaka on the other 3 flights. Is the landing fee in ICN cheaper than other places in East Asia?

2 words...Samsung and LG..They are the new powerhouses of consumer electronics, Sony, Sanyo and Olympus are DEAD.

2 words...Samsung and LG..They are the new powerhouses of consumer electronics, Sony, Sanyo and Olympus are DEAD.

What a load of rubbish!

Sony, Sanyo and Olympus dead? :confused: And, can I ask the relevance of your post, anyway? Consumer electronics influence air schedules in which way, exactly?

Cheers,

AG. :-:

What a load of rubbish!

Sony, Sanyo and Olympus dead? :confused: And, can I ask the relevance of your post, anyway? Consumer electronics influence air schedules in which way, exactly?

Cheers,

AG. :-:

WHAT? SONY ARE DEAD?

I just spent a bucket load of cash on a home entertainment system from them, well there goes the warrenty.

Totaly agree AG...... What aload of rubbish and what does it have to do with any of it;)

WHAT? SONY ARE DEAD?

I just spent a bucket load of cash on a home entertainment system from them, well there goes the warrenty.

Totaly agree AG...... What aload of rubbish and what does it have to do with any of it;)

+1! This may have been the most out of context and worthless post I have ever seen.

+1! This may have been the most out of context and worthless post I have ever seen.

I concur! If I were the Mod... It would have been promptly deleted for irrelevance and inaccuracy! :D

Cheers,

AG. :-:

2 words...Samsung and LG..They are the new powerhouses of consumer electronics, Sony, Sanyo and Olympus are DEAD.

While it's true that carriers often schedule flights to satisfy specific demand, including corporate demand, the ideas that 1) Japanese electronics firms are dead, 2) having been completely eclipsed by Korean competitors, 3) thus there is neither demand 4) nor reason for having flights stop in Tokyo is unfounded. Japan remains an economic powerhouse on a world scale with plenty of demand for pax air service. That is undoubtedly why there are so many seats between NRT/HND and BKK on American (DL and UA) as well as Japanese and Thai carriers. If the planes were flying empty, the flights would stop.