Near the end of the article it contained this nugget:
Daily flights to Los Angeles would be revived and probably also flights to New York City in the hope that increased penetration of the US would bring in more dollar income. Now, most revenue is in the euro and yen, while fuel bills are in dollars.
Most of us hate change, and switching from one carrier to another is a pain, it would be nice to fly TG to NY America, and it looks like it may happen again. It would make the first class 50% redemption of 132K RTW (minus a little bit) very interesting, something for 2013
Programs: TG ROP Gold, Lifetime OZ Diamond Plus, BA Gold
Posts: 2,690
Personally, I'd love to see the frequency to LA increase and restoration of the NYC flight. But I wonder if he's proposing those for the wrong reasons. What difference does it make if most of their income isn't in USD? I fail to see the big advantage. Sure, currency fluctuations can affect their profit, but it can go either way, either to their advantage or disadvantage. If they really wanted USD though, why not just convert some of the EUR to USD when it's received? And if the USD gains strength and causes their prices on non-US routes to become less profitable, increase the prices on those routes. All the other airlines on those routes will be in the same position as TG is. It's not like they're disadvantaged any.
Anyways, if the NYC route lost money before, and if they don't do something different this time (ie. have a stopover inroute), then it's really a retarded decision to bring back the route just to have some USD, when you need to lose money in the process. If they think they can change things around enough to make the route profitable, then fine, but leave the fact that their getting USD out of the equation. It has nothing to do with profitability that I can see.
Personally, I'd love to see the frequency to LA increase and restoration of the NYC flight. But I wonder if he's proposing those for the wrong reasons.
Exactly my thoughts. The JFK flight started with a royal member attending NYU (IIRC) and it's likely this will be yet another token to a VIP, real or otherwise.
Restarting NYC with A345 nonstops, in combination with the dollar-denominated forex advantages, and especially including OTOP and Puff 'n Pie sales onboard could be the magic combination to profitability.
Seriously though, this NYC proposal is interesting, especially at this time (since Singapore just canned their LAX and EWR nonstops.) It would be interesting to know in what manner (and with what aircraft) he's thinking about NYC? Nonstop, or 1-stop? They do have the unused and un-sellable A345's that could do it.
If they were to use some other aircraft as a 1-stopper, they presumably gain the advantage of an aircraft with a seating configuration that is more profitable. But to operate a 1-stop flight on BKK-NYC, some of the gains would be negated compared to the way the A345 flew it.
NYC and Bangkok are 174° of longitude from each other; almost exactly on opposite sides of the earth. With that much difference, you gain great flexibility in choosing what direction you want to use to fly between these two points. You can basically go North-bound, East-bound, or West-bound with relatively little difference in overall distance. Of course, winds can be another matter.
When the NYC nonstop was operating before, the shortest-distance route was by going polar, as far north as 89° latitude, about 70 miles from the north pole. The winds worked out to be relatively neutral across the length of the route. But actually, most times they did not fly polar. They took advantage of tail winds and flew longer-distance routes that -with benefit of tail winds- had more than enough increase in ground speed to make up for the longer distance.
For BKK-NYC, they usually departed NE and crossed Taipei, then passing just offshore of Tokyo, across Alaska and Canada and into NYC.
For NYC-BKK, they generally flew NE over Nova Scotia, across the North Atlantic, over Stockholm, south of Moscow, then across Afghanistan and India and into Bangkok.
To make the route a 1-stopper, say at either Stockholm or Tokyo (two cities that were along advantageous routes to/from NYC), they would be forced to fly one direction against those most favorable tail winds (in other words, head winds.)
Of course, another option might be newly acquired aircraft for nonstops (unlikely I think) or waiting until 2014 if they think the 787's they have on order will have the legs to do NYC nonstop.
Last edited by Sam Drucker; Nov 27, 12 at 12:23 am..
I don't see a way they can do NYC route with A345 a profitable one. SQ could not do it with all business class so that leads me to believe that it will have to be on another aircraft with a stop in Europe or Asia.
I think a stop in a European city might be the way go. Just don't go head to head with SQ in Frankfurt.
Programs: A3*G, QF PLATINUM, BA GOLD, VA GOLD, HH DIAMOND
Posts: 1,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yobodon
I don't see a way they can do NYC route with A345 a profitable one. SQ could not do it with all business class so that leads me to believe that it will have to be on another aircraft with a stop in Europe or Asia.
I think a stop in a European city might be the way go. Just don't go head to head with SQ in Frankfurt.
yeah, somewhere that isn't a star hub. bkk-cdg-jfk would be nice
BKK to NYC would be great..... or even something with a west coast stop like SEA although I don't think the U.S. allows foreign carriers to fly on to a second destination. A non-stop might work better with a 787.
Would be excellent to fly TG into the Big Apple, see ya UA! 
