A300 service on THAI ending this year

Old Feb 18, 2014, 10:21 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne/Bangkok
Programs: A3*G, QF PLATINUM, BA GOLD, VA GOLD, HH DIAMOND
Posts: 2,245
Originally Posted by pansted00
If you guys had to endure the Lahore to Bangkok overnight 5 hour flight on these birds in a miserable C class as I did , I don't think any of you would feel bad about these birds heading for the scapyard .
how awful for you.
Aussie_flyer is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2014, 11:26 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: YVR - Vancouver, with most winter weekends in Whistler.
Programs: Aeroplan 35K, Alaska MVP, Marriott Titanium / Lifetime Platinum, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 4,607
Thai must be the last Star Alliance carrier flying an A300?

Iran Air still fly's them? No?
worldtraveller73 is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2014, 9:35 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: asia miles
Posts: 398
I'd fly on an A300 anyday rather than on a narrobody.

I flew KCC-BKK last month and it was a pleasure to fly an A300. Those birds are really well maintained
blandy62 is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2014, 9:48 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne/Bangkok
Programs: A3*G, QF PLATINUM, BA GOLD, VA GOLD, HH DIAMOND
Posts: 2,245
It's been mentioned (by me) at least half a dozen times but some of Thai's A300's are made in 1998 and NEWER than some of the B777's (Thai's 777s date from 1996) and many of the B747's (from 1990 on). So there has been no reason for Thai to retire aircraft that are only 15 years old even now. They just needed a new business class cabin really.
Aussie_flyer is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2014, 10:46 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: PDX
Programs: Free agent!
Posts: 1,423
Originally Posted by dsquared37
The exit rows, 39 and 40, are hands down the best on the plane. If you're in Y and *G target these upon checkin.
Thanks for the tip but I'll be in C

However, I think I'd rather fly Y on the A300 for such a short sector instead of C on the 734 just to be able to check the A300 off my list. I suspect that someday someone on FT will rue their failed last chance at flying the 734
kevincrumbs is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2014, 11:05 pm
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
Originally Posted by kevincrumbs
I suspect that someday someone on FT will rue their failed last chance at flying the 734
NO WAY, I'm so tired of the 'guppy' and would rather have the A300s stay in the fleet and the 734s disposed of in any way possible. They'd probably make great reefs!
dsquared37 is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2014, 10:23 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,341
Originally Posted by Aussie_flyer
It's been mentioned (by me) at least half a dozen times but some of Thai's A300's are made in 1998 and NEWER than some of the B777's (Thai's 777s date from 1996) and many of the B747's (from 1990 on). So there has been no reason for Thai to retire aircraft that are only 15 years old even now. They just needed a new business class cabin really.
Actually, I think there are some pretty good ones. Range on A320s is pretty decent, and AK, JQ and TR are demonstrating that the higher frequency/narrowbody model for service works pretty well when fuel charges are high, which I think is why TG is moving towards the Thai Smile model of A320 service as time goes by.

Also, the 772s and 747s can fly missions that the A300 cannot do (longer intercontinental ones), which is why they get kept around. The A300 is a tweener.
eponymous_coward is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2014, 11:23 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 589
Originally Posted by Aussie_flyer
It's been mentioned (by me) at least half a dozen times but some of Thai's A300's are made in 1998 and NEWER than some of the B777's (Thai's 777s date from 1996) and many of the B747's (from 1990 on). So there has been no reason for Thai to retire aircraft that are only 15 years old even now. They just needed a new business class cabin really.
Just the C seats.

Some of the birds look really ok inside. I mean the wall pannels, the overhead bins, even the lavs are acceptable for short/mid-range flights.

Fancy thought (but won't work for a lot of reasons): Put in the old velvet-class seats from the 7442.
Fan2502 is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2014, 1:41 pm
  #24  
Original Member and FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Programs: DL PM/MM, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Glob, HH Dia, National ECE, Hertz PC
Posts: 16,577
Originally Posted by Aussie_flyer
So there has been no reason for Thai to retire aircraft that are only 15 years old even now.
I imagine there's a very good reason to retire them, this.
Beckles is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2014, 8:34 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne/Bangkok
Programs: A3*G, QF PLATINUM, BA GOLD, VA GOLD, HH DIAMOND
Posts: 2,245
The point I'm making is that these were not ancient 1980s aircraft that were overdue for retirement. Some of them are younger than Thai 747's and 777's. So yes they may not be as fuel efficient as an A320 ( which first entered service 10 years before Thai's newest A300 rolled off the production line) but they were not old aircraft.
Aussie_flyer is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2014, 10:32 pm
  #26  
Original Member and FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Programs: DL PM/MM, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Glob, HH Dia, National ECE, Hertz PC
Posts: 16,577
Originally Posted by Aussie_flyer
The point I'm making is that these were not ancient 1980s aircraft that were overdue for retirement. Some of them are younger than Thai 747's and 777's. So yes they may not be as fuel efficient as an A320 ( which first entered service 10 years before Thai's newest A300 rolled off the production line) but they were not old aircraft.
Doesn't matter when the aircraft were built, in the day of 100USD/barrel oil a widebody aircraft first designed in the 1970's can not be economically operated on routes that can be operated by narrowbody aircraft with a fraction of their range.
Beckles is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2014, 10:37 pm
  #27  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
I remember when TG used to run the A300s BKK-HKG alongside DC8s
elitetraveler is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2014, 11:51 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Programs: Velocity Gold
Posts: 1,069
A300 service on THAI ending this year

Why don't Thai get some narrow bodies and put in a proper business class to use on the regional routes. SIN, PNH, SGN, HAN, DPS, RGN, etc. would make sense to increase frequency but still have a proper J class. The wide bodies on these routes rarely seem to be full.
travelislife is offline  
Old Feb 22, 2014, 8:32 am
  #29  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,341
Originally Posted by travelislife
Why don't Thai get some narrow bodies and put in a proper business class to use on the regional routes. SIN, PNH, SGN, HAN, DPS, RGN, etc. would make sense to increase frequency but still have a proper J class. The wide bodies on these routes rarely seem to be full.
European airlines fly in countries with much higher per capita incomes, and don't have "proper business class" for flights of similar stage lengths on their narrowbodies. USA airlines do (sort of), but a lot of those seats are filled with free upgrades from cheap coach tickets.

Now, maybe there is a large market where people want to pay twice or three times the cost of a coach seat for a one hour flight where they get free booze and free blast-chilled food that the airline is selling at 5000% markup, plus a somewhat more comfortable seat, simply because of conspicuous consumption, and maybe it's a market that would be wildly popular in Thailand... but I'll just point out that the models for airlines that have exploded in the past 30 years are Southwest, Ryanair and AirAsia. None of those airlines are full service airlines...
eponymous_coward is offline  
Old Feb 22, 2014, 7:08 pm
  #30  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne/Bangkok
Programs: A3*G, QF PLATINUM, BA GOLD, VA GOLD, HH DIAMOND
Posts: 2,245
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
European airlines fly in countries with much higher per capita incomes, and don't have "proper business class" for flights of similar stage lengths on their narrowbodies. USA airlines do (sort of), but a lot of those seats are filled with free upgrades from cheap coach tickets.

Now, maybe there is a large market where people want to pay twice or three times the cost of a coach seat for a one hour flight where they get free booze and free blast-chilled food that the airline is selling at 5000% markup, plus a somewhat more comfortable seat, simply because of conspicuous consumption, and maybe it's a market that would be wildly popular in Thailand... but I'll just point out that the models for airlines that have exploded in the past 30 years are Southwest, Ryanair and AirAsia. None of those airlines are full service airlines...

Well this is a different region and narrow body aircraft with proper J works fine for Malaysia, Silkair, Vietnam Airlines, Qantas, Virgin Australia, Vietnam Airlines, ANA, Dragonair etc etc. the list goes on.

Thai have made a stupid decision here.
Aussie_flyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.