Air space closure. Thai flights cancelled

[ggobkk]

Jasper has a post in the Beer Bar that should be moved to the main forum.  Due to the "difficulties" between them, Pakistan and India have shut down their airspace.  Thai Airways has cancelled its flights to and from most of Europe and Russia.  Other airlines are adjusting schedules and routings.

[ggobkk]

An informative link https://thepointsguy.com/news/pakistan-closes-airspace-india-violence-escalation/

[reader]

From CNBC (27 Feb.)

You can't overfly China, so you have to overfly Pakistan and India and go to Southeast Asia and Australia. Most of the traffic destined for Bangkok and Singapore will have to fly over Iran and then possibly take a detour," he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/02/27/reuters-america-update-3-commercial-flights-to-and-from-pakistan-india-disrupted-as-tensions-rise.html

[ChristianPFC]

Quote

You can't overfly China...

Why is that? I have the idea that airspace at the altitude of commercial passenger flights is free worldwide. For China, there is just geographically no reason to fly over, unless you want to fly into China. 

[anddy]

On 2/28/2019 at 1:21 PM, reader said:

From CNBC (27 Feb.)

You can't overfly China,

yes you can, like over any country but you have to get permission from that country. And now after the cancellation debacle Thai has asked and received permission to fly over China. 

[Guest]

The picture shows the in flight map on a recent EVA flight from BKK to London.

Normally this flies over northern India and northern Pakistan, just south of the Himalayas.   This one flew further south and avoided Pakistani airspace completely, turning north near Dubai.  Added about 1.5 hours to the total trip.  I expect the return flight would be delayed slightly, as we were disembarking at the normal boarding time for that.

The flight had a codeshare with Thai, which I have not seen previously.  Perhaps Thai were shipping a few passengers from a previous cancellation.

I don't understand why Thai airways cancelled any flights when they could have done the same as EVA.

[EricV]

It's a longer route, requiring more fuel.

Some planes can make the longer route, some have to make stops to refuel which some airlines decided to do.

Thai might not have the planes, might not have ground ops for a stop-over or plain doesn't want to pay for it...

[anddy]

2 hours ago, EricV said:

or plain doesn't want to pay for it...

such economic argument was also made somewhere else online, but that argument doesn't make sense, as the mess they created by the cancellations certainly cost more in money and manpower to handle 

I'm with z909 on that, why didn't they just fly around, with refuelling if necessary, causing just some delays but no cancellations (except for Pakistan-bound flights, obviously). Anyway, will presumably remain a mystery forever haha

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, anddy said:

such economic argument was also made somewhere else online, but that argument doesn't make sense, as the mess they created by the cancellations certainly cost more in money and manpower to handle

I'm not quite sure what legal responsibility Thai airways has to feed, accommodate & repatriate it's customers.  If it was within Europe, all of this would apply.  

As for the economics, flying around Pakistan adds about 10% to the flight duration, so probably 10% to the fuel cost.  By cancelling, they still have to pay all the fixed costs for leasing the planes, paying staff and overheads, but get none of the revenue for actually running the flights.

The other point is Thai airways will lose a lot of goodwill if passengers see other airlines still running flights to Europe whilst Thai customers are stuck in the airport not knowing what to do. 

I already prefer fly with EVA, since I know their service is good and they have had no fatal accidents.   Now as they have demonstrated a willingness to provide a service when Thai have not, my preference for EVA has increased.

 

 

[PeterRS]

Flights had to be diverted but only because Pakistan closed its airspace. India did not. For a few hours it closed some airports in the far north of the country. This might have had an effect on overflights - in case they got into difficulties and had to land. But Mumbai was never closed.

As has been pointed out, it's perfectly easy to overfly China. Routes obviously have to be negotiated and flight times arranged to coordinate with those of airlines flying to Europe out of China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and even Taiwan. In an emergency situation, I am certain this can be done quickly. But is is certainly not free, as one poster has suggested. Airspace over any country belongs to that country. Fly over it and you have to pay for the right. 4 years ago each aircraft overflying the USA had to pay a fee of US$56.86 per 100 miles. Also, for airlines flying from airports east of Bangkok, overflying China is a considerably shorter route to Europe.

As for aircraft not having enough fuel, that is extremely unlikely. All long-distance airliners have plenty of room in their tanks for a couple of hours extra flying time. 

To my mind, THAI was remembering the situation of the MAS 777 when the captain chose to overfly Ukraine when other airlines all took a slightly more northerly route. That resulted in a missile bringing down the 777. With the Indian and Pakistani air force having dogfights in the region, there was a very real reason for avoiding the Kashmir region.

[reader]

Thai has long history of poor fleet management. The following article describes the purchase of 10 A340 aircraft, which has caused most carriers to abandon it because it was so unprofitable to operate. Thai tried  a few times to solicit bids on their grounded ones but rejected all offers because they were insulted by the lowball responses. Wouldn’t be shocked if some—if not all—still sit idle at Don Muang.

Unsurprisingly, corruption was suspected in the original purchase and an investigation was called for. Haven’t a clue as to if one was ever conducted. 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30305056

[PeterRS]

Corruption must inevitably have been involved in the purchase of the A340s, as with many other types of aircraft.

THAI operated part of that fleet on the non-stop routes to LAX and JFK which THAI eventually suspended. Even so, lots of other airlines purchased it because at the time of its introduction ETOPS was extremely limited for twin engine planes. According to wikipedia 377 models of the aircraft were sold and 60 remain in service. THAI needed a minimum of 4 aircraft on each route because only 4-engine aircraft were authorised to operate most long haul routes, especially over oceans. That they were unprofitable for THAI was only partly a result of fuel burn. THAI simply could not sell enough seats - and it had designated a lot of these seats as business class at premium price.

It was unfortunate for Airbus and the airlines that the Extended Range Operation Procedures were changed not many years after its introduction. From that time the ETOPS range for twin engine jets was extended from 1 hour up to 3 hours thus rendering the twin engine A330s, 777s  and later the 787s and A350s not just  possible but quite a bit cheaper to operate for ultra long hails. By the time THAI wanted to sell its A340s, the price of second hand models had plummeted.

[anddy]

13 hours ago, PeterRS said:

To my mind, THAI was remembering the situation of the MAS 777 when the captain chose to overfly Ukraine when other airlines all took a slightly more northerly route. That resulted in a missile bringing down the 777. With the Indian and Pakistani air force having dogfights in the region, there was a very real reason for avoiding the Kashmir region.

yes that's certainly true, and nobody disputes the necessity for doing SOMETHING. And the difference to the Ukraine is, there you COULD still fly over (AYOR), whereas in Pakistan you could not, so not only was it advisable to avoid that risky airspace, it was mandatory. SO that wasn't even a choice decision by Thai, but they had to. However, as you also pointed out, in an emergency a rerouting can certainly be done in-flight, so why they didn't do that remains the mystery of this thread. Maybe they THOUGHT it was economical? Though it is inconceivable to me that say an estimated 10% extra fuel cost is more expensive than taking care of say 300 passengers per plane for DAYS, putting them in Hotels, on other flights, providing food, plus organizational and logistical nightmares for the company. It just doesn't make sense. Seems like an ill-considered (if considered at all LOL) knee jerk reaction of Thai. Oh well.

 

13 hours ago, reader said:

Thai has long history of poor fleet management. The following article describes the purchase of 10 A340 aircraft, which has caused most carriers to abandon it because it was so unprofitable to operate. Thai tried  a few times to solicit bids on their grounded ones but rejected all offers because they were insulted by the lowball responses. Wouldn’t be shocked if some—if not all—still sit idle at Don Muang.

Unsurprisingly, corruption was suspected in the original purchase and an investigation was called for. Haven’t a clue as to if one was ever conducted. 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30305056

@reader ever so resourceful! Interesting stuff. We should look out for those planes next time one if us flies out of/into DMK (me early April). You're right they probably still sit there waiting for their prices to go down further and further with each passing day....

 

[reader]

From News in Flight (4 Mar.)

Thai Airways  reported a massive loss of 11.6 billion baht (USD 365 million) for FY2018

Thailand’s state-owned flagship carrier, Thai Airways reported a massive net loss of 11.6 billion baht (USD 365 million) for FY2018, spiked by higher oil prices and competition. 

The losses are up 552% from previous years loss of 2.1 billion baht (USD66 million).

Airline’s operating income rose 3.9% year-over-year as it still operates 747s and fly only wide-body aircraft, coupled with higher oil prices. 

Thai Airways’s market share has been snatched away by Gulf carriers that offer better products and excellent fares in middle east to Bangkok routes. Airline also failed to refurbish its business class to attract many business class travellers while many other airlines offer great comfort flying for business travellers. 

In 2018, the 5t5  took delivery of five new planes and retired three to bring their fleet size to 103 planes.

   http://newsinflight.com/2019/03/04/thai-airways-reported-a-massive-loss-of-11-6-billion-baht-usd-365-million-for-

[PeterRS]

According to various websites, THAI purchased 10 A340s.  All were retired between 2012 and 2015. One was sold to the Royal Tai Air Force. The other nine remain stored somewhere! Therefore unsold!

Currently it still operates 8 747-400s with an average age of 19.4 years, Whilst that is not 'old' for a 747, their maintenance costs  must be higher than they used to be. Anyone who has been on one of those planes will know that they are also in desperate need of refurbishment. Like many of the older 777s, business class has the recliner seats that most airlines got rid of some years ago. If you cannot offer flat beds, you will inevitably suffer lower passenger numbers, especially when THAI's prices are generally higher.

[PeterRS]

Last point on the A340. List price when it was withdrawn from the market was approximately $250 million. According to the website Aircraft Value News, there are so many now out of service that the value of the first model - the A340-300 - is virtually only for scrap.  THAI purchased the -500 and -600 models. But according to the same website, the value of an A350-500 has plummeted by 90% over the last 10 years. 

http://www.aircraftvaluenews.com/aircraft/airbus-a340-300/

[Guest]

From a consumer perspective, I walked past all the people sleeping on the floor on the ground floor of the airport, presumably those with delayed or cancelled flights.  

I got to the EVA check in desk and checked in.  The flight left almost on time and they seem to have got me home with the minimum possible delay after diverting around Pakistan.  

This is a far better customer experience than sleeping on the floor of the airport like some other airlines.   The customer who is on the floor of the airport doesn't care what plane Thai cannot be bothered to fly them home on.  

If they realize other airlines are still flying the same route, they must be livid.   The EVA brand gains, the Thai Air brand loses.  

[anddy]

I'd fly Eva, too, if I could. Alas, they don't offer a non-stop service, or ANY service for that matter, to Germany from BKK.  I don't do layover flights if at all possible. I did fly Eva to Europe (Vienna) and back a few months ago though, since I needed to change planes anyway to my final destination, so it didn't matter where I'd do so. I was very pleased with the product indeed.