Guest Posted December 4, 2001 Report Share Posted December 4, 2001 Tycona -- I recall that TG changed several Europe v.v Bangkok flights from MD-11 to B4747-400 service.. In effect this added some 75 seats to the market each way. They also did this to some of their Australasia fligths as well.. I see that the MD-11's are now used on mid-range intra-asia flights.. --UPSer PS: A few carriers are letting go of their MD-11's.. UPS just took delivery of one from JL and was modified in Singapore for all cargo lift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted December 4, 2001 Report Share Posted December 4, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Tycona: Yeah it seems that BKK - US v.v. flights have been almost empty since sept 11. Maybe Thai Airways can set in a few extra planes to Europe It is very hard to get any cheap tickets to BKK here! Fully booked till March!! On my last trip with Air France the plane was completely full both ways between Paris & BKK My return flight on NW (BKK-NRT-MSP) was near 100% on the BKK-NRT and NRT-MSP segments. TG has recently raised their fare prices and they weren't cheap to begin with. I wonder if TG's customers have moved to other airlines with cheaper fares. LA has a pretty big Thai population that I would think still would fly back home for a visit even after 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2001 Report Share Posted December 4, 2001 quote: Originally posted by UPSer: PS: A few carriers are letting go of their MD-11's.. UPS just took delivery of one from JL and was modified in Singapore for all cargo lift. Nothing to do with Thai Air or LOS at all, but it saddens me about phasing out of the MD-11's -- the last of the mighty Douglas history. While the 747's, especially -400's, are arguably the best long-haulers and have been the staple of the trans-Pacific flights, I do like the variety available in the trans-Atlantic segments. Like the SwissAir MD-11's and Air France A340's (at least from SFO). Once inside the ordinary coach class, there's really not much difference. I was hoping Airbuses had something of an older Citroen idiosyscracy (of course NOT!!!). Anyways, I just wrote this because for some reason the best flight I've had during this year was Geveva to NRT on a JL MD-11. It was only about a third full and I liked its bigger window. But no, I don't think I would fly UPS. Ciao! micsnee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thalenoi Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 I used to work 9 years for an airline, and yes, most management is incompetent. They fight for power in the company, not for their company making money, they don't care a s**t. I installed mainframe software in top 1000 companies and must add most of the decision makers did not have a clue what that software was supposed to do for them. A sad bunch of idiots, most of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 All-- One other important issue that (IMHO) plague Thai Airways (TG) is that as a flag carrier they are majority (share holder) owned by the STATE.. To be fair, there are a lot of other prominent carriers are partially or majority state-owned.. The issue is one of "accountability" in that as a 100% private shareholder owened company there is absolute accountability towards shareholder returns... Running a continual defecit is not acceptable (for example the US post office).. pay for top management is usally "pegged" to some sort of performance driven numbers, not simply "time in the trenches".. While this is not a blast to TG by any means, it is mearly (IMHO) a realization that (generally speaking) state-owned or state-controlled air carriers are not profitable for several of the above mentioned point.. For other case studies of this I would point to British Airways.. once a majority state-owned carrier.. went "private" and (after some rockey times) is now a viable world-class air carrier that is not reliant on, nor accountable to the state, but rather their shareholders, customers and overall market forces. --UPSer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 But according to Old Hippie, Fatbastard and many flying public, it seems 100% private shareholder airlines don't have good record either. Ciao! micsnee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 micsnee -- True! Short of Southwest Airlines (who has yet to have one quarter of losses) the us majors (all 100% privately owned) DON'T have the greatest record... The point is that with a sharholder owned company there is accountability to the Board of Directors and most importantly, the shareholders of the company.. Whereas with a state-owned airline there is no accountability to the "owners" per-se... A feature of a state-owned entity is that any PROFITS created flow back into the general coffers of the government.. BUT any LOSSES are absorbed by the government as well.. Let's look at Amtrak (actually a quasi-governmental entity) more correctly called the National Passenger Rail Corporation.. When you buy a ticket on Amtrak why do you not pay ANY taxes?? because it is a FEDERAL entity.. Also Amtrak pays no Federal or State income taxes, no federal gasoline taxes or similar taxes/fees that "private" companies would have to absorb (as a routine cost of doing business) Right now (and for the forseeable future) it looks bad for us airlines.. but at least there is a "push" for profitability.. where as a state-owned carrier lacks this entirely. This is NOT to imply that there are not some well run, profitable state-owned (or state-controlled) carriers out there... I'm only saying that the "motivation" is lacking when there is no "external" accountability.. --UPSer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 I could be wrong here, but I think Southwest uses a different accounting method than most of the majors. For some reason, a major airline can set aside money for say (in UA's case) retro pay to employee's or forthcomming raises. Even though they still have the cash, the can declare it as a loss. I think Southwest and Alaska basically use the old we have this much, we spent this, we took in that, here's whats left accounting method. In that case, there is little room for deception. UA used a similar method years ago, and almost always showed a profit, then they went to using that method and the really screwed up method to try and show groth costs, now they are just plain screwed up. Keep in mind, most of the major U.S. carriers had to selltle multiple employee contracts in the last year or so, thus they would cry poor to try and keep the demands down. UA is currently pulling this crap with it's two biggest employee groups, who haven't received a raise in almost 8 years! They even have the nerve to suggest they should give back money. Like I said, all the airlines are poorly run. Southwest maybe an exception, I hear the CEO drinks Burbon during board meetings, and loves a good time! Maybe that is the difference!? Sorry for ranting, I just need to vent! [ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Old hippie ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Old hippie -- I think the situation is that UA is actually a wholly-owned subsidary of UAL Corp.. and since UAL Corp. has a LOT of different subsidaries, that is where you can get into "creative" accounting while still remaning in the GAAP boundaries.. Southwest is not organized a such a manner. Alaska is.. Alaska Air Group.. But Alaska pales in comparision to UAL in terms of their corporate sturcture.. UAL has interests in (or wholly-owns) darn near 35 independent operations. (UAL Terminal Services, The CRS-Appolo, UAL Fleet Leasing, UAL Services, etc, etc. But I agree with you.. UAL, by entering into that APLA agreement, they now can use that as a "cry of poverty" I personally thought (former CEO) Grenwald's letter to labor about the "possibility of a bankruptcy" was a calcualted move to strike fear into the minds of the labor "rank-and-file" in hopes of winning more concessions in the upcoming contract talks. Note: that I am a shareholder (just like you) in UAL Corp, and have been for over 10 years... So, I've been in for the long haul ride.. not as long as you... but still in it for the long haul. --UPSer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Old hippie -- I think the situation is that UA is actually a wholly-owned subsidary of UAL Corp.. and since UAL Corp. has a LOT of different subsidaries, that is where you can get into "creative" accounting while still remaning in the GAAP boundaries.. Southwest is not organized a such a manner. Alaska is.. Alaska Air Group.. But Alaska pales in comparision to UAL in terms of their corporate sturcture.. UAL has interests in (or wholly-owns) darn near 35 independent operations. (UAL Terminal Services, The CRS-Appolo, UAL Fleet Leasing, UAL Services, etc, etc. But I agree with you.. UAL, by entering into that APLA agreement, they now can use that as a "cry of poverty" I personally thought (former CEO) Grenwald's letter to labor about the "possibility of a bankruptcy" was a calcualted move to strike fear into the minds of the labor "rank-and-file" in hopes of winning more concessions in the upcoming contract talks. Note: that I am a shareholder (just like you) in UAL Corp, and have been for over 10 years... So, I've been in for the long haul ride.. not as long as you... but still in it for the long haul. --UPSer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.