Bangkok business is booming for everyone except BA

[lord]

As there is no BA flight to Bangkok, Thai Airways and Eva air are enjoying boom time with their direct flights. I am a regular business class traveller to Bangkok and don’t like to use connecting flights, so Thai Airways are happily taking my money. BA is missing out big time as Air France, KLM and Lufthansa are back for this economic boom happening in Thailand. When will BA wake up.?

[dougzz99]

Who knows. BA just seem determined to ignore random Internet revenue experts. Shocking really.

[Super Secret Stuff]

BA will wake up when the US, Caribbean and high end Middle East stop making them shed loads of money. They only have a certain number of planes, they can’t do everything.

Leave the BKK demand to be routed on Qatar. They still make a lot from selling flights on other airlines.

Sure EVA air fly direct but that’s more of a technical stop. Thai is a little known airline. Anyone who flys business knows Lufthansa is awful

[Alex G]

Super Secret Stuff wrote:

Thai is a little known airline

You need to get out more

[RTS]

didnt BA just report record profits?… seem to be doing ok if you ask me? 😛

[PeteM]

This is like the constant complaints about why don’t BA fly to every UK regional airport 12 times a day…

[phantomchickenz]

Super Secret Stuff wrote:

Thai is a little known airline.

It’s one of the largest Asia-pacific carriers in Europe and a founding member of the star Alliance, so is fairly well known!

[Super Secret Stuff]

phantomchickenz wrote:

Super Secret Stuff wrote:

Thai is a little known airline.

It’s one of the largest Asia-pacific carriers in Europe and a founding member of the star Alliance, so is fairly well known!

By passenger numbers its number 26 in Asia. The brand recognition is not as strong as Lufthansa, Swiss, Emirates, Qatar etc. it’s nowhere near as well known in Europe as a lot of the aforementioned. They fill the planes by pricing to stimulate demand from what I can tell

Also the average once a year flyer has no idea about alliances, it’s not worth mentioning. Half of them don’t even know how to use sky scanner

[Londonsteve]

If BA operated from a normal hub airport that offered sufficient capacity for BA to fly any route it thought commercially advantageous it would probably fly to BKK and do so profitably. The fact the route wouldn’t be as high margin as JFK, DXB, LAX or whatever is a moot point. There’s money to be made and other airlines are there and making it. BA is both advantaged as well as simultaneously suffocated by operating from a hub with zero slack to operate new routes without either paying ludicrous sums of money to buy (or lease) slots, or deciding which route is going to a lose a flight so that you can use the slot to fly elsewhere. BA is largely unique among global airlines in having their expansion potential capped no matter how well the management perform.

Until this changes, or the US economy severely declines along with the viability of all those routes to secondary cities, I can’t see BKK coming back in the next decade.

[JDB]

BA has much higher profitability requirements than the other low margin European airlines that are supposedly coining it on this route. BA is commercially very savvy; they aren’t missing anything here; it’s just not worth their while.

Some of those European airlines also operate the route for reasons relating to political agreements around earlier takeovers rather than because it is such a wonderful commercial destination. Thailand is no longer the luxury destination it once was, so there is less high fare premium tourist demand as well as little high fare business demand and cargo opportunities are apparently not great. When this subject is raised the route length is often raised which is also a very key consideration – to tie up an aircraft for so long on a thin route is difficult to justify on top of the crewing complexities/cost.

[Lady London]

@lord now I’ve seen everyone else’s responses agree with me, I’ve now got the courage to say my first thought when I read your post.

Read “The Goal” (easiest and most fun start) or anything else by Eli Goldratt.

[PeteM]

Londonsteve wrote:

If BA operated from a normal hub airport that offered sufficient capacity for BA to fly any route it thought commercially advantageous it would probably fly to BKK and do so profitably. The fact the route wouldn’t be as high margin as JFK, DXB, LAX or whatever is a moot point. There’s money to be made and other airlines are there and making it. BA is both advantaged as well as simultaneously suffocated by operating from a hub with zero slack to operate new routes without either paying ludicrous sums of money to buy (or lease) slots, or deciding which route is going to a lose a flight so that you can use the slot to fly elsewhere. BA is largely unique among global airlines in having their expansion potential capped no matter how well the management perform.

Until this changes, or the US economy severely declines along with the viability of all those routes to secondary cities, I can’t see BKK coming back in the next decade.

You are forgetting LGW, STN or LTN from which BA could operate to BKK, if it made commercial sense. It currently doesn’t and quite a few other things will have to change before it does.

[Londonsteve]

PeteM wrote:

You are forgetting LGW, STN or LTN from which BA could operate to BKK, if it made commercial sense. It currently doesn’t and quite a few other things will have to change before it does.

Of those only LGW is a potential candidate as BA have no base at either LTN or STN, nor would they seek to operate a long haul service out of there when LGW has spare capacity. I agree, if BA thought it was worthwhile they could fly the route out of LGW with one of their old crate 777s, it doesn’t hit the commercial threshold due to issues correctly identified by JDB above, but departing LGW would make the proposition even more difficult as BA would have next to no transit traffic on the route, unlike if it were a LHR departure.

The point stands however that if LHR was a multi runway hub airport that was’t so slot constrained and BA had surplus aircraft (or could commercially justify allocating new aircraft to the route – they would have an entirely different pipeline of aircraft orders if growth was uncapped at Heathrow), it could and probably would fly to BKK on the basis that as a commercial organisation it seeks to exploit any opportunities where there’s money to be made. This presumes a scenario where they already fly to all other major hubs in Asia. I doubt it would be per se loss making.

[memesweeper]

I think Thomas Cook used to fly Gatwick – Phuket – Bangkok – Gatwick.

Never mind BA, there’s nothing to stop Virgin or Norwegian or anyone else doing something like this again. They don’t — I can only guess there’s a good reason.

I’d love to see direct flights to many more destinations in S E Asia but for now if you want to spend Avios we’re stuck with KUL, SIN, HKG and mainland China direct.

I would imagine a chartered 777 (if such a thing is possible) “Avios only” to any holiday destination in S E Asia over Christmas or Feb or Easter would wildly popular.

[bonvoy_traveller]

Something that people forget is that BA operated to Bangkok successfully for many many years. The route survived 9/11 and the financial crisis (though the tag to Sydney ended around that point). BA stopped flying to Bangkok primarily due to the premature retirement of the 747 fleet and the delays in their replacement.

It is true that the economics of the route have changed due to the ban on flying through Russian airspace which is why it’s further down on the list of the route resumptions than Singapore or Hong Kong were. Routes such as Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok will resume as soon as BA have the frames to do so. Capacity is 10% down vs 2019 and BA will take additional long haul aircraft this year which will allow expansion to new long haul destinations.

All IMHO of course.

[PeteM]

More likely, as more new long haul planes arrive, they will be introduced on routes that make the most money – which is likely to be North America and the Caribbean.

It is telling even Norse don’t seem to be able to make BKK work from London.

[Londonsteve]

PeteM wrote:

It is telling even Norse don’t seem to be able to make BKK work from London.

Or they’re trying to milk the same cow that BA has been doing for the last decade? The rumour mill suggests that loads on TATL are way down across the board. At the moment often ridiculous J fares for relatively short hops to the east coast might be keeping the numbers optically bright but the post-Covid travel boom, in particular the outbound US demand might be deflating.

I can see that BKK mightn’t work for Norse due to the very long block times, doubling of crewing costs, absence of J and the additional cost of avoiding Russian airspace. Realistically you need to be a major carrier integrated into an alliance to make a route like this work, unless you adopt a Ryanair pricing philosophy, pack ’em in and keep the load factor in the 90s. I suspect in time BKK will become well served from the UK by Asian airlines, including local start-ups that haven’t yet been created flying to the likes of LGW and STN.

[PeteM]

So we were all wrong 🤣🤣

[tygerbright]

PeteM wrote:

So we were all wrong 🤣🤣

Happy days!

Any news on when they will start flying again? Looking to hit up Vietnam and Thailand this December so hopefully in time for this trip!

[bonvoy_traveller]

PeteM wrote:

So we were all wrong 🤣🤣

Yes, all the armchair “experts” were wrong as you were told all along. 😉

[Richie]

Gatwick or Heathrow? If LHR which aircraft type?

[Aston100]

How many points for a humble pie?

[Roberto]

BKK has been the worst 777 traditionally, I can’t see that changing..

KUL was a 787 something or another the last few times I have flow it.

Can’t see either changing that much.

But I am happy. Looking forward to both routes opening up

[BBbetter]

We got the KL prediction right on the other thread.
I don’t mind CW seats.

[Richie]

Roberto wrote:

BKK has been the worst 777 traditionally, I can’t see that changing..

KUL was a 787 something or another the last few times I have flow it…

Worst B777 are at Gatwick, sans club suite.

KUL was B789.