Airliner

[Marshy]

Hi all-----Any suggestions on which airline would be the best. ( LA to BKK) The fares are similar.

Are the 747-400's & 300's the newer 4 engine aircraft or are all trans Pacific crossings multi engine? The 100's & 200's sound like older models?? Ninteen HRS in the air is realllly gonna stink!!

China

Thai

American

Singapore

Cathay

Refule stops in either:

Taipei

HK

Osaka

[john b good]

Hi all-----Any suggestions on which airline would be the best. ( LA to BKK) The fares are similar.

Are the 747-400's & 300's the newer 4 engine aircraft or are all trans Pacific crossings multi engine? The 100's & 200's sound like older models?? Ninteen HRS in the air is realllly gonna stink!!   

China

Thai

American

Singapore

Cathay

Refule stops in either:

Taipei

HK

Osaka

The 747's are all 4 engine. the 200's have the shorter hump and the 300's & 400's have the longer hump with the 400 having that bit of a foil thing at the end of the wings.

The 747 - 400 first flew the Pacific route in 1989 with SIA so if 15 years is new so be it. (and they were flying before that date)

747's don't have the range to fly non-stop from LA to Singapore.

The triple 7 (777) ER, is I believe the one that flies LA- SIN non stop and will in the near future commence flying New York (JFK) - SIN non - stop. Only SIA have these (LA - SIN) non stop flights currently flying (with JFK -SIN shortly)

If as you say the fares are similar then it is no contest. SIA is the only airline to fly and all others pale into insignificance by comparison.

SIA has the youngest age aircraft fleet (average is two years old)

AND the girls "Singapore Girl" (cabin attendants) are all film stars/fashion models. (i.e. could/would be if they were to chose)

SIA's service is beyond comparison.

And no! I don't have shares in SIA.

Whilst you say that 19 hours in the air is gonna stink, for me personally I would rather spend my time in the air that hanging about in a dump of an airport such as Don Muang or LHR

Finally all aircraft plying the Pacific route are multi engined albeit some that leap frog (i.e. with refuelling stops) might only be twin engined.

p.s. when Suvanabhumi (BKK's new airport) opens next year "or whenever" it too will struggle to compare with either Changi or Schipol, but thats another story

I have reviewed the info and yes it is A340-500 aircraft (and not the B777ER) that fly the LAX-SIN route and will commence flying New York-SIN on 28 June (8 days time)

And it's nice to see that someone agrees with my thought re SIA.

Personally I have a problem finding words to adequately describe their service.

Edited June 20, 2004 by john b good

[OldAsiaHand]

I second the motion re SIA. For my money, it's unquestionably the best airline in the world. The nonstop flight from LAX to Singapore is right at 18 hours and uses the A340-500 (configured into two classes, business and a sort or super-economy with extra leg room and footrests). Something like 40 movies to chose from on a personal screen in both classes and even a 110 outlet for your laptop). In Singapore you have only about a two hour layover for the BKK connection, which gets you into BKK about ten in the morning.

Almost as good a choice is Cathay Pacific. That's a 747-400 nonstop to Hong Kong with a two hour or so connection to the BKK flight (for which the equipment changes frequently). The total travel time is about the same, but I've had occasionaly reliability problems with CX and the airport in HKG isn't nearly as good a place to connect as Singapore. Also, my experience is that CX personnel are too frequently like American airline personnel. As long as everything goes well, they're good enough; but when somthing goes south or you need special assistance, they look the other way. I've never had a problem like that with SIA.

Forget all the others. Especially forget Thai. Completely unprofessional and all too frequently operating in utter confusion. As someone once said, When you fly Thai, always remember that your pilot got his job exactly like everyone else in Thailand got his job.'

[dfwbkk]

I would say the same thing as John B Good: SIA wins hands down.

I searched the web but were unable to find any rates for them but if you can get them at similar prices then by all means : jump at it.

The last couple of trips over I've booked flights via www.thaifly.com (they mostly sell AA and JAL seats - with some Northwest at higher prices). Even when comparing with the Orbitzes et al Thaifly has won my business. They can also sell you oneway tickets originating at either end (they have an office in bkk)

I remember this spring they did $565 r/t LAX-BKK (AA or TG), but checking today (for July dept) it starts at $715 (JAL). Yahoo Travel lists $678 r/t by EVA Air.

/// DFW

[Marshy]

As someone once said, When you fly Thai, always remember that your pilot got his job exactly like everyone else in Thailand got his job.'

Thanks for the info---SIA was fliing from LAX---I printed the the fare a month ago and have it in front of me from/@ just fares.com but now the flights appear to be unavailable even on the same dates?? Most of the comments I read on another forum were a year or so old but also suggested SIA/SIN---- found it a few minutes ago.

PS I'm guessing that an---- A340-500 is airbus

Emirates = ??

747-100 Started around 1970

[john b good]

I have reviewed the info and yes it is A340-500 aircraft (and not the B777ER) that fly the LAX-SIN route and will commence flying New York-SIN on 28 June (8 days time)

And the fare is SGD$ 1,800 LAX-SIN return for economy. (or SIN-LAX ?? as sometimes the fares from the opposite point of departure is not always the same)

And it's nice to see that someone agrees with my thoughts/experiences re SIA.

Personally I have a problem finding words to adequately describe their service.

Quote....

Forget all the others. Especially forget Thai. Completely unprofessional and all too frequently operating in utter confusion. As someone once said, When you fly Thai, always remember that your pilot got his job exactly like everyone else in Thailand got his job.'

From my memory back to the TG crash at Surat Thani they have not yet published the results of the investigation, as they didn't want to embarrass anyone.

(TIT) they didn't want anyone to "lose face"

They went round three times before they finally put down "in pieces" with over 100 fatalities as a result.

[TRIPxCORE]

I work for an airline so I am uniquely qualified to answer your question. First of all, in terms of service, Singapore Airlines is the best as others have said. The only problem with that is it takes you out of the way you are heading as SIN is 2-2.5 hours South of BKK. You'll go all the way down there only to backtrack.

I have heard Eva Airways is pretty good with one-stop service in Taipei although I never flew on them. The most optimal connection cities to go through from LAX would be Tokyo NRT, Osaka KIX, Taipei TPE, or Hong Kong HKG. By optimal I mean they are all kind of on the way to your destination of BKK. Going through these cities, you could catch Japan Airlines, All Nippon Airways, Northwest Airlines, United Airlines, Eva Airways, Cathay Pacific or Thai. These are pretty much the only airlines that will fly the route using only their own aircraft. For an example, American Airlines will sell you a ticket and they will fly you to Tokyo but from there, you will have to connect on JAL, their code sharing partner. As you may know, American Airlines doesnt have service to BKK. So look out for that.

Make the decision on what is most important to you. Price, time, comfort, or amenities? If it was I making this decision, I would choose United or Eva.

All the airlines crossing the Pacific will use either 747-300 or 400, 777, or A340. Those are just about the only ones that can make it that far.

[Soundguy]

Hi all-----Any suggestions on which airline would be the best. ( LA to BKK) The fares are similar.

Are the 747-400's & 300's the newer 4 engine aircraft or are all trans Pacific crossings multi engine? The 100's & 200's sound like older models??

I've flown JAL through Osaka 7 or 8 times, they're consistently the cheapest through US consolidators. And the Kansei layover is only about 45mins, and they have free Wifi everywhere.

In a pinch China Airlines is OK, via Taiwan, but expect a 4 or 5 hr layover in a pretty dull airport. There's no free wifi

Both those carriers use 747-400s

Don't expect any significant breaks on seat prices until SIA gets going with the A380s, the seats are wider. Also when US bombs Iran, expect fuel surcharges to double , but flights out of the US to be empty .

As far as service provided in the air, if you take a pill, who cares?

[barryofthailand]

Cathay Pacific Lax BKK through Hong Kong with only an hour layover suppose to be pretty good. About $850.00 round trip, cheaper if you purchase in Thailand. I had booked this flight once, but cancelled due to the Sars Epidemic in Hong Kong years ago. Total travel time 17hrs. Not Bad.

Barry

[lordofdelusion]

I'm flying L.A. Singapore next week on NWA. Change in Tokyo. For whatever reason their business class was $600 less than the LAX-BKK route Eva air is nice and you can get the 777 out of LAX but not every day. Check one day before and after if you don't see the 777 aircraft on your flight.

Fares can be very confusing. You find something one day, it's gone the next.

[Soundguy]

Cathay Pacific Lax BKK through Hong Kong with only an hour layover suppose to be pretty good. About $850.00 round trip, Barry

Like I said, JAL is the cheapest

just got this from a consolidator:

> > $870 plus tax with validity up to 6 months

> > $825 plus tax with validity only for 30 days.....

[britmaveric]

Price no option Singapore or Cathay hands down then followed by Eva.

[t.s]

Price no option Singapore or Cathay hands down then followed by Eva.

Agreed, though not necessarily in that order.

Eva can be very pleasant, especially if you fly evergreen delux rather than economy. The seats are something in between economy and bus class in size. It is not that much more expensive either.

Singapore Air and Cathay are right up there, and SIA is definitely the best. Cathay is pretty good though.

avoid Thai.

[ya5702]

Hi all-----Any suggestions on which airline would be the best. ( LA to BKK) The fares are similar.

The 747's are all 4 engine. the 200's have the shorter hump and the 300's & 400's have the longer hump with the 400 having that bit of a foil thing at the end of the wings.

The 747 - 400 first flew the Pacific route in 1989 with SIA so if 15 years is new so be it. (and they were flying before that date)

747's don't have the range to fly non-stop from LA to Singapore.

The triple 7 (777) ER, is I believe the one that flies LA- SIN non stop and will in the near future commence flying New York (JFK) - SIN non - stop. Only SIA have these (LA - SIN) non stop flights currently flying (with JFK -SIN shortly)

If as you say the fares are similar then it is no contest. SIA is the only airline to fly and all others pale into insignificance by comparison.

SIA has the youngest age aircraft fleet (average is two years old)

AND the girls "Singapore Girl" (cabin attendants) are all film stars/fashion models. (i.e. could/would be if they were to chose)

SIA's service is beyond comparison.

And no! I don't have shares in SIA.

Whilst you say that 19 hours in the air is gonna stink, for me personally I would rather spend my time in the air that hanging about in a dump of an airport such as Don Muang or LHR

Finally all aircraft plying the Pacific route are multi engined albeit some that leap frog (i.e. with refuelling stops) might only be twin engined.

p.s. when Suvanabhumi (BKK's new airport) opens next year "or whenever" it too will struggle to compare with either Changi or Schipol, but thats another story

I have reviewed the info and yes it is A340-500 aircraft (and not the B777ER) that fly the LAX-SIN route and will commence flying New York-SIN on 28 June (8 days time)

And it's nice to see that someone agrees with my thought re SIA.

Personally I have a problem finding words to adequately describe their service.

Sounds like this guy works for SIA...extolling free publicity for SQ! The OP asked for LAX-BKK flights. Not LAX-SIN-BKK!

[autonomous_unit]

Are there actually ANY direct LAX-BKK flights? I didn't think there were.

I've only ever flown Thai and United to BKK (both stopover in Japan), and I much prefer United but that might be because I have frequent flier priveleges to get decent seats. It is amusing how different the onboard staff are BKK-NRT and NRT-US... the Asia hop has young, friendly staff whereas the trans-Pacific hop has the scowling veterans. Witnessed from economy class, the difference is stark. From business class, the veterans still give reasonable service though maybe with fewer smiles.

My best advice for anyone who goes over the ocean more than once: join a frequent flier program and stick to one airline if at all possible. Even just a few trans-Pacific flights and you start to accumulate significant miles. The real bonus isn't even the free tickets or what not you can purchase with miles. Just having a recorded travel history means that you get preferential seating and sometimes better service. You'd be surprised what the airline computers are plotting in favor of the frequent fliers...

It may sound elitist, but if it gets you better service, why buck the system?

[tourleadersi]

Emirates = ??

I know what you are asking here Marshy and I really wouldn't worry about that. Let me put it this way, on 911 in the US the Arab Airlines were some of the safest in the skies..... I've flown middle eastern airlines numerously and have found them all to be of a reasonable to high standard.

[qualtrough]

Last two times I flew to LAX in the last year the best quotes I got were for Cathy. Excellent flights all around. Short waiting times in HK, and a very nice airport there too. Service wonderful, even the food was not bad. Departure times from BKK are nice too, something like mid-morning as I recall. Whatever you do, do not fly on Northwest or United. Repeat, DO NOT fly them, unless you are a masochist. Oh, the tales I could tell....

[Soju]

I don't mean to challenge anyone's personal opinion of which arilines are best, but they are just that, INDIVIDUAL opinions. A lot depends on which flights/airports you travel, and a lot is just luck. Even the best airlines have an off day with some unexpected event. Also, many of us tend to find one airline and stick with them, so even though their level of service may vary compared with other airlines over time, we may not notice the change due to not flying the other airlines. A current poll of many travelers is much more valuable than a couple of individual opinions. Here's the latest (2006) Skytrax World Airline Survey of the world's top airlines:

1. British Airways

2. Qantas Airways

3. Cathay Pacific

4. Thai Airways

5. Emirates

6. Qatar Airways

7. Singapore Airlines

8. ANA

9. Malaysia Airlines

10. China Airlines

http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Awards-2...neYear-2006.htm

Notice that Thai Airways beat out Singapore Airlines. This survey result was just released this month. Thai and Singapore swapped places with each other compared with last year's survey. Cathay Pacific was first last year but slipped to third.

Of special note, Thai Ariways won the "Worlds Best Cabin Staff for 2006" award.

A very important point to check is what kind of aircraft is being used on the route you are taking and how new is it, what is the seating like, etc. There can be a big difference even on the same airline between different planes. For example, Thai has been upgrading their business class recently, so if you get a plane with the new business class seats, you will likely have a much more pleasant trip than if you get a plane with the older seats.

I've never had an unpleasant experience with Thai, Cathay Pacific, or Singapore. I would fly any of them, depending on which one was most convenient or which one I wanted to get mileage on. If flying to LAX, I would chose Thai because of the mileage and not having to go out of my way to fly to Singapore first.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Soju

[ya5702]

Are there actually ANY direct LAX-BKK flights? I didn't think there were.

Yes. The last I looked, TG flies BKK-LAX-BKK non-stop.

[jimmi]

I fly BKK-LAX-BKK alot. In the past Thai Airlines was SH-T. The flights for the route are now GREAT. Thai Air now flys the new A340 vs the old 747's. The inflight entertainment is great, even in economy. The service was very good. Best of all, the flights are now NON-STOP. Going from BKK to LAX you get the tail wind. Total flight duration was an incredable 12 hours 55 minutes. I'll take 13 hours in a plane over 18 hours anyday. In the past I would avoid Thai air like the plague, now I will fly them over all the rest for the BKK-LAX-BKK route.

[britmaveric]

As for direct - JFK To BKK on Thai. Never done it, but it does sound appealing.

Always fly UAL normally fine to Narita and on to BKK (all asian flight attendents) However reverse on the way out and the service is noticeablely different.

[qualtrough]

I learn something new on the forum everyday. I didn't even know there were direct BKK-LAX flights! I would love to cut 5 or more hours out of the trip! One question--do they have screens in the economy seats?

[autonomous_unit]

Ah, I see. Last time I used TG was in a dingy old 747 that I think I saw in a Brady Bunch episode, and it went through Osaka as I recall.

I stick to UAL now since I can basically keep upgrading my tickets in perpetuity with the miles accumulated per flight... Flying mostly through SFO and ORD, I see the same flight attendants over and over and many of them seem to be my father's age.

[Greer]

Emirates is an excellent airline, but I have no argument that Singapore Airlines is probably the best, or at least in the top few.

I was surprised recently when a colleague flew from Thailand to Germany (he is English by the way), and he said the TG flight was VERY good. The in-flight service and entertainment was excellent.

The last time I went anywhere on TG (BKK/LHR, J-class I think) I decided not to use them again, but all the recent feedback suggests they have lifted their game a lot.

Feedback from a mate of mine who recently flew United business class from the US to UK was that not only were the attendants mainly ladies well over 40 (I am being kind - that was not exactly how he put it), but he had to ask for virtually everything, even wines or drinks with dinner, and then had to ask them for the advertised desert as well.

He also indicated that the staff were quite rude, and this applied to more than one of them.

If you can get a direct flight on TG, it sounds like it may well be the best and easiest option.

Hope you enjoy the trip mate!

Edited June 30, 2006 by Greer

[jimmi]

Qualthrough,

Yes, even in economy class, each seat has their own screen. You get to choose the movie you watch. When you want to watch it and as many time you want to watch it or any of the other movies. Music and games the entertainment system is outstanding.

[qualtrough]

Qualthrough,

Yes, even in economy class, each seat has their own screen. You get to choose the movie you watch. When you want to watch it and as many time you want to watch it or any of the other movies. Music and games the entertainment system is outstanding.

Thanks Jimmi. Looks like my next LAX trip must might be on Thai. Haven't flown them across the Pacific in ages.

[britmaveric]

Qualthrough,

Yes, even in economy class, each seat has their own screen. You get to choose the movie you watch. When you want to watch it and as many time you want to watch it or any of the other movies. Music and games the entertainment system is outstanding.

Thanks Jimmi. Looks like my next LAX trip must might be on Thai. Haven't flown them across the Pacific in ages.

Depends on the plane - 747 communal screens - LAX - Osaka - BKK route.

[barryofthailand]

Are there actually ANY direct LAX-BKK flights? I didn't think there were.

Yes. The last I looked, TG flies BKK-LAX-BKK non-stop.

what was the flying time on the return to BKK. I find it hard to believe 13 hrs from BKK to Lax when it takes 18 hrs going from LAX to BKK. A friend of mine flew the Lax BKK route and reported the flying time as 18hrs.

Also very expensive compared to Cathay Pacific. The reason why I like Cathay Pacific is the short layover in Hong Kong.

[sbk]

Are there actually ANY direct LAX-BKK flights? I didn't think there were.

Yes. The last I looked, TG flies BKK-LAX-BKK non-stop.

what was the flying time on the return to BKK. I find it hard to believe 13 hrs from BKK to Lax when it takes 18 hrs going from LAX to BKK. A friend of mine flew the Lax BKK route and reported the flying time as 18hrs.

Also very expensive compared to Cathay Pacific. The reason why I like Cathay Pacific is the short layover in Hong Kong.

Acording to Amadeus.net bkk-lax is 15 hours 30 min and lax-bkk 17 hours. Better tail wind there then back I guess. Arrives in LA at 8:40 pm so not good for connections

How much does that flight run, anyone know?

[Soju]

Are there actually ANY direct LAX-BKK flights? I didn't think there were.

Yes. The last I looked, TG flies BKK-LAX-BKK non-stop.

what was the flying time on the return to BKK. I find it hard to believe 13 hrs from BKK to Lax when it takes 18 hrs going from LAX to BKK. A friend of mine flew the Lax BKK route and reported the flying time as 18hrs.

Also very expensive compared to Cathay Pacific. The reason why I like Cathay Pacific is the short layover in Hong Kong.

TG lists the time as 15 hours and 30 minutes on their website, so figure the actual flying time is something like 15 hours. I could see perhaps picking up an hour if you had a real strong tail wind, but 12 hours and 55 minutes seems a bit too short. Perhaps there was a miscalculation on the poster's part....maybe daylight savings time wasn't factored in properly.