STARLUX Airlines to launch LA and San Francisco to Chiang Mai flights

[snoop1130]

 

Taiwanese airline, STARLUX Airlines, is launching new routes from Los Angeles and San Francisco to the northern province of Chiang Mai.

 

The launch event, held at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on January 16 showcased the distinct traditions of Chiang Mai while underscoring TAT’s unwavering commitment to enhancing US-Thailand travel.

 

As a warm Chiang Mai welcome, passengers on the inaugural flight from LAX were gifted special elephant pants, a symbolic gesture of the hospitality awaiting them in this vibrant city.

 

TAT Los Angeles Director, Pornpan Intratat, expressed sheer delight about the collaboration.

 

“We are thrilled to partner with STARLUX Airlines, offering seamless flights from the USA directly to the pulsating heart of Chiang Mai. This aligns perfectly with our mission to position Thailand as the ultimate travel hotspot, spotlighting the unique cultural experiences awaiting explorers in Chiang Mai.”

 

By Puntid Tantivangphaisal

Caption: Photo courtesy of Dj's Aviation

 

Full story: The Thaiger 2024-01-19

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[Amethyst]

The weblink to the airline in the Thaiger article appears broken/malformed.  It works if you use the address they post and then add a "www" in front of it.

 

https://www.starlux-airlines.com/en-US

 

[Amethyst]

Their BKK to LAX flight I just checked shows them using the AIRBUS A350-900 for the Taiwan to LAX segment...

 

Anyone flown on one of those before? Better or worse than EVA's 777s?

 

[treetops]

It appears they've just launched the TPE-CNX route and the USA flights mentioned will connect to them in TPE.  Misleading headline IMO.

[Amethyst]

1 minute ago, treetops said:

It appears they've just launched the TPE-CNX route and the USA flights mentioned will connect tothem in TPE.  Misleading headline IMO.

 

Everything I'm seeing from the USA shows the standard stopovers in Taipei enroute to BKK or CNX... So not exactly "seamless".

[spidermike007]

It would sure be nice if they had non-stops from Bangkok to Los Angeles, one would think that there might be enough demand. When I fly on EVA the flights are nearly always full. 

[new2here]

4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

It would sure be nice if they had non-stops from Bangkok to Los Angeles, one would think that there might be enough demand. When I fly on EVA the flights are nearly always full. 

The problem for US origin is somewhat two-fold.

While BKK has traditionally been a high demand market, and flights will “fill”, the issue largely is that the demand for US-TH seats falls disproportionately into the economy cabin and far less into premium cabins.. and for nearly all carriers, it’s their premium cabins that drive their revenue- disproportionately so .. not economy.  

 

That’s also why you see many carriers who operate 777s and other larger wide-bodies, configure them into 2 (or more) “layouts” one being a “high premium” with larger C/J cabins, a modest PE cabin and therefore smaller traditional Y.. the other is the “high-density”, which may have a much smaller C/J, may lack a PE, but has a much larger Y cabin.    That’s what tend to see coming here — whereas flights to SIN might see the high premium, reflecting a much larger demand for paid premium seats.

 

The second issue for US carriers is that right now, they can deploy their long haul fleet to European markets where demand is much firmer, premium seat demand still strong, as opposed to markets in Asia like BKK.

 

[sqwakvfr]

12 hours ago, stats said:

Their BKK to LAX flight I just checked shows them using the AIRBUS A350-900 for the Taiwan to LAX segment...

 

Anyone flown on one of those before? Better or worse than EVA's 777s?

 

Many times with Singapore on the A350-900.  As a passenger it was a nicer experience.  The EVA 777 from TPE-LAX and back was nice back in 2018.  The last two times I have used Korean Air from CNX to LAX (CNX to ICN on an older A330 and ICN to LAX on a A380).  So far KAL has been good. Round trip economy is usually around $1,000 (give or take $50).  I prefer KAL KE 17 because it arrives at 0940. 

[sqwakvfr]

44 minutes ago, new2here said:

The problem for US origin is somewhat two-fold.

While BKK has traditionally been a high demand market, and flights will “fill”, the issue largely is that the demand for US-TH seats falls disproportionately into the economy cabin and far less into premium cabins.. and for nearly all carriers, it’s their premium cabins that drive their revenue- disproportionately so .. not economy.  

 

That’s also why you see many carriers who operate 777s and other larger wide-bodies, configure them into 2 (or more) “layouts” one being a “high premium” with larger C/J cabins, a modest PE cabin and therefore smaller traditional Y.. the other is the “high-density”, which may have a much smaller C/J, may lack a PE, but has a much larger Y cabin.    That’s what tend to see coming here — whereas flights to SIN might see the high premium, reflecting a much larger demand for paid premium seats.

 

The second issue for US carriers is that right now, they can deploy their long haul fleet to European markets where demand is much firmer, premium seat demand still strong, as opposed to markets in Asia like BKK.

 

Last time I flew BKK to LAX nonstop was back in 2008.  It was on Thai Airways on an A350-400.  The plane was half empty because of the amount fuel needed to fly almost 9,000 miles nonstop.   I believe Air Canada is planning a Vancouver to BKK in the near future.  

[Spilornis]

Wow.. I thought ....but it's just Chiang Mai via Taipei... not exactly earth shattering as I assume Eva already does it.

Looking at international flights from Chiang Mai it seems well connected to the usual South East Asian hubs.

Will be interesting to see if direct flights to India or the Middle East are introduced

[Bangkok Barry]

12 hours ago, treetops said:

It appears they've just launched the TPE-CNX route and the USA flights mentioned will connect to them in TPE.  Misleading headline IMO.

 

Agreed. The flights are not LAX or SFO to CNX. More brilliant reporting from The Thaiger's outstanding journalists.

[novacova]

14 hours ago, stats said:

Their BKK to LAX flight I just checked shows them using the AIRBUS A350-900 for the Taiwan to LAX segment...

 

Anyone flown on one of those before? Better or worse than EVA's 777s?

 

Depends on the layout 

[Irish star]

3 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Many times with Singapore on the A350-900.  As a passenger it was a nicer experience.  The EVA 777 from TPE-LAX and back was nice back in 2018.  The last two times I have used Korean Air from CNX to LAX (CNX to ICN on an older A330 and ICN to LAX on a A380).  So far KAL has been good. Round trip economy is usually around $1,000 (give or take $50).  I prefer KAL KE 17 because it arrives at 0940. 

Starlux is 55,000 b RT to SFO in late April 

[BusyB]

12 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Last time I flew BKK to LAX nonstop was back in 2008.  It was on Thai Airways on an A350-400.  The plane was half empty because of the amount fuel needed to fly almost 9,000 miles nonstop.   I believe Air Canada is planning a Vancouver to BKK in the near future.  

 

I think you mean A340. The A350 prototype was only completed in 2012.

 

TG had quite a few 340s which were gas guzzlers they found hard to sell off. There never was a -400 version.

 

Personally I preferred the -600 version, with the downstairs bogs. Never had to wait long 555 cos they were all grouped together. And LH set up a snack point at the foot of the steps, so you could pick up some snax and a drink before climbing back into the main cabin.

[sqwakvfr]

27 minutes ago, BusyB said:

 

I think you mean A340. The A350 prototype was only completed in 2012.

 

TG had quite a few 340s which were gas guzzlers they found hard to sell off. There never was a -400 version.

 

Personally I preferred the -600 version, with the downstairs bogs. Never had to wait long 555 cos they were all grouped together. And LH set up a snack point at the foot of the steps, so you could pick up some snax and a drink before climbing back into the main cabin.

Yup. 340.  Thai offered a great Premium Economy back then for just slightly more than Economy.  

[new2here]

On 1/20/2024 at 6:38 AM, sqwakvfr said:

Last time I flew BKK to LAX nonstop was back in 2008.  It was on Thai Airways on an A350-400.  The plane was half empty because of the amount fuel needed to fly almost 9,000 miles nonstop.   I believe Air Canada is planning a Vancouver to BKK in the near future.  

Those BKK-LAX/JFK non-stops were a good idea.. but largely fell victim to timing .. once fuel skyrocketed, that A340-500 quad-jet just become impossible to operate profitably on those kinds of “long, thin” routes.. 

 

The other issue is that as I’ve noted earlier US-TH traffic is skewed to the leisure end of the spectrum.. making any kind of ultra long haul US-TH non-stop very difficult to operate without consistently filling the premium end of the cabin.

 

once TG went back to the single-stop routing (be that via JP or KR) on the 777s, they then ran smack dab into some of the most competitive and seat-saturated (lots of available seats) markets, with more than a handful of both Asian carriers flying this same US west coast JP/KR market, as well as US carriers too.. making it hard for them to compete and gain any real marketshare.

 

MH tried the same thing; KUL-NRT-LAX and they too couldn’t make it work long-term either. They could fill that -400 easily.. but they filled it largely only in Y and with few true paid C/J seats.. 

 

I think that one big “strike” against TG is something that’s out of their direct control. Unlike SIN, BKK/DMK really has little true international connection traffic.. domestic, sure.. but as is common, domestic has to operated by a Thai carrier, and most every domestic route is covered equally or more by a LCC..  So anyone choosing to fly TG, is pretty much locked into terminating in TH.  SQ by comparison, carries much more connection traffic beyond SIN.. and the north asian carriers like OZ/KE or JL/NH carry a massive amount - taking a lot of pricing pressure off their US-JP/KR sales quotas… all to the detriment of TG when it comes to flying to/from the US.

[sqwakvfr]

2 hours ago, new2here said:

Those BKK-LAX/JFK non-stops were a good idea.. but largely fell victim to timing .. once fuel skyrocketed, that A340-500 quad-jet just become impossible to operate profitably on those kinds of “long, thin” routes.. 

 

The other issue is that as I’ve noted earlier US-TH traffic is skewed to the leisure end of the spectrum.. making any kind of ultra long haul US-TH non-stop very difficult to operate without consistently filling the premium end of the cabin.

 

once TG went back to the single-stop routing (be that via JP or KR) on the 777s, they then ran smack dab into some of the most competitive and seat-saturated (lots of available seats) markets, with more than a handful of both Asian carriers flying this same US west coast JP/KR market, as well as US carriers too.. making it hard for them to compete and gain any real marketshare.

 

MH tried the same thing; KUL-NRT-LAX and they too couldn’t make it work long-term either. They could fill that -400 easily.. but they filled it largely only in Y and with few true paid C/J seats.. 

 

I think that one big “strike” against TG is something that’s out of their direct control. Unlike SIN, BKK/DMK really has little true international connection traffic.. domestic, sure.. but as is common, domestic has to operated by a Thai carrier, and most every domestic route is covered equally or more by a LCC..  So anyone choosing to fly TG, is pretty much locked into terminating in TH.  SQ by comparison, carries much more connection traffic beyond SIN.. and the north asian carriers like OZ/KE or JL/NH carry a massive amount - taking a lot of pricing pressure off their US-JP/KR sales quotas… all to the detriment of TG when it comes to flying to/from the US.

Last time I flew TG to the US was back in 2013.  They were flying a B777-300 ER and the routing was BKK-ICN-LAX.  The stop in ICN was about 2 hours.  I do not see TG ever flying to the US again.  

[new2here]

2 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Last time I flew TG to the US was back in 2013.  They were flying a B777-300 ER and the routing was BKK-ICN-LAX.  The stop in ICN was about 2 hours.  I do not see TG ever flying to the US again.  

Agreed. They don’t have enough “market” in the US via LAX (or SFO/SEA if they were to even go that way) to really sustain themselves - especially when one notes ALL the other one-stop options that currently exist, such as TPE/HKG/ICN/NRT/HND/SIN/PEK/PVG and i’m sure a few others.  TG is much better off flying with their strengths; that being long-haul Euro traffic, intra-Asia and regional flying, plus the domestic market.