Thailand and U.S. Set to Resume Direct Flights by February

[webfact]

File photo courtesy: Traveloka

 

Direct flights between Thailand and the United States are poised to restart in February, following the expected upgrade of Thailand's aviation safety rating by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

 

This comes as Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister, Suriya Jungrungreangkit, announced positive evaluations from the FAA after a recent inspection.

 

The FAA conducted its review from 11th to 15th November, where the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) received high marks, indicating a significant boost in the country's aviation safety standards.

 

While some minor issues remain, they are not believed to hinder the final outcome, with Thailand likely to achieve Category 1 status early next year.

Thailand's aviation safety was downgraded to Category 2 by the FAA in December 2015, citing shortcomings such as a conflict of interest and insufficient oversight in licence issuance.

 

The CAAT has since worked diligently to rectify these issues, achieving notable progress, according to Transport Permanent Secretary, Chayatan Phromsorn.

 

Category 1 status signifies compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards and would allow Thai airlines to operate direct flights to the US.

 

The anticipated upgrade marks a pivotal moment for Thailand's aviation sector, aiming to bolster international connectivity and industry growth.

 

Thailand originally achieved Category 1 status in 1997 but was downgraded in 2015. The expected return to Category 1 will restore its ability to expand its aviation operations with the US, marking a positive advancement for both countries, reported Bangkok Post.

 

-- 2024-11-30

 

 

[JoePai]

While some minor issues remain

 

thick envelopes will sort those out...

[klauskunkel]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Thailand's aviation safety was downgraded citing shortcomings such as a conflict of interest and insufficient oversight in licence issuance.

"conflict of interest and insufficient oversight"... Would that be, uhm, "corruption" per chance?

[Nid_Noi]

But there is a direct flight from Vancouver to Bangkok with Air Canada used by many residents from the Seattle and northwest areas.

Thai Airlines used to have a direct flight from New York to Bangkok 20 years ago. The aircraft was an Airbus A340. Service and food were exceptional but Thai was losing money (apparently too many royals and top government officials and families were frequent fliers…on points).

[khunjeff]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Direct flights between Thailand and the United States are poised to restart in February

 

Absolutely nothing in this article backs up this statement. Regaining Category 1 status will allow flights between Thailand and the US to resume, but the flights will only happen if some airline sees them as economically viable. Has any carrier announced that they plan to initiate these routes once they're permitted?

[jas007]

Supposedly, the A340 aircraft they used to use for those flights wasn't very economical to fly with fuel prices rising, so the flights stopped.  I'm not sure if there were other reasons.  Besides JFK, they also had flights from LAX.  I've tried both. 17 hours was the advertised time, but sometimes it went faster. Now time, from Bangkok to LAX, the flight only took 13 hours or so.  That was a pleasant surprise.  I always used Premium Economy.  I'm not sure I'd want to be in economy seating for such a long flight. 

 

Anyway, changing planes in Tokyo or wherever is usually no big deal. You get a chance to stretch your legs and relax for an hour or so. 

[Phillip9]

👍

[LukKrueng]

2 hours ago, Nid_Noi said:

But there is a direct flight from Vancouver to Bangkok with Air Canada used by many residents from the Seattle and northwest areas.

Thai Airlines used to have a direct flight from New York to Bangkok 20 years ago. The aircraft was an Airbus A340. Service and food were exceptional but Thai was losing money (apparently too many royals and top government officials and families were frequent fliers…on points).

Actually they lost money because of the enlarged fuel tanks for which they had to reduce passengers and cargo capacity.

I took the 2nd ever direct flight to NYC, 17 hours... And it was amazing. Good brand new aircraft, good entertainment system, good service.

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, Nid_Noi said:

But there is a direct flight from Vancouver to Bangkok with Air Canada used by many residents from the Seattle and northwest areas.

Thai Airlines used to have a direct flight from New York to Bangkok 20 years ago. The aircraft was an Airbus A340. Service and food were exceptional but Thai was losing money (apparently too many royals and top government officials and families were frequent fliers…on points).

 

They also served BKK - LAX non-stop, but it was unprofitable because of the A340-500 and fuel costs, nothing to do with grifters. It was a comfortable service, but pax loads were limited to 80% due to expensive fuel needed for the four-burner.

 

Not many A340 flying any more, maybe Lufthansa still does, but Thai have been trying to sell their half-a-dozen since forever.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Supposedly, the A340 aircraft they used to use for those flights wasn't very economical to fly with fuel prices rising, so the flights stopped.  I'm not sure if there were other reasons.  Besides JFK, they also had flights from LAX.  I've tried both. 17 hours was the advertised time, but sometimes it went faster. Now time, from Bangkok to LAX, the flight only took 13 hours or so.  That was a pleasant surprise.  I always used Premium Economy.  I'm not sure I'd want to be in economy seating for such a long flight. 

 

Anyway, changing planes in Tokyo or wherever is usually no big deal. You get a chance to stretch your legs and relax for an hour or so. 

 

The non-stop LAX economy was the most comfortable 'back of the bus' service I ever experienced. The seat pitch was increased to 36" so that even with 80% pax load, the weight distribution was maintained with the added bonus that Coach always looked full.

[sqwakvfr]

2 hours ago, Nid_Noi said:

But there is a direct flight from Vancouver to Bangkok with Air Canada used by many residents from the Seattle and northwest areas.

Thai Airlines used to have a direct flight from New York to Bangkok 20 years ago. The aircraft was an Airbus A340. Service and food were exceptional but Thai was losing money (apparently too many royals and top government officials and families were frequent fliers…on points).

Did the Thai Airways  LAX-BKK-LAX multiple times.  Last time was in 2007.  It was on the A340-500 and the Premium Economy seats were nice.  The avergae flight time was 14 to 16 hours nonstop.  The plane was never full and suspect it was because of the distance and need to carry more fuel.  Thai used to have a BKK-ICN-LAX flight and did that last in 2013.  It was on a B777-300ER.  If Thai buys the A350-900ULR like Singapore Airlines nonstop from BKK to both LAX and EWR or JFK is possible. 

[NanLaew]

Anyway, I could use their 777's if they start doing the US west coast. I think the east coast will probably be a tad too far for that old bird but well within the capabilities of their A350's.

[Tom100]

1 hour ago, khunjeff said:

 

Absolutely nothing in this article backs up this statement. Regaining Category 1 status will allow flights between Thailand and the US to resume, but the flights will only happen if some airline sees them as economically viable. Has any carrier announced that they plan to initiate these routes once they're permitted?

Totally agree.

I know a retired UA staffer in BKK who told me that UA/AA will not fly direct because 1) not enough PAID business class seats can be sold and 2) US union rules on layover times make US -based crews extremely expensive (crews work half of a 16 hour flight then get 2-3 days off with hotels+food paid... so they work ONLY 2 flights in 1 week. Not competitive. The third reason is that the expensive 787s are deployed only on the most profitable routes where there are business/rich travelers.

[Evil Penevil]

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

Supposedly, the A340 aircraft they used to use for those flights wasn't very economical to fly with fuel prices rising, so the flights stopped.

 

The explanation I heard was that Thai Airways, unlike most long-haul operators,  did not hedge against rising fuel prices.  A surge in fuel prices in 2008 would have caused major losses on the nonstop New York-Bangkok route, so it was canceled on short notice after three years of operation.  I was pissed as all hell because flights stopped on July 1 and I had a ticket booked and paid  for departure in the first week of August.  

 

2 hours ago, LukKrueng said:

I took the 2nd ever direct flight to NYC, 17 hours..

 

I was on  one of the first nonstop flights out of JFK for Bangkok in May of 2005.  I recall special meals were served to commemorate the start of service.   The  flying time was supposed to be 17 hours but we made it to Don Mueang in 16 hours.  I took the JFK-DMK nonstop roundtrip about 10 times between 2005 and 2008 and it almost always landed ahead of schedule in Bangkok due to tail winds, while head winds meant the return flight was  usually 17 hours or more.

 

For me, it was absolutely the best way to get to Thailand from New York.  I was really sorry when that service was canceled.  It will indeed be interesting to see if Thai resumes nonstops to New York or Los Angeles.  I doubt very much a U.S. carrier will initiate nonstop service because of the high cost of ultra long haul flights and limited profit potential.

[DogNo1]

Would an A-380 be possible on a USA direct flight? I have no idea of its relative fuel economy profile but I sure enjoyed flying first class on TIA to Tokyo and back.

[Khyron]

The Vancouver to BKK flights are doing well for Air Canada, too bad their service is crap (heard first hand from a few people)

 

They would use an A350, it is alot cheaper to operate than anything they have now. If the interest piques, then more flights would be in order, from LAX or SFO.

 

The 777 is at the edge of its range, so no go on that, maybe a flight through Japan, I've done that run on Thai before. 

 

I don't believe Thai has anymore A380's, probably not enough interest anyway.

Hopefully through LAX, not SFO. I live 80 miles from SFO, but LAX is easier to get to from Sac, weird I know.

[sqwakvfr]

13 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

Would an A-380 be possible on a USA direct flight? I have no idea of its relative fuel economy profile but I sure enjoyed flying first class on TIA to Tokyo and back.

An A380 could fly nonstop from BKK to LAX but the load factor might not be high enough to be profitable.  Distance is around 8300 NM. An A350-900ULR would be the most suitable aircraft.  I believe Thai Airways has some A350's but do not know if they have the ULR(Ultra Long Range).  

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

22 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Anyway, I could use their 777's if they start doing the US west coast. I think the east coast will probably be a tad too far for that old bird but well within the capabilities of their A350's.

 

It's been years ago now.... but I think I remember taking a Thai Air nonstop flight between BKK and LAX back in the early-mid 2000s before they spiked all the nonstop services...

 

As best as I can recall, I flew at that time on a Thai Air 777, but my memory may be off about that. Either way, it was a LONG flight!  Made me come to realize how much I enjoyed the normal stopovers at Taipei airport with EVA.

 

Edited yesterday at 10:11 AM by TallGuyJohninBKK

[KannikaP]

On 11/30/2024 at 8:10 AM, webfact said:

Transport Minister, Suriya Jungrungreangkit,

Kinnel, that's a mouthful. 555

[Peabody]

I think I remember when Thai was not approved to fly into the US cuz doesn't meet standards, they played sour grapes and said "Well, we quit flying there before you can ban us".