Thai Airways International has no plans to resume direct flights to the United States, despite the US upgrading Thailand’s air safety rating this year to permit them, CEO Chai Eamsiri said on Wednesday
 

 

I never thought it would actually happen.   Not worth the cost of upgrading it's fleet.  Also, way too much competion even from CNX (Korean, EVA, China and Starlux have US flights with one stop).  Scoot, the Singoapor Airlines, budget carrier flies directly to SIN and then onto the US.  

My friend flew the non stop Thai airways flight once from Los Angeles.  Sorry but 17 hours on a plane is too much.  I typically fly from LAX with a brief 2 or 3 hour layover in Taiwan.  12 + hour flight, then about 3 hour flight on to BKK.  I am fine with the flight being in two parts.  Did through Japan once and that is like 10 hours to Japan, then 6 hours to Bkk.  

40 minutes ago, gk10012001 said:

My friend flew the non stop Thai airways flight once from Los Angeles.  Sorry but 17 hours on a plane is too much.  I typically fly from LAX with a brief 2 or 3 hour layover in Taiwan.  12 + hour flight, then about 3 hour flight on to BKK.  I am fine with the flight being in two parts.  Did through Japan once and that is like 10 hours to Japan, then 6 hours to Bkk.  

I was recently looking for flights to/from Las Vegas and was surprised to find that you can also make good connections between CNX and ONT.  For some reason, I had previously ignored that possibility.  IIRC the fare differences are minimal.

2 hours ago, gk10012001 said:

My friend flew the non stop Thai airways flight once from Los Angeles.  Sorry but 17 hours on a plane is too much.  I typically fly from LAX with a brief 2 or 3 hour layover in Taiwan.  12 + hour flight, then about 3 hour flight on to BKK.  I am fine with the flight being in two parts.  Did through Japan once and that is like 10 hours to Japan, then 6 hours to Bkk.  

I just flew 19 hours from SIN to EWR.   It’s not that bad. 

CNX—>ICN—>SEA is usually most fitting, though SEA airport is pretty much a third world dump anymore, much like ONT.

20 minutes ago, novacova said:

CNX—>ICN—>SEA is usually most fitting, though SEA airport is pretty much a third world dump anymore, much like ONT.

Agree. I have done CNX-ICN-LAX numerous times with KAL.  Initally I picked this route because the flight arrives at LAX early in the morniing.  Use to fly Singapore Airlines (CNX-SIN-LAX) but did not like arriving late at night.  LAX is not exactly in a great neighborhood.  

29 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Agree. I have done CNX-ICN-LAX numerous times with KAL.  Initally I picked this route because the flight arrives at LAX early in the morniing.  Use to fly Singapore Airlines (CNX-SIN-LAX) but did not like arriving late at night.  LAX is not exactly in a great neighborhood.  

Right, arriving in the US during daylight hours is the objective, being the dead of winter when going there and everything in the house is dead cold and dormant after ten or eleven months, turn everything on and stock up. Transiting through ICN is always quick and short and never experienced any hangups with KAL either, though the only drawback is the 787 long haul, prefer airbus. On the return, same with little layover time, land cnx @~10pm warm weather, go home eat and go to sleep.  
Personally, the contrast of the two, going there and the return are two completely different situations. And for whatever reason, the burn-out jet lag seems worse traveling eastward.

The market is not  sufficient to support TG flights. Star Alliance carriers EVA,  ANA, and Air Canada  offer code shares with TG. Thai can also pick up some of the connecting traffic from *A from TYO, ICN and  HKG hubs.   And the reality is that  much of the  world is  looking at markets other than the USA, since tourism will shrink, not grow with the USA for the next 2 years.

1 hour ago, novacova said:

CNX—>ICN—>SEA is usually most fitting, though SEA airport is pretty much a third world dump anymore, much like ONT.

Try EWR! Whew! "Liberty International" Sure know right away you're in the land of the free.

On 7/12/2025 at 6:53 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

Try EWR! Whew! "Liberty International" Sure know right away you're in the land of the free.

 

Those who trumpet 'liberty' and 'freedom' the loudest are observably the most repressed,  neurotic and fearful. 

4 hours ago, BusyB said:

 

Those who trumpet 'liberty' and 'freedom' the loudest are observably the most repressed,  neurotic and fearful. 

We are so oppressed. 

There’s a few “strikes” against having a non-stop US-TH sector.

 

In no specific order -  Thailand may be a high volume market, like the Philippines, its generally a low(er) YIELD market - meaning there isn’t a huge demand for PAID premium cabin seats - and that’s a huge driver to a routes financial viability.

 

A second strike - compared to say SIN or even TPE - reasonably close by - BKK has relatively limited downline connectivity.. again, compared to SIN, where a pax coming off a US-SIN non-stop could easily make a same-carrier, downline connection to say DPS or KUL.  TG would largely no have that kind of downline volume demand.

 

A third as I see it would be fleet utilization .. depending on the frequency, a US-TH non-stop, running that would probably require a minimum of 2 aircraft to support that.

 

To me, there’s much more profitable (ie higher RASM), easier fill with moderate premium demand, routes out there right now, than a true US-TH non-stop. 

Premium economy is just as comfortable as business-class, lie-flat beds. Value-added for the airline.

43 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Premium economy is just as comfortable as business-class, lie-flat beds. Value-added for the airline.

No it’s not 

5 minutes ago, Bill97 said:

No it’s not 

For midgets it is. 

52 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Premium economy is just as comfortable as business-class, lie-flat beds. Value-added for the airline.

Are you a midget?

1 hour ago, novacova said:

For midgets it is. 

 

No it’s not

 

You are just full of it 

On 7/11/2025 at 6:15 PM, gk10012001 said:

My friend flew the non stop Thai airways flight once from Los Angeles.  Sorry but 17 hours on a plane is too much.  I typically fly from LAX with a brief 2 or 3 hour layover in Taiwan.  12 + hour flight, then about 3 hour flight on to BKK.  I am fine with the flight being in two parts.  Did through Japan once and that is like 10 hours to Japan, then 6 hours to Bkk.  

I've flow the direct flight from Vancouver, which I think is around 15 hours.  Not having to stop wasn't as great as I thought it would be.  It's more expensive than going through Taiwan anyways, so I went back to doing that again.  Takes almost the same amount of time anyways.

Air Canada's YVR-BKK is weekly after December 20 (from its 5 day seasonal). Leave at 23:00, arrive at 06:00 or earlier that allows for connection to domestic flights and a quick drive to most cities. It also has the option of YVR-NRT/HKG-BKK. Passenger loads are high and it carries alot of US pax as well as foreign pax who do not want to transit through the USA.  I have taken the route a few times, but prefer to transit throughTokyo.

 

10 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Air Canada's YVR-BKK is weekly

 

I think you mean "daily" as of December 20?

 

 

United Airlines begins flying their own metal to Bangkok with daily service from HKG with connection (not "non-stop") to North America on October 26, 2025.

 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-grows-its-leading-pacific-network-with-new-flights-to-bangkok-ho-chi-minh-city-adelaide-and-manila-302418117.html

 

 

 

On 7/26/2025 at 7:44 PM, new2here said:

Thailand may be a high volume market, like the Philippines, its generally a low(er) YIELD market

 

 

United Airlines added a direct, non-stop daily service to MNL from SFO last year.

 

United is adding a second direct, non-stop daily flight to MNL from SFO in October.

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

 

I think you mean "daily" as of December 20?

 

 

United Airlines begins flying their own metal to Bangkok with daily service from HKG with connection (not "non-stop") to North America on October 26, 2025.

 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-grows-its-leading-pacific-network-with-new-flights-to-bangkok-ho-chi-minh-city-adelaide-and-manila-302418117.html

 

United Airlines added a direct, non-stop daily service to MNL from SFO last year.

United is adding a second direct, non-stop daily flight to MNL from SFO in October.

 

Thank you for the correction. It is indeed daily.

I have done the United route LAX- Hong Kong before they had suspended it.  In the good old days of cheap airfare to Thailand during the Yellow shirt-Red shirt stupidity, I snagged a United business class airfare one way for $1000, catching the TG shuttle to connect to BKK.  Wonderful airport to connect in.  I did the roundtrip LAX-NRT-BKK for awhile, back when  United would use Narita as a transfer point between its flights and you had to run from the arrival gate, to security and then to the departure gate to make the connection when the LAX  departure was late arriving. I don't miss that or the LAX airport experience.

 

On 7/11/2025 at 5:35 PM, sqwakvfr said:

Thai Airways International has no plans to resume direct flights to the United States, despite the US upgrading Thailand’s air safety rating this year to permit them, CEO Chai Eamsiri said on Wednesday
 

 

I never thought it would actually happen.   Not worth the cost of upgrading it's fleet.  Also, way too much competion even from CNX (Korean, EVA, China and Starlux have US flights with one stop).  Scoot, the Singoapor Airlines, budget carrier flies directly to SIN and then onto the US.  

 

Who cares about CNX? That's an airstrip compared to BKK. There is a TON of competition on flights out of BKK. United has confirmed it will resume BKK flights, but with a technical stop in Hong Kong.

 

I do think THAI will eventually resume direct, non-stop services but not for some time to come. 

On 7/29/2025 at 10:04 PM, Patong2021 said:

Air Canada's YVR-BKK is weekly after December 20 (from its 5 day seasonal). Leave at 23:00, arrive at 06:00 or earlier that allows for connection to domestic flights and a quick drive to most cities. It also has the option of YVR-NRT/HKG-BKK. Passenger loads are high and it carries alot of US pax as well as foreign pax who do not want to transit through the USA.  I have taken the route a few times, but prefer to transit throughTokyo.

 

 

Weekly? How are they going to make money on that? Thought that route was going so well, they were considering extending the season and possibly upgrading it to daily service? 

On 7/26/2025 at 7:44 PM, new2here said:

There’s a few “strikes” against having a non-stop US-TH sector.

 

In no specific order -  Thailand may be a high volume market, like the Philippines, its generally a low(er) YIELD market - meaning there isn’t a huge demand for PAID premium cabin seats - and that’s a huge driver to a routes financial viability.

 

A second strike - compared to say SIN or even TPE - reasonably close by - BKK has relatively limited downline connectivity.. again, compared to SIN, where a pax coming off a US-SIN non-stop could easily make a same-carrier, downline connection to say DPS or KUL.  TG would largely no have that kind of downline volume demand.

 

A third as I see it would be fleet utilization .. depending on the frequency, a US-TH non-stop, running that would probably require a minimum of 2 aircraft to support that.

 

To me, there’s much more profitable (ie higher RASM), easier fill with moderate premium demand, routes out there right now, than a true US-TH non-stop. 

 

I disagree. THAI, if it offered non-stop services to the USA again, could easily outcompete SQ on onward flights to Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Kunming, China and places like Pakistan. Singapore works if you're connecting to Indonesia, but it's not where you would connect if you're coming from the US and intending on going to destinations such as Vietnam, Laos or Myanmar. All depends where you're looking at connecting to, and you could also connect to KUL from BKK on THAI. Just that there are more flights from SIN. 

I agree, the competition is fierce, and direct US flights from Thailand might not be profitable right now. Still, it’s nice that there are plenty of options with one stop. If you’re thinking of ways to make the travel experience more comfortable despite the connections, captainluxe.com has some interesting ideas.

https://simpleflying.com/why-dont-us-airlines-fly-thailand/

 

 

On 7/27/2025 at 8:56 PM, shdmn said:

I've flow the direct flight from Vancouver, which I think is around 15 hours.  Not having to stop wasn't as great as I thought it would be.  It's more expensive than going through Taiwan anyways, so I went back to doing that again.  Takes almost the same amount of time anyways.

Show me a 15 hr, total time, flight thru Inchon from NA please.

4 hours ago, mikebike said:

Show me a 15 hr, total time, flight thru Inchon from NA please.

 

Atlanta to Seoul clocked a little over 15 on a Delta A350, slightly under 15 on a Korean 747.  That might be the only example.

 

Edit:  also Monterrey Mexico to Seoul 15:25 Aeromexico

On 7/27/2025 at 7:44 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

Premium economy is just as comfortable as business-class, lie-flat beds. Value-added for the airline.

Premium economy used to be great on EVA but then they re designed all the seats and took away the big foot rest that was part of the chair and now the seats just have little foot pegs on the back of the seat in front of you. Vastly different than what the seats used to be

16 hours ago, gk10012001 said:

Premium economy used to be great on EVA but then they re designed all the seats and took away the big foot rest that was part of the chair and now the seats just have little foot pegs on the back of the seat in front of you. Vastly different than what the seats used to be

Sounds like it's no longer worth the extra money. Thai's premium economy is still great.