Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

United Airlines Resumes Flights to Thailand After Long Hiatus

Featured Replies

united-airlines.webp

Photo via TAT

 

United Airlines has resumed flights to Thailand after more than a decade, launching a daily service from Los Angeles to Bangkok via Hong Kong. This marks United's first return since 2014, aiming to boost connectivity between Thailand and North America and reaffirming Bangkok's role as a gateway to Asia. The inaugural flight landed at Suvarnabhumi Airport on October 25, welcomed by a traditional water salute.

 

United operates the route with a Boeing 787–9 Dreamliner, offering 257 seats across three classes. Flight UA 820 departs Los Angeles at 11:15 p.m. and arrives in Bangkok at 11:25 a.m. two days later, with a stopover in Hong Kong. The return flight, UA 821, departs Bangkok at 4:55 p.m., landing back in LA at 8:25 p.m. the same day.

 

The connection via Hong Kong benefits passengers traveling from United’s existing San Francisco–Hong Kong service, enabling easier transit to Bangkok. United’s hubs in Los Angeles and San Francisco provide further connectivity to over 75 destinations across the Americas. At the welcome ceremony, Tourism Authority of Thailand Governor Thapanee Kiatphaibool emphasized the strengthening of US-Thailand relations.

 

Kiatphaibool highlighted the service as a milestone in Thai-US ties, boosting tourism and catering to growing interest from American travelers. United is now the only US airline flying to Bangkok, highlighting confidence in Thailand's attraction for long-haul travelers. The service reinforces Bangkok’s status as a major tourism hub, corresponding with increased North American travel to the region.

 

This launch aligns with the rising trend of long-haul travel from North America. Air Canada's non-stop Vancouver-Bangkok route and Thailand's feature in The White Lotus Season 3 have heightened interest in Thai culture and hospitality. In 2023, Thailand received 808,288 American visitors by October 24—a 5% rise from the previous year. The TAT forecasts 1.09 million American visitors by year-end, generating 62 billion baht in revenue.

 

Key Takeaways

  • United Airlines resumes Bangkok service after a decade-long hiatus.
  • The route enhances connectivity between North America and Thailand.
  • Thailand expects over a million US visitors in 2023, boosting tourism revenue.

 

Related Stories

Mid-Air Drama: American Airlines Makes Emergency Landing

Thailand's Aviation Fee Hikes May Impact Tourism Recovery

 

image.png  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Thaiger 2025-10-27

 

image.jpeg

 

image.png

  • Replies 68
  • Views 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • spidermike007
    spidermike007

    Even as an American I avoid flying on any American airline, if I can help it. It's inferior service, the cabins aren't usually quite as nice, and there's really no reason to do it unless you have to,

  • Why can't people understand the fact that "direct flights" and non-stop flights are not the same and stop using the terms interchangeably?

  • Although I have flown non-stop to BKK with Air Canada from my local airport (YVR), I prefer on the whole to take a break in TPE with Eva Air.  Eva Air is one of the few airlines (that I know) who

Posted Images

  • Popular Post

Why can't people understand the fact that "direct flights" and non-stop flights are not the same and stop using the terms interchangeably?

Did I miss the slightly important point, the duration of the flight? It must be a rather long one, Oooh err missus.

6 minutes ago, Vlada Floric said:

Did I miss the slightly important point, the duration of the flight? It must be a rather long one, Oooh err missus.

About 15h going East, 19h back.  Plus layover time (2h) in HKG.

4 minutes ago, Upnotover said:

About 15h going East, 19h back.  Plus layover time (2h) in HKG.

That would put me right off.

I did 13hrs non-stop from UK to BKK that's long enough

  • Popular Post
8 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

That would put me right off.

I did 13hrs non-stop from UK to BKK that's long enough

Longer from BKK/USA than BKK/LHR. If you want to go you have to spend the time. Guess you wont ever be going. I wonder how you would deal with a 12-15 hour time change. 

8 minutes ago, marin said:

Longer from BKK/USA than BKK/LHR. If you want to go you have to spend the time. Guess you wont ever be going. I wonder how you would deal with a 12-15 hour time change. 

I wouldn't travel that far non-stop.. I'd look for a stop-over to get a decent break

I know nothing about United Airlines, except that they sponsor Wrexham, the Welsh team who will in a few short years be dominating the English Premier League....

Well, if Bournemouth or Brentford can stick it to the Liverpools of this world, why not?

6 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

I wouldn't travel that far non-stop.. I'd look for a stop-over to get a decent break

Not much choice as you are flying over the Pacific Ocean. Best way for me is 7.5 hours BKK/TYO and then 10 hours TYO/SFO but coming back you have the jet stream so 10+ hours SFO/TYO.  Via TPE and HKG its going to be 12-14 hours across the Pacific. But BKK/HKG or TPE is just 3 hours. 

  • Popular Post

Although I have flown non-stop to BKK with Air Canada from my local airport (YVR), I prefer on the whole to take a break in TPE with Eva Air. 

Eva Air is one of the few airlines (that I know) who treat people as people and not cattle.

 

6 minutes ago, blazes said:

Although I have flown non-stop to BKK with Air Canada from my local airport (YVR), I prefer on the whole to take a break in TPE with Eva Air. 

Eva Air is one of the few airlines (that I know) who treat people as people and not cattle.

 

EVA is my got to airline.  Flew premium economy for about 10 trips from the USA out of either, SFO or LAX .

 

The article suggests the 787 went across the ocean?  I didn't think it was that long haul of an aircraft.  Anyway, I tested the flight management software on that while on a contract at MOOG in Salt Lake City.  I will never fly on a 787.  I also tested the anti skid brake system software while working with Crane Aerospace in Burbank, CA.  I can not speak to the totality of the hardware used in that subsystem, but Crane clearly did understand how anti skid works so that system I would trust.

  • Popular Post
47 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

That would put me right off.

I did 13hrs non-stop from UK to BKK that's long enough

yeah.  My buddy did the Thai airways non stop from LAX back when it still was available.  Not me.  I prefer the stop in TPE and about a 2 to 3 hour layover.  12 hours on a plane across the pacific is long enough for me, even with a premium economy decent seat.  I remember my first two trips from the USA on China airlines and then EVA airlines flying coach.  Not flying coach now at my age

  • Popular Post

I think I flew a United JAL joint flight once, from LAX connecting through Japan.  the united leg was not good.  The American flight attendants all acted miserably, like they hated their jobs.  Lousy 10 hour flight.  Then the JAL flight from Japan to BKK was great.  Stewardess's very friendly.  They even cleaned the bathroom again in flight. That 6 hour leg of the flight was great.

Quote

 

 

  • Popular Post

Even as an American I avoid flying on any American airline, if I can help it. It's inferior service, the cabins aren't usually quite as nice, and there's really no reason to do it unless you have to, or unless you're using mileage.

 

Like so many things American, it's just simply inferior. 

35 minutes ago, gk10012001 said:

The article suggests the 787 went across the ocean?  I didn't think it was that long haul of an aircraft. 

Qantas flies nonstop from the UK to Australia, London Heathrow to Perth. This direct flight takes approximately 17 hours. They use a 787.

  • Popular Post

As spidermike007 pointed out, United Airlines and the other American Airlines are utter crap when compared to EVA, China, Qatar, Singapore, and Etihad.  I avoid flying them and stick to other non-American carriers.  The service is just a lot better with non-American carriers.

23 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

Qantas flies nonstop from the UK to Australia, London Heathrow to Perth. This direct flight takes approximately 17 hours. They use a 787.

OK.  I still prefer the good old 747 with 4 engines.  All my recent long haul flights have been the 777 with its ETOPS rating.  The 747 gave a smoother ride in the sense it was like the old buick floating car rides versus a stiff jeep vehicle

I am going back to LAX soon and just booked with EVA.  In the past I was a loyal United Mileage Plus member but that was in the past. Flew LAX-HKG-BKK several times in Business and economy and the service was good. Last United flight was over 10 years ago from Orlando to LAX and it was a piss poor experience. Added charges was the name of the game. Because I was a Mileage Plus member the only thing complimentary was one checked bag. 

 

  • Popular Post
2 hours ago, hotchilli said:

That would put me right off.

I did 13hrs non-stop from UK to BKK that's long enough

Thai Airways used to fly LAX DIRECT/NONE Stop to BKK!   17.5hrs!    7 full length inflight movie!    4 Full Meals !   then there was the 8 Rum and Cokes for relaxing!   

1 hour ago, gk10012001 said:

OK.  I still prefer the good old 747 with 4 engines.  All my recent long haul flights have been the 777 with its ETOPS rating.  The 747 gave a smoother ride in the sense it was like the old buick floating car rides versus a stiff jeep vehicle

My last long haul was on an A340, smooth but felt slower than the 747.  The onboard electrics were a bit temperamental, nothing to do with the number of engines of course, just  a bit old!  I've done long-haul on a 787 and on an A350, both very quiet and comfortable, but I get the 4 engine thing.

1 hour ago, Hanuman2547 said:

As spidermike007 pointed out, United Airlines and the other American Airlines are utter crap when compared to EVA, China, Qatar, Singapore, and Etihad.  I avoid flying them and stick to other non-American carriers.  The service is just a lot better with non-American carriers.

Yes!  I agree, Especially AA inflight crews!  Asia Pacific flights were only for the "OLDER" Ready and Senior flight crew's.... United the same!  When the food trays went out I was always watchfull to help hold  the tipping side of the food tray in case.......

 

Aditutes as well................

 

4 hours ago, hotchilli said:

That would put me right off.

I did 13hrs non-stop from UK to BKK that's long enough

Your lucky you are not flying from Australia to the UK then

9 hours ago, Asean Tiger said:

Why can't people understand the fact that "direct flights" and non-stop flights are not the same and stop using the terms interchangeably?

 

Is the term "non-stop" anywhere in the OP or associated press releases?

4 hours ago, hotchilli said:

I wouldn't travel that far non-stop.. I'd look for a stop-over to get a decent break

 

Not a lot of choices mid-Pacific. Are you a good swimmer?

  • Popular Post

Sadly, United being both a legacy airline with a long history and a U.S. Airline to boot, these flights to popular destinations tend to be populated by the oldest and most surly flight attendants on the planet who use their seniority to grab the flight and do the bare minimum on what's essentially a shopping trip.

 

I used the fly United several times a year between Shanghai and the States and gave it up for younger, more attractive flight attendants willing to work for their living.

just flew with them from LAX to HK in June. torture.  i am going to sell off my remaining FF  miles.  their mileage program now sucks.  always moving the reward goal post. as for the FA's i agree, and they would not let me upgrade after returning from the States following surgery.  at one time they where a good airline. but EVA  or  ANA via Tokyo much better service.  its just a reflection on how America generally has gone downhill

We travel between bkk and sfo from time to time. I don’t see this service any different let alone better than the existing EVA,JAL, Cathay etc services. If anything American based providers are not as friendly as Asian providers. We will give it a miss for now
And yeah direct flight vs non-stop can be confusing to some. 

4 hours ago, gk10012001 said:

OK.  I still prefer the good old 747 with 4 engines.  All my recent long haul flights have been the 777 with its ETOPS rating.  The 747 gave a smoother ride in the sense it was like the old buick floating car rides versus a stiff jeep vehicle

 

The A380 is incomparable ... tops 'em all. Sadly, ain't many around now apart from the Gulf carriers.

4 hours ago, gk10012001 said:

OK.  I still prefer the good old 747 with 4 engines.  All my recent long haul flights have been the 777 with its ETOPS rating.  The 747 gave a smoother ride in the sense it was like the old buick floating car rides versus a stiff jeep vehicle

 

The 777, 787 and 747 all have the same ETOPS rating of 330 minutes from nearest suitable airport with an engine out.  In the case of the 747 that was not the limiting factor.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.