Thai Airways Or Air Asia

[laphroaig]

Does anyone have any comments on why I should choose one against the other for internal flights. I see Air Asia is a fair bit cheaper than Thai Airways but I don't want to save money at the cost of safety. A couple of years ago I used 1 2 go and did not realise until afterwards the general feeling about the company and their aircraft etc.

I guess therefore that the question is whether Air Asia are reputable and safe for flights to Chiang Mai from Swampy

Thanks

Edited December 29, 2009 by laphroaig

[jackr]

Yes, be careful with Thai Airways

[Thanyaburi Mac]

Neither! Take Nok Air if it fits your price and schedule. I just had a nice roundtrip from DMK to UTH and back. Besides, I do like the paint jobs on their planes!

www.nokair.com

Mac

[rfukata]

There are always pros and cons to every airlines or anything:

Thai Airways is a national carrier and a star alliance partner. Flying with Thai you can accrue air miles on the given

alliance partnership, enjoy a meal, luggage allowance of 20 kilo, a blanket & etc.

For AirAsia, basically a budget airline which charges for everything; refreshments, luggage, meal etc.

Safety aspect in my opinion is likely the same. Under the mercy of the Captain & flight officer.

[laphroaig]

Thanks guys

Unfortunately Nok Air isn't an option as it only flies out of Don M.

Regardng safety, if Air Asia is ok Ill take that option. It is a short flight to and from CNX so I can cope without extra

thanks

T

[alant]

i would agree with rfukata, the air asia aircraft are modern clean and the staff well trained and behaved it seems, indicators of an airline who have the basics correct.

for me the question tends to revolve around baggage and if i have an on connection, air asia is strictly point to point so you get off go collect your baggage and then have to re check in. thai is usually not and provided you allow at least 2 hours for a connection (for other airlines less for thai to thai) you can usually check through. even if you cant check yourself all the way they will usually check the bags through for you.

cheers, good flight

[gosompoi]

Thai Airways and Air Asia seem to have the same quality crews but Air Asia has newer planes. Thai Airways is on time where Air Asia is terrible about keeping to its schedule. The deal breaker for me is the better quality of customer service from Air Asia, Thai Airways customer service is terrible to complete missing. Air Asia's planes, crew and customer service is far better than Thai Airways and with lower ticket costs, I choose Air Asia whenever possible.

[GungaDin]

Air Asia is ok, just beware of all the extra charges.

[geriatrickid]

I flew on Air Asia this week. Did so because it was the only direct flight at the time I needed and it was 10,000 baht cheaper than the alternatives.. Checkin agent was surly and scowled. Ok, big deal. On board, I immediately noticed that there is less leg room on the Air Asia Airbus. You just sit there crammed into a tiny space and hope like hel_l that there is no need for an emergency exit because the seating configuration does not facilitate a rapid exit. Yes, the Air Asia FAs are young and pleasant. Unfortunately, smiles don't help in an emergency. Watching one of them duck into the lav as the plane was taxiiing for takeoff, I wasn't too impressed that she left her position which is to be manned during the take off. Ok, so if you have to pee, you have to pee, but still that's a no-no. So what if it was newer than TG or MI because there is no entertainment system, phone or anything else. Odd since many LCC planes have this. No biggie though. A new airplane is only as good as the maintenance staff and the hours clocked on the plane. I don't think Air Asia is any better than TG in that regard. Nok Air is serviced by TG, as part of the investment stake.

Would I fly FD again? Not if I can avoid it. It's all marketing and flash with no substance. i know that if something goes wrong that Air Asia will not help. I had a devil of a time getting my eticket issued last month and didn't even receive a response to my emails until 2 weeks after I had sent my 2nd one. This is an airline that services very price sensitive clients so it treats them accordingly. No matter what Air Asia does, the clients will come back if the price is right. I dislike Air Asia and think it's a disaster waiting to happen.

[knocka]

Take an Air Asia morning flight to CNX and they will get u there ontime on a very new A320 or a 20 year or so old B737 (the same age as Thai's 737's & A300's), with well trained pilots and cabin crew.

Nothing wrong with Thai but if u can fly AA for a hel_l of a lot cheaper, why not?

In over 2 dozen flights on AA only one was late departing by 1hr15mins.

geriatrickid says "disaster waiting to happen" - what a load of absolute drivel! Don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on your outlandish statement.

Edited December 30, 2009 by knocka

[harrry]

If you fly Thai it is much less likely your flight will be cancelled or delayed than with Air Asia.

[geriatrickid]

Knocka, you answered the question yourself. Look at the TG vs FD flight crew hours. PAX thought Pinnacle/Colgan Air was safe until the incidents caused the US Congress to hold hearings and things like;

- Pilot training

- Experience ratings

- Company policy on fatigue

Were identified as contributing factors in the aircraft incidents.

The aircrews did have nice uniforms and were young though.

You may wish to consider an airline's position on "subloading".

An LCC profit model is based upon having the aircraft and crews in maximum use. That means that crews will be more likely to be fatigued. If the rules said crews could work 12 hour days 6 days a week, I am willing to bet FD would do it. In the case of TG, common sense would prevail. I dislike TG, but one thing I know about the airline is that it closely monitors air crew hours and has a compliance policy. You cannot code share with Lufthansa, AIr Canada, ANA and some of the other Star Alliance carriers unless you meet the common safety standards agreed to. Can you say the same about FD?

You state that the flight crew is well trained. Are you saying that the hours logged on the route by the pilots exceeds that of TG? I don't think so. What is the turnover of staff on the route? Again I refer you to the LCC operating model. Pilots do not necessarily fly the same routes. They are used where needed so as to maximize hours available. Only the legacy and regional commuter airlines keep pilots on the same routes. Please read up on the LCC operating models before you make a claim that you cannot substantiate.

It's great that you love FD. More power to you, but I look beyond marketing flash to actual substance. An airline that has zero customer service as evidenced by an inability to respond to phone calls or emails suggests to me that it will have the same disdain for other fundamental aspects of operation. If FD meets your needs, good for you. For those of us that log significant hours in the sky, safety is a consideration. I picked FD over TG & MI for my recent flight due to price and schedule considerations. The benefit outweighed my perception of the risk. However, the risk was still there.

[asanee]

Thai Airways is on time where Air Asia is terrible about keeping to its schedule. The deal breaker for me is the better quality of customer service from Air Asia, Thai Airways customer service is terrible to complete missing. .

These are stories from the past. I had to spend a few hours on Swampy last onday-ALL arrivals of A-A were bang on time or even 15-20 mins early. ALL departures, bopth domestic and international, were on time. THAI is more often late (but certainly not always) as it has to wait for connectons etc.

A-A often gets-justified- complaints about its , in fact non-existent, customer service. Their fones are always busy-and the basic answer is: if its not on our website, it cannot be done. Thats a common thing of any low-cost airline.

TG=THAI gets fairly consistent throughout many years praise about its service. I really have no clue as to why sosompoi mentioned this.

The (not that widely published) apparent reason for the 1-2-GO crash were untrained Indonesian pilots. This has even led to the EU banning all Indoensian airlines for a while. Note that A-A has effective 3 branches; Malay, Thai and Indonesian (als also XL), with different flight codes.

[knocka]

You have no justification for stating that AA is a disaster waiting to happen. And should retract that statement.

To state that then go and fly them only 1 week ago????? How can I discuss logic like that?

Safety is a major concern of all those that fly. Air Asia has the perfect safety record does it not. No crashes or fatalities.

QED.

[el jefe]

The difference in price is for the better customer service. Customer service includes free food and drinks, transferring baggage to other full-fare carriers, and quick replies to email and phone questions. If that's important to you, pay the extra and fly Thai. Air Asia has a business plan that works -- you pay for what you want. You want to check a bag, you pay for it. You want a beer, you pay for it.

If you want to know the on-time record of any carrier that information is available on-line.

If you want to know which airline is "safer", you can't possibly get that info from the know-it-alls here.

[geriatrickid]

You have no justification for stating that AA is a disaster waiting to happen. And should retract that statement.

To state that then go and fly them only 1 week ago????? How can I discuss logic like that?

Safety is a major concern of all those that fly. Air Asia has the perfect safety record does it not. No crashes or fatalities.

QED.

Have you ever read an LCC business plan? Are you denying that fatigue is not a heightened risk associated with LCCS? Are you saying that fatigue is not the leading factor in pilot error? If you wish to reference an airline's safety record then you must look at the usage and kilometers flown. When reviewing safety records, one must take into account the regulatory oversight available. Because TG and MH fly into multiple jurisdictions with strict air safety standards they are under closer scrutiny than those airlines that do not. In Thailand, do you think all aircraft incidents are reported in the same manner as they would be in the USA, EU or even Malaysia? An LCC business model requires that costs be kept to a minimum and that means salaries and benefits. If you were an experienced pilot or FA would you prefer to work for a carrier that paid better or would you run and work for an LCC because it had spiffy uniforms. I believe that legacy carriers have crews with more experience and knowledge than do the local LCCs. When the USAirways AB landed in the Hudson river, it was fortunate that an older experienced pilot was there. I do not think the outcome would have been the same with a pilot typical of an LCC.

The reason I say local LCCs are a disaster waiting to happen is because they have not logged enough hours and distance in service. Incident rates are distance specific. Once the LCCs start logging the distances and hours in services, we will see the aircrashes and incidents. It is inevitable. Even the safest of safe airlines like Qantas and Singapore have incidents.

Yes, safety is a concern for all airlines and I am sure safety was a concern at 1,2 Go as well. Garuda and Adam have an emphasis on safety as well, but so what? I am not comparing Air Asia to these airlines, just pointing out that your position is weak.

I flew on FD because the perceived risk was outweighed by the benefit of schedule and airfare. The risk was still there but it was acceptable to me on that flight. The likelihood of a birdstrike and crash landing was remote. The likelihood of an airport overshoot or an onboard evacuation was small. I believe they likelihood of such events was higher than I had I flown on TG, however the difference for me was tolerable.

Hope this makes it easier for you to understand. I still recommend you pick up an LCC business plan and read it through.

I will also have more confidence in FD when there I see greater transparency and a reporting of flight performance and air incidents. Established LCCs elsewhere are subject to such reporting. Why doesn't FD do the same?

And to make clear, FD is an acceptable airline and it is relatively safe. My view is that MI and TG are better safety wise as per the reasons delineated above..

[jackr]

Op; have flown the CM-BKK route on numerous occasions with all airlines, but most of the time with AA and never had a problem. Lets face it, if any plane goes down with any airline in Muang Thai, by the very nature of thought and lack of preservation here, it's hit n miss whether you'll get help.

[SantiSuk]

Thai is managed by Thais. Air Asia at least has some influence from its Malaysian Airlines owners. See Thai visa.com for falangs' general impression of anything run by Thais, although I am not as anti as the geberal rub of TVers. I don't understand why so many of these falangs suspend their general beliefs when it comes to Thai Airways.

Having said that I think Thai's safety record is exemplary (as is Air Asia's off the back of a shorter history - but Malaysian Airlines has a fairly good safety record I believe). I would not and do not pick between them on safety. If you are not cost conscious than you will enjoy Thai Airways more. I am cost conscious so generally pick AA and am very happy with them on the Thai domestic routes. I would never touch a cheap carrier on a flight longer than a few hours though.

[knocka]

FD is an acceptable airline and is relatively safe

Well that's a huge retraction from they are "a disaster waiting to happen"

[Gary A]

I always fly the cheapest. A friend of mine who lives near Krabi normally flies Air Asia but his time was surprised that Thai was actually cheaper from Krabi to Bangkok. My friend is also a pilot and sees no safety problems with either airline.

[SantiSuk]

If you fly Thai it is much less likely your flight will be cancelled or delayed than with Air Asia.

Substantiate please! (my first response was 'what upper cr@p', but I'll let you persuade me)

Let's just say that is not my experience. In the last five years I have probably flown Thai Airways domestically 15 times and do not recall being late or cancelled once. I have flown Air Asia probably 50 times and was delayed one time by an hour (often they arrive early).

Internationally I have flown Thai Airways about 20 times and they are routinely one hour late on take off but there is slack in their timetable to allow for that - same goes for most airlines between London and Bangkok - a function of Heathrow's and Sampy's overcrowded take-off slots between 9pm and 1am. I'm not going to draw any comparisons though as I do not fly AA internationally (I do listen to what TVers say about AA and the Stansted to KL to BKK concept does not appeal to me.

[songhklasid]

I prefer thai for ongoing connections,convenience, e.g. CNX-UBP, cannot do with A.A. without stopover 1 nite in BKK, also arriving from aust, I can connect with dom flt to CNX, & baggage booked right thru,If thai hand over ubon flts to nok-air tyey will be my preffered carrier.

regards songhklasid.

[phuketrichard]

Thai Airways and Air Asia seem to have the same quality crews but Air Asia has newer planes. Thai Airways is on time where Air Asia is terrible about keeping to its schedule. The deal breaker for me is the better quality of customer service from Air Asia, Thai Airways customer service is terrible to complete missing. Air Asia's planes, crew and customer service is far better than Thai Airways and with lower ticket costs, I choose Air Asia whenever possible.

I haven't flown thai for years now as it is just to overpriced for what u get. For overseas flights their prices are almost 25% more than Singapore or Cathy Pacific, ( which are the best rated airlines in the world) PLus on flying from Phuket to Ca oyu get the sector of Phuket-singpore for free on silk air! Thai wnats to charge you the the flight Phuket-Bangkok

As to airasia being late. it happens about 15% of the time., My last trip out of Phnom Penh back to bangkok in Oct was delayed over 3 hours. Good thing had no other flight booked for that day but a few tourists did.

2 weeks later got a 1,800 Baht voucher for another flight on air aisa!!! almost paid for my gf's trip back to PP

[peter991]

I used to fly Thai Airways regularly on the PER (Perth, Australia) to BKK route and also the BKK to KKC route. I don't have any choice on the internal flight but I use Tiger Airways / Air Asia / Jetstar on the long-haul route as they average 50% of Thai Airways price.

PROS and CONS:

I get a new aircraft on Tiger / Air Asia / Jetstar compared to an ancient rattle-trap on Thai on the long-haul run from Australia

I pay around $AUD416 for the LCC compared to Thai Airways $AUD1138 for PER-BKK

I do have to collect my luggage in Singapore (or KUL) and then check it in on LCC

I do have to pay for my meals on the LCC

Let me get this right: An extra 10 mins of my time checking in luggage mid-point and $AUD7 for a meal ... and I save over $AUD722 (21,660 baht)!

Bring on the LCC - unless someone else is paying my fare!

Peter

[Sparkles]

I used to fly Thai Airways regularly on the PER (Perth, Australia) to BKK route and also the BKK to KKC route. I don't have any choice on the internal flight but I use Tiger Airways / Air Asia / Jetstar on the long-haul route as they average 50% of Thai Airways price.

PROS and CONS:

I get a new aircraft on Tiger / Air Asia / Jetstar compared to an ancient rattle-trap on Thai on the long-haul run from Australia

I pay around $AUD416 for the LCC compared to Thai Airways $AUD1138 for PER-BKK

I do have to collect my luggage in Singapore (or KUL) and then check it in on LCC

I do have to pay for my meals on the LCC

Let me get this right: An extra 10 mins of my time checking in luggage mid-point and $AUD7 for a meal ... and I save over $AUD722 (21,660 baht)!

Bring on the LCC - unless someone else is paying my fare!

Peter

You are spot on with what you say Peter and this coming April we hope to do the Chiang mai ,KL , Coolangatta leg avoiding Bangkok. We recently flew AA to Bali, the planes were new ,both legs we arived a few minutes early and as for food I catch planes to get somewhere at a reasonable price not tp pay a whole lot more just for free food. I dont understand why a lot of people look down on budget airlines, like AA is it a snobbery thing ? The facts are the budget airlines are carving out a huge junk of the market so they must be doing something right and they are making money. I wont fly Thai anymore the fleet is ageing to a point where its patently obvious even to an untrained eye,the staff seem unhappy and there are so many free loaders flying with them I predict their demise unless they get their act toogether and privatise quick smart

[priorstp]

Both flight carriers are ok i wouldn´t worry for short internal flights. Bangkok airways have also opened up some new routes with special deals available so maybe give them a try also.

good luck

[RAZZELL]

Flown both on internal and international flights.

Both fine. Slightly less legroom in AirAsia.

I usually choose which flight is the most convenient times and/or price Check and see which airline meets your requirements. Thai aren't always more expensive

As they say "Up to you"

RAZZ

Edited January 4, 2010 by RAZZELL