Thai Airways Dropping The Nonstop Flight To/From Los Angeles

[Sam Drucker]

Here's a link to the THAI USA website where the change announcement is noted at the bottom of the page:

http://www.thaiairwa...nformation.html

NEW SCHEDULE - Effective May 1, 2012

4 days a week - Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday

One Stop service to Bangkok via Seoul-Incheon (ICN), Korea

Flight Number TG795

Aircraft Boeing 777-200ER

Frequency Tues/Thurs/Sat/Sun

Departure Time LAX 1310 Arrival Time ICN 1750 + 1 day

Departure Time ICN 1900 Arrival Time BKK 2250

Flight Number TG 794

Aircraft Boeing 777-200ER

Frequency Tues/Thurs/Sat/Sun

Departure Time BKK 0735 Arrival Time ICN 1500

Departure Time ICN 1610 Arrival Time LAX 1110 (same day)

[beano2274]

Is it a profitable route?

Are they cutting back due to fuel costs, or the subject of enough pilots, and pilot hours?

Wonder if further cuts are on the horizon!!!!

[Sam Drucker]

THAI has given no explanation yet, although they did already have a plan in place to remove the A340-500 aircraft from service sometime in 2012 or 2013. This is the only aircraft they have now that has the range to fly nonstop both directions. They do have some new aircraft coming starting in 2014 that should be able to fly this route nonstop (787 and A350).

No statements about profitability of the route, but ultra-longhaul flying is more costly in terms of crew hours, backup crew, and the cost of carrying so much fuel for a 17-18 hour flight. (You burn extra fuel early in the flight to carry fuel you will need for the final few hours of flight.)

The new service is a disappointment on several accounts. For me living in Isaan, it would force an overnight stay for me in Bangkok going both ways because of no connecting flights at those hours. I can't get there early enough in the morning to go out, and can't get a flight late enough in the evening when I come back. The new service will also not have Premium Economy, which is a wonderful choice for such long flights. Economy seating will be degraded on the 777-200ER compared to the A340-500 used on the route now.

[NanLaew]

I have not flown the LAX non-stop but I was told that due to the combination of distance and fuel load, the A340-500's were incapable of carrying a full load of paying customers even if they did have a monopoly on that route. Maybe the stopover improves the economics of trans-Pacific flights and improves average passenger loads if they do some heavy marketing in Korea.

[Langsuan Man]

I am scheduled for this flight on 31 May (BKK/LAX), I wonder when TG is going to bother to inform me of the change so I can change my onward reservations

Their online booking check won't recognize my confirmed reservation number and "CheckmyTrip.com" just spins and spins........

[Sam Drucker]

I have not flown the LAX non-stop but I was told that due to the combination of distance and fuel load, the A340-500's were incapable of carrying a full load of paying customers even if they did have a monopoly on that route. Maybe the stopover improves the economics of trans-Pacific flights and improves average passenger loads if they do some heavy marketing in Korea.

You're right in a sense about the A340-500's; in a normal configuration they had range problems. That is why they were configured to only carry 215 people, why they have Premium Economy seating, and why Economy Class is even spaced out at 36" seat pitch. I'd like to think that maybe someone had some common sense about giving people more space on such a long flight. I'm probably wrong on that point, but I'd like to think that somebody in the airline industry realizes that on flights of 15-18 hours, people can't be confined like they are on a Thai Air Asia A320 with 29" seat pitch, flying a 1 hour flight.

As for the stopover improving economics, I think you're right, cause it's how every other airline gets people between North America and Thailand. But I can't see this new schedule being all that successful between LAX and Seoul. The flights will run at about the same time as numeroius other airlines do. The real kicker though is that the THAI flight will only be running 4x weekly. Why aren't they going daily? They did with the nonstop . . .

[skippybangkok]

I am scheduled to take it before May............ i hate stop overs, and like to settle in for a while.

[WilliaminBKK]

The configured aircraft really placed a limit on them, cargo is often higher yielding than paying pax. LAX-ICN is a major cargo route. I also think a huge drawback was not having F class on this plane-ultra long haul and not being able to serve the top tier pax and the frequent flyer market.

In terms of Star Alliance I don't think it did much for them in terms of feeder passengers, since UA serves BKK.

When TG flew Toronto-Seatle-Taipei-Bangkok it actually made money both pax/cargo but they pulled the route as they needed the plane for Europe-perhaps these fuel hogs will be on another route or sold off.

[janverbeem]

They're dropping the flight.And that right at the moment that tourism is so much in the lift

[gosompoi]

hope the price goes down!

[craigt3365]

hope the price goes down!

For sure. It's an expensive option.

I would have loved to try it, but it gets in so late to LAX, if you need to connect, you have to spend the night. Thus, for me, making my overall trip much longer.

[geriatrickid]

The LAX-BKK route is usually serviced by a B77 either the 200 or 300 series. I know because I have flown it. Yes, I know the AB 340-500 is sometimes used on the route, but TG has a preference for the fuel efficient B777 on this route, much as EVA uses the B777 for the LAX- TPE route. In any case, the issue is not so much fuel as PAX loads. The TG Star Alliance partner United/Continental has good service from LAX to NRT with multiple connection options to BKK. Same thing with One World's CX to HKG and Star Alliance SQ to SIN. I think its because of the tough US travel market and the point made about cargo. Korea offers much better prospects for TG as the route allows TG to carry PAX to SEL and to pick up passengers in SEL for Thailand. It's a win win situation for Star Alliance as this will let TG take on One World competitor Korean and allow United to boost its PAX loads. As well, the additional routing into Korea provides some more attractive schedules for Korean PAX than some of the really bad flight times now.

BTW, if you look at the current travel times and the new times, there really isn't much of a change in terms of a burden on travelers.

When I used to do the SQ route , we'd stop in SEL too. It made for a nice way to stretch my legs.

BTW, the Tg fares look nice to SEL from LAX. Maybe its time for some of you to visit the Samsung plant for some shopping

[zzaa09]

I have not flown the LAX non-stop but I was told that due to the combination of distance and fuel load, the A340-500's were incapable of carrying a full load of paying customers even if they did have a monopoly on that route. Maybe the stopover improves the economics of trans-Pacific flights and improves average passenger loads if they do some heavy marketing in Korea.

Perhaps cargo marketing is a factor.

After all, that's what really keeps any international afloat.

[lomatopo]

Well that's the end of a horribly expensive experiment. TG thought they could emulate SQ (SIN-LAX, SIN-EWR with A340-500s) with the long/thin routes, but not enough premium cabin traffic ex-BKK. First they dropped JFK, and now LAX.

I did fly the TG non-stops a few years ago, BKK-JFK-BKK, luckily in J; 17.5 hours in the air. I still had to make a connection at LGA to BOS so limited value as far as time-savings goes for me.

These flights are so long they needed to have a special place (mini-morgue) built into the -500 to store a body in case someone died in flight.

[Payboy]

Thai Airways Dropping The Nonstop Flight To/From Los Angeles

Good decision.

Given the condition of their aircraft they would have been making unscheduled stops soon - some of them permanent.

[steelepulse]

>>but I'd like to think that somebody in the airline industry realizes that on flights of 15-18 hours, people can't be confined like they are on a Thai Air Asia A320 with 29" seat pitch, flying a 1 hour flight.

• SQ realized this and that's why their 340-500's are all business class on the trans oceanic flights.
  

[bkkflyer]

The LAX-BKK route is usually serviced by a B77 either the 200 or 300 series. I know because I have flown it. Yes, I know the AB 340-500 is sometimes used on the route, but TG has a preference for the fuel efficient B777 on this route, much as EVA uses the B777 for the LAX- TPE route. In any case, the issue is not so much fuel as PAX loads. The TG Star Alliance partner United/Continental has good service from LAX to NRT with multiple connection options to BKK. Same thing with One World's CX to HKG and Star Alliance SQ to SIN. I think its because of the tough US travel market and the point made about cargo. Korea offers much better prospects for TG as the route allows TG to carry PAX to SEL and to pick up passengers in SEL for Thailand. It's a win win situation for Star Alliance as this will let TG take on One World competitor Korean and allow United to boost its PAX loads. As well, the additional routing into Korea provides some more attractive schedules for Korean PAX than some of the really bad flight times now.

BTW, if you look at the current travel times and the new times, there really isn't much of a change in terms of a burden on travelers.

When I used to do the SQ route , we'd stop in SEL too. It made for a nice way to stretch my legs.

BTW, the Tg fares look nice to SEL from LAX. Maybe its time for some of you to visit the Samsung plant for some shopping

I am quite sure they "always" use the 340-500. If I see their schedule for the next 30 days there isnt one day where they use 777s on this route.

And Korean Air is not member of Oneworld, but Skyteam

[Just1Voice]

Personally, I don't care what Thai Air does. To me they're overpriced, with bad service. I'll take EVA Emerald Class over Thai First Class every time!

[BKKBrit]

Mark my words; this airline will go belly-up sooner rather than later.

Product sucks; marketing sucks; advertising is the pits and with so many cross-configurations of equipment (Rolls Royce, GE and Pratt & Whitney) and the alleged corruption on all levels it'll be game-over soon.

And they're still flying those lumbering fuel-sucking 747s which must be more than 18 years old now.

Such a shame as if they'd gotten their act together it would be a power-house in aviation but they lost the plot ages ago.

Maybe the writing is on the wall which is why the Ministry of Finance is considering dumping it.......

[blazes]

When I used to do the SQ route , we'd stop in SEL too. It made for a nice way to stretch my legs.

BTW, the Tg fares look nice to SEL from LAX. Maybe its time for some of you to visit the Samsung plant for some shopping

SEL is the old airport in Seoul, whereas TG will be flying into Incheon.

Edited January 31, 2012 by blazes

[nmw]

I have flown this flight many many times, used to work in LA for 3 years, so there and back every month, the flight is very long, and if the headwind gets you on the way back, you can easily be on-board for 20 hours. I do not mind this route being dropped, as i would now stop over in Seoul, if i fly back, and break the journey, Its all about profitability, and although the flight was often full, 200+ passengers flying the plane for 18 hours with no cargo, i suppose was just not working out, plus 2 full sets of crew, crew quarters etc, it all adds up to extra costs. Get the Airbus 380 on this route, and you have a whole different set of economics

[rchapstick]

These flights are so long they needed to have a special place (mini-morgue) built into the -500 to store a body in case someone died in flight.

Only SQ has fitted the A345 with the mini-morgue. Not TG.

How do i know this? Because the last time I flew on the route, someone did die on route (over the pacific), and they put the body in one of the two empty biz-class seats in front of me. Lovely...

[Payboy]

These flights are so long they needed to have a special place (mini-morgue) built into the -500 to store a body in case someone died in flight.

Only SQ has fitted the A345 with the mini-morgue. Not TG.

How do i know this? Because the last time I flew on the route, someone did die on route (over the pacific), and they put the body in one of the two empty biz-class seats in front of me. Lovely...

At least you can be thankful that the TG cabin crew actually noticed that one of their passengers had died.

[happysanook]

sorry, how is this nonstop if it stops in seoul...

[z12]

thanks for the heads up mr T

“If I were not a public figure, I wouldn't fly with Thai,” - Thaksin Shinawatra

“The current situation and sentiment is not good for Thai Airways' share offer,” - Thaksin Shinawatra

Edited January 31, 2012 by z12

[josephinebloggs]

Is it a profitable route?

Are they cutting back due to fuel costs, or the subject of enough pilots, and pilot hours?

Wonder if further cuts are on the horizon!!!!

I doubt it's profitable, i've never used it as when i fly to the West Coast of the US ( two or three times per year ) that flight is always at least 20,000 THB more than other options like United Airlines via Tokyo to Seattle or San Fran for example ( and LAX itself ).

Thai are an expensive Airline, have been for years now & i believe they are overpriced in a time when people are looking to save every penny they can where possible & for 20,000 and having to sit in Tokyo for an hour & a half or not, i know what one i'm choosing.

Edited January 31, 2012 by josephinebloggs

[connda]

Too bad. The LA <--> BKK non-stop 14 hour flight was nice. Not that I care anymore...no plans to return to the US. But! That was a nice option.

[Samsonite]

I have not flown the LAX non-stop but I was told that due to the combination of distance and fuel load, the A340-500's were incapable of carrying a full load of paying customers even if they did have a monopoly on that route. Maybe the stopover improves the economics of trans-Pacific flights and improves average passenger loads if they do some heavy marketing in Korea.

That is correct. At the time both Thai Air and Singapore Air started their Ultra long haul flights, the Boeing 777-200LR (Longer Range) wasn't available.

To get the Airbus 340-500 light enough that it could make the trip they had to remove somewhere in the order of 40 to 60 seats, I've forgotten the correct number, which, of course means a corresponding reduction in the number of passengers and baggage. Singapore Air eventually went so far as to make it an entirely business class flight with only, IIRC, 100 seats.

As to Thai Air, they are probably not making enough money off their ultra long range flight to warrant its continued operation. It could also be a case of bad management. Thai Air was once "not bad" but in recent years, due to very poor management, the airline has become a shell of its former self.

The Boeing 777-200LR, which went into service in March of 2006, and could easily make the trip in either direction, non-stop, with a full load of 301 passengers and luggage and at a lower cost to the airline (two engines vs four). OTOH, I doubt either airline has enough demand to fill such a plane for a daily flight. Maybe if it was only offered two or three times a week?

Edited January 31, 2012 by Samsonite

[landslide]

I believe the problem with using the 777-20LR on this route is it is not ETOPs certified for that distance. If I remember correctly, the 777 must be within 3 hours of a landmass in the event of a loss of one engine. It certainly has the range, but the time over water is the problem. The A340-500. with 4 engines, does not have this restriction.

[mrdome]

From a business point of view it is the correct decision, geriatrickid nailed it in his post.