Ba/ Thai/ Eva Which One Would You Choose?

[Johnnyy]

Eva would be my choice, particualry if flying Economy or Economy Plus.

Just flown back with EVA on Elite Class, was pretty comfortable.

I'm not sure what Thai is like now on the LHR route, previosuly economy had no proper inflight entertainment so gave that a miss - the Biz class though is good.

I would avoid BA like the plague.

Direct Flights in order to London

EVA

THAI

QANTAS

BA

You'll have a few problems finding a QANTAS flight to London now

Don't they still do code shares with BA?

Either way, I wouldn't use them anyhow , I would rather go via Sin or through the middle east.

Qantas don't fly there anymore. They now code share with EK so fly via Dubai.

[krisb]

If you are 6 foot plus, like I am, Thai for economy as it is on of the best in terms of leg room.

Samran, don't planes have the same number of seats for all companies? Like doesn't a 747 at Thai air have same seating at BA? Or do different carriers request more or less seats from Boeing or Airbus when purchased?

Sorry op for swaying topic.

Edited May 6, 2013 by krisb

[BlackPuddingBertha]

Samran, don't planes have the same number of seats for all companies? Like doesn't a 747 at Thai air have same seating at BA?

Certainly not. Seat configuration and pitch is down to what the airline wants, based on what is possible in the type of plane.

http://www.seatguru.com/

[smokie36]

Samran, don't planes have the same number of seats for all companies? Like doesn't a 747 at Thai air have same seating at BA?

Certainly not. Seat configuration and pitch is down to what the airline wants, based on what is possible in the type of plane.

http://www.seatguru.com/

Yep...some go for comfort and style....others pack 'em in like sardines.

[BlackPuddingBertha]

KLM was dirt cheap so I booked it. Good to try out different airlines from time to time...

The problem with KLM (or other European Airlines except BA) for LHR/BKK flights is that you get all the inconveniences of a long flight with none of the advantages as you still have a short flight and transfer to endure before getting on the direct flight. So with all of them you are talking about a few extra hours.

I think the only answers are either direct non-stop flights with plenty of walking around the cabin or a change of plane about half-way. Both are acceptable.

[smokie36]

KLM was dirt cheap so I booked it. Good to try out different airlines from time to time...

The problem with KLM (or other European Airlines except BA) for LHR/BKK flights is that you get all the inconveniences of a long flight with none of the advantages as you still have a short flight and transfer to endure before getting on the direct flight. So with all of them you are talking about a few extra hours.

I think the only answers are either direct non-stop flights with plenty of walking around the cabin or a change of plane about half-way. Both are acceptable.

Its Edinburgh-Schipol-Bangkok for me.

I hate Heathrow with a passion.

I arrive ten hours early for the Bangkok flight so I will likely sort out a biz class ticket when I arrive then demolish the beer in the lounge.

[LucidLucifer]

I've flown all three from Heathrow to Bangkok, and IMHO, BA was the best. Thai may be better now if they have finally put their newer planes on the route, but their entertainment system was non-existent, to get a drink out of them was impossible, and I would trust BA to get me safely to my destination over Thai every time.

Eva have been good when I have been with them (except departure has been late both times) although when my parents flew with them a couple of years ago in premium, one of the seats was broken and was stuck dead upright; not so much as an apology out of Eva, despite complaints.

[samran]

If you are 6 foot plus, like I am, Thai for economy as it is on of the best in terms of leg room.

Samran, don't planes have the same number of seats for all companies? Like doesn't a 747 at Thai air have same seating at BA? Or do different carriers request more or less seats from Boeing or Airbus when purchased?

Sorry op for swaying topic.

As others have said, things vary. Thai has 34 inches, while BA can go down as low as 31 inches. It doesn't sound like much, but for me, it is the difference between close to a full nights sleep and next to none as I prefer to fly overnight when I can.

As for IFE - for me it is a 'nice to have' and most of the time, Thai has it.

[tw25rw]

If you are 6 foot plus, like I am, Thai for economy as it is on of the best in terms of leg room.

Samran, don't planes have the same number of seats for all companies? Like doesn't a 747 at Thai air have same seating at BA? Or do different carriers request more or less seats from Boeing or Airbus when purchased?

Sorry op for swaying topic.

As others have said, things vary. Thai has 34 inches, while BA can go down as low as 31 inches. It doesn't sound like much, but for me, it is the difference between close to a full nights sleep and next to none as I prefer to fly overnight when I can.

As for IFE - for me it is a 'nice to have' and most of the time, Thai has it.

Same for me.. I generally avoid economy because I just don't fit in the seat. Ironically, it seems to be the Asian airlines that have the best leg room.

I generally fly EVA now in a mixed biz/prem return flight, but might have to suffer Thai economy when I fly LHR-BKK-SYD next.

[baboon]

Whichever is cheapest and has the schedule that most conveniently meets your needs. Compiling lists of marginal percieved differences between airlines is for sad geeks with nothing better to do with their time (like me!). Dont go there.

Agreed. Scrape off the paintjob and they are pretty much all the same onboard when it comes down to it.

[tw25rw]

Whichever is cheapest and has the schedule that most conveniently meets your needs. Compiling lists of marginal percieved differences between airlines is for sad geeks with nothing better to do with their time (like me!). Dont go there.

Agreed. Scrape off the paintjob and they are pretty much all the same onboard when it comes down to it.

Yeah, if you're short or skinny..

If I had to fly BA economy, I wouldn't take the trip.

[BlackPuddingBertha]

As others have said, things vary. Thai has 34 inches, while BA can go down as low as 31 inches. It doesn't sound like much, but for me, it is the difference between close to a full nights sleep and next to none as I prefer to fly overnight when I can.

The last time I slept on a plane was a couple of decades ago before the internet when I got four empty seats to myself. These days with automatic flexible online pricing this just never seems to happen any more on long-haul flights.

An extra 3 inches of legroom is not enough to allow me to sleep. Flying first or business class might be another matter, but the extra cost per hour compared to the GBP550 I'm paying for a direct economy flight is too high to make it justifiable as far as I'm concerned. It's only a 12 hour trip after all, and one can get up and walk around a bit.

[samran]

As others have said, things vary. Thai has 34 inches, while BA can go down as low as 31 inches. It doesn't sound like much, but for me, it is the difference between close to a full nights sleep and next to none as I prefer to fly overnight when I can.

The last time I slept on a plane was a couple of decades ago before the internet when I got four empty seats to myself. These days with automatic flexible online pricing this just never seems to happen any more on long-haul flights.

An extra 3 inches of legroom is not enough to allow me to sleep. Flying first or business class might be another matter, but the extra cost per hour compared to the GBP550 I'm paying for a direct economy flight is too high to make it justifiable as far as I'm concerned. It's only a 12 hour trip after all, and one can get up and walk around a bit.

For me, what the extra 3 inches do (apart from impressing the women) mean that my knees and shins are up against the seat in front and I can slip my legs straight under the seat in front.

BTW - love your Pic. Bill Odie and Ikky Thump. Classic.

[moe666]

I have flown all three, EVA all the way

[tw25rw]

As others have said, things vary. Thai has 34 inches, while BA can go down as low as 31 inches. It doesn't sound like much, but for me, it is the difference between close to a full nights sleep and next to none as I prefer to fly overnight when I can.

The last time I slept on a plane was a couple of decades ago before the internet when I got four empty seats to myself. These days with automatic flexible online pricing this just never seems to happen any more on long-haul flights.

An extra 3 inches of legroom is not enough to allow me to sleep. Flying first or business class might be another matter, but the extra cost per hour compared to the GBP550 I'm paying for a direct economy flight is too high to make it justifiable as far as I'm concerned. It's only a 12 hour trip after all, and one can get up and walk around a bit.

For me, what the extra 3 inches do (apart from impressing the women) mean that my knees and shins are up against the seat in front and I can slip my legs straight under the seat in front.

BTW - love your Pic. Bill Odie and Ikky Thump. Classic.

On EVA Elite, I can just about cross my legs.. Luxury!

[Jay Sata]

I've flown all three from Heathrow to Bangkok, and IMHO, BA was the best. Thai may be better now if they have finally put their newer planes on the route, but their entertainment system was non-existent, to get a drink out of them was impossible, and I would trust BA to get me safely to my destination over Thai every time.

Eva have been good when I have been with them (except departure has been late both times) although when my parents flew with them a couple of years ago in premium, one of the seats was broken and was stuck dead upright; not so much as an apology out of Eva, despite complaints.

I have to agree with you on Thai cabin service (or lack of it re having more than one glass of wine in 12 hours) and lack of entertainment so not flown with them for years. BA are the worst in economy so I've only used them once in many trips over 14 years and never again.

KLM have tired aircraft and old cabin staff .

EVA and China seem to be the best compromise.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Jay Sata

[taninthai]

Flown all three to uk ba terrible stuck at the back of the plane in a tiny area and all the stewards were men never again ,Thai air didn't have the screens in back of seats when I last used them but that's all changed now ,Eva was ok but I picked a seat that had the black box under the seat in front so could only stretch one leg out.

I'm actually flying back in a couple of weeks and I think I use Thai for the reasons I can check my luggage in at krabi fly straight to bkk not have to go through the main immigration lines and it's only a 1 1/2 wait for the international flight which is coming in at 26000 bht it seems by far the quickest route with the least amount of hassle plus I only need this one flight with Thai and I have enough airlines for a free bussiness class flight next time......nice

[BlackPuddingBertha]

Flown all three to uk ba terrible stuck at the back of the plane in a tiny area and all the stewards were men never again ,

Is it really BA's fault that you got a seat at the back of the plane? Surely this could happen on any airline?

As a general rule one would expect stewards to be men, but even so the lack of female flight attendants doesn't alter the quality of the drinks and food, does it?

[breadbin]

It's not the flights or aircraft that puts me off BA. Is the cabin crew attitudes, crap food and drinks, crap avod and overall crap service.

I always used to fly BA up until the service hit rock bottom. The ground staff were ok but cabin crew acting as if they are gods gift, strutting around forgetting that passengers pay their wages.

That's why I prefer eastern airlines, better service all round and cheaper at that.

[BlackPuddingBertha]

The non-stop LHR/BKK/LHR 1-year validity flight I have recently booked with BA at GBP558 significantly undercuts just about every other airline for the same dates, apart from the likes of Air India. It undercuts the other non-stop carriers by about GBP300 or more. It undercuts all the better 1-stop middle-Eastern companies also, such as Qatar and Emirates with whom I flew previous years. I'm looking forward to seeing exactly how the flight is compared to those other airlines.

For me the most important selection criteria (apart from the low price) was the short flight duration due to it being non-stop. I can put up with quite a lot as long as it shortens the time I have to spend in the plane.

As for food, the last time I had a decent meal and drinks on a plane was about 20 years ago with Air France when they still served Champagne in economy. These days it always tastes like poor cafeteria food no matter which airline it is. I remember on Qatar there was one meal/snack that I couldnt even bring myself to eat, it was so bad, yet Qatar regularly gets 5 stars in reviews.

Hard to imagine how anyone can make a canned beer taste bad though, and the drinks and food I have had on short-haul European flights with BA over the last 10 years were all acceptable if unimaginative.

[wooloomooloo]

Never flew BA as reviews aren't generally positive and they're too expensive.

Thai or EVA, whatever is cheapest. Not bothered about legroom as varies from flight to flight and sometimes we are fortunate to get basinets and I can stretch my legs.

It's a means to an end and the quickest route to BKK does us.