Posted 2012-01-31 23:04:01
 Langsuan Man, on 2012-01-30 21:06:39, said:
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........
Hm. I have taken the non-stop flight many times and always had to stop over in LAX because it arrived too late for onward flights. With the new schedule, arriving at 11am, I would not have this problem and actually save a lot of money, as I don't need to pay for the hotel near LAX airport and waste all the time.
By the way, to check your flight, you can always call 02-356-1111 if their website doesn't work to your satisfaction.
That said, I agree that they should have informed you.
Posted 2012-01-31 23:07:55
Just1Voice, on 2012-01-31 11:28:05, said:
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!
My feelings as well. THAI is overpriced which is why I rarely fly them. I much prefer EVA and China Airlines. The arrival departure times are much better on both ends of the flight.
Posted 2012-01-31 23:10:37
Emirates airlines uses a Boeing 777 on its route from LAX to Dubai nonstop. That's a 15:50 in the air according to their website. THAI does fly the 777 but not sure which routes they use it on.
Posted 2012-02-01 01:08:59
'Just got back from my first trip flying Thai Airways. Even though it cost much more, I wanted to try the non-stop and premium economy seating. 'Not sure if I'd have paid the premium again in the future or not, but why anyone would fly Thai from LAX anymore after this (unless they're going to dramatically change their pricing)? Almost all the competition (which all one-stops somewhere on the way to BKK) charges much less. The change to the '777 with its less comfortable seating (and no premium econcomy) is another disincentive. I'll just go back to pricing all the competition and choosing the cheapest.
Posted 2012-02-01 01:21:11
I only took the LAX-BKK direct flight once and would never do it again ,
I even had 2 seats but it was just so long to be sitting , and you only save a couple hours from the LAX-NRT-BKK flight
It was an Award ticket so I did not have to pay extra for the non-stop.
No great lose , there are so many options out of LAX to get to Bangkok.
BK
Posted 2012-02-01 01:52:43
hawker9000, on 2012-02-01 01:08:59, said:
'Just got back from my first trip flying Thai Airways. Even though it cost much more, I wanted to try the non-stop and premium economy seating. 'Not sure if I'd have paid the premium again in the future or not, but why anyone would fly Thai from LAX anymore after this (unless they're going to dramatically change their pricing)? Almost all the competition (which all one-stops somewhere on the way to BKK) charges much less. The change to the '777 with its less comfortable seating (and no premium econcomy) is another disincentive. I'll just go back to pricing all the competition and choosing the cheapest.
I found Thai Air prices for premium economy to be in line with other carriers services SEA from LAX, plus the direct flight was only 14 hours as apposed to 22+ hours traveling when on a 1 or 2 stop flight. 4 - 6 hours difference in travel times might not seem like much time to most people, but to me it is worth a few extra baht to get where I'm going as quickly as possible. Every time I have taken this flight in either direction, it was on a B777 and had the premium economy cabin setup.
Posted 2012-02-01 02:26:31
I wasn't aware Thai had -200LRs.Very few do in addition to Delta.I'm sure very few here even realize Delta used to fly to BKK.
Odinrex, on 2012-01-31 19:58:56, said:
landslide, on 2012-01-31 12:55:04, said:
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.
It used to be 3 hours, but has now been extended to 330 minutes, so that shouldn't be a problem for the 777 anymore
Odinrex, on 2012-01-31 19:58:56, said:
landslide, on 2012-01-31 12:55:04, said:
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.
It used to be 3 hours, but has now been extended to 330 minutes, so that shouldn't be a problem for the 777 anymore
Posted 2012-02-01 03:35:42
LTGTR, on 2012-02-01 02:26:31, said:
I wasn't aware Thai had -200LRs.Very few do in addition to Delta.I'm sure very few here even realize Delta used to fly to BKK.
I first flew Northwest about 10 years ago LAX_NRT_BKK , one time for less than $400 RT
But have not flown Delta which merged with NWA,
BK
Posted 2012-02-01 09:19:43
I will really miss the route. I’ve flown it at least 20 times and I would much rather do the non-stop. And with the schedule, it was the only flight where I could actually sleep most of the way. I also loved the schedule, but as others have said, it would blow if you had to connect in LA, I don’t. Incidentally, it was an Airbus every time I’ve flown it.
Didn’t Singapore used to have the Singapore to Las Vegas non-stop?
Posted 2012-02-01 11:06:33
BKKdreaming, on 2012-02-01 03:35:42, said:
LTGTR, on 2012-02-01 02:26:31, said:
I wasn't aware Thai had -200LRs.Very few do in addition to Delta.I'm sure very few here even realize Delta used to fly to BKK.
I first flew Northwest about 10 years ago LAX_NRT_BKK , one time for less than $400 RT
But have not flown Delta which merged with NWA,
BK
Yes, DL now flies to BKK after having merged with NW and keeping the NRT-BKK slot. A few weeks ago my UA NRT-BKK flight was cancelled ~ 24 hours ahead of time, and I was put on the DL flight upon check-in departing the U.S. The DL equipment, a newish A332 I think, and crew, were very nice.
Edited by lomatopo, 2012-02-01 11:07:00.
Posted 2012-02-01 11:30:41
tombkk, on 2012-01-31 23:04:01, said:
Langsuan Man, on 2012-01-30 21:06:39, said:
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........
Hm. I have taken the non-stop flight many times and always had to stop over in LAX because it arrived too late for onward flights. With the new schedule, arriving at 11am, I would not have this problem and actually save a lot of money, as I don't need to pay for the hotel near LAX airport and waste all the time.
By the way, to check your flight, you can always call 02-356-1111 if their website doesn't work to your satisfaction.
That said, I agree that they should have informed you.
True arriving early is a benefit if you are terminating on the West coast but if going to the East cost you will be arriving there after 11 PM. Since someone has to pick me up at the airport I still have to stay overnight in LA anyway to depart at 06:00 to arrive at 4 PM. Coupled with the fact that when returning to Thailand you will never arrive in LAX in time to make the 1 PM departure, from the East coast, you will now incur two hotels during the trip (3 if you stay the night before in BKK)
This now puts TG in line with all the other US carriers that insist on trying for the business crowd with their god awful early morning BKK departures
Posted 2012-02-01 11:58:07
Langsuan Man, on 2012-02-01 11:30:41, said:
tombkk, on 2012-01-31 23:04:01, said:
Hm. I have taken the non-stop flight many times and always had to stop over in LAX because it arrived too late for onward flights. With the new schedule, arriving at 11am, I would not have this problem and actually save a lot of money, as I don't need to pay for the hotel near LAX airport and waste all the time.
By the way, to check your flight, you can always call 02-356-1111 if their website doesn't work to your satisfaction.
That said, I agree that they should have informed you.
True arriving early is a benefit if you are terminating on the West coast but if going to the East cost you will be arriving there after 11 PM. Since someone has to pick me up at the airport I still have to stay overnight in LA anyway to depart at 06:00 to arrive at 4 PM. Coupled with the fact that when returning to Thailand you will never arrive in LAX in time to make the 1 PM departure, from the East coast, you will now incur two hotels during the trip (3 if you stay the night before in BKK)
This now puts TG in line with all the other US carriers that insist on trying for the business crowd with their god awful early morning BKK departures
I think they are targeting the travellers going to the West rather than the East, because there are simply more Asians going to the West. I agree that the morning departures are not nice, I much prefer to fly to Europe with departures around midnight.
Funny thing that, now that you mention it. TG has only one flight to the Americas, while they operate to many destinations in Europe. CI on the other hand, operates to many destinations in North America but have only one (?) flight to Europe (Amsterdam, if I'm not mistaken). OK, Taiwan is a bit closer to the US but still, I wonder why this is.
Samsonite
Newbie
-
-
Members
-
-
9 posts
Posted 2012-02-01 21:46:02
Langsuan Man, on 2012-02-01 11:30:41, said: ...This now puts TG in line with all the other US carriers that insist on trying for the business crowd with their god awful early morning BKK departures
Many of the Asian carriers have flights leaving LAX and SFO between Midnight and 2 a.m., getting you to BKK, after making the connection, by late morning. On the return you leave BKK in the late afternoon or early evening and arrive back in LAX or SFO in the early evening. Makes for much better use of one's time, IMHO.
Posted 2012-02-02 08:50:12
Langsuan Man, on 2012-02-01 11:30:41, said:
tombkk, on 2012-01-31 23:04:01, said:
Langsuan Man, on 2012-01-30 21:06:39, said:
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........
Hm. I have taken the non-stop flight many times and always had to stop over in LAX because it arrived too late for onward flights. With the new schedule, arriving at 11am, I would not have this problem and actually save a lot of money, as I don't need to pay for the hotel near LAX airport and waste all the time.
By the way, to check your flight, you can always call 02-356-1111 if their website doesn't work to your satisfaction.
That said, I agree that they should have informed you.
True arriving early is a benefit if you are terminating on the West coast but if going to the East cost you will be arriving there after 11 PM. Since someone has to pick me up at the airport I still have to stay overnight in LA anyway to depart at 06:00 to arrive at 4 PM. Coupled with the fact that when returning to Thailand you will never arrive in LAX in time to make the 1 PM departure, from the East coast, you will now incur two hotels during the trip (3 if you stay the night before in BKK)
This now puts TG in line with all the other US carriers that insist on trying for the business crowd with their god awful early morning BKK departures
I've used the TG nonstop to LAX for onward flights to east coast USA several times. In my case, I took redeyes on UA to Chicago and had plenty of time to connect. As I recall, UA actually have two redeye flights to ORD, so it's easy to get a seat.
Getting back to LAX from the east cost to LAX in time for a 1PM flight will be impossible. This will certainly cause me to use a carrier other than Thai now for trips to east coast USA, as I really don't want to do a night at LAX just to make the TG connection.
Posted 2012-02-02 18:53:10
bubba, on 2012-02-02 08:50:12, said:
Getting back to LAX from the east cost to LAX in time for a 1PM flight will be impossible. This will certainly cause me to use a carrier other than Thai now for trips to east coast USA, as I really don't want to do a night at LAX just to make the TG connection.
Check to see if SG still has Singapore-Newark non-stop.
Posted 2012-02-02 19:30:54
I've flown this flight a couple of times from LAX to BKK, and once from BKK to LAX. Sitting for 16 + hours on a jet is a bit tiresome, lots of time to sleep if in business class, otherwise hope there are a lot of new movies to watch.
The biggest problem with this flight is LAX, a third-world airport in a first-world country - One of the world's worst airports. No place to sit, no place to eat, no place to shop except for the tired little duty-free shops with nothing interesting, huge security lines, then people sitting all over the floor in the boarding gate areas.
Last time I went to the British Columbia, I went BKK - Narita - San Francisco - Victoria on United Airlines.
San Francisco airport is now a much better gateway to the USA, with lots of connecting flights from Asia.
I recommend it.
Posted 2012-02-02 20:02:52
Didn't they try to sell those A340s and got 0 enquiries?
Posted 2012-02-03 02:34:58
Still trying to find a flight Bkk-Lax r/t for July. I was on expedia and they have now updated their results with the 1 stop Thai flight via Seoul. The price? $2300...for economy 
Posted 2012-02-03 16:30:26
andy, on 2012-02-03 02:34:58, said:
Still trying to find a flight Bkk-Lax r/t for July. I was on expedia and they have now updated their results with the 1 stop Thai flight via Seoul. The price? $2300...for economy
EVA currently shows R/T BKK-LAX for July at about $1900 for Elite (Premium Econ. seating). I'll be going back to using EVA since Thai is dropping the Non-stop (and more importantly, the Prem. Economy) flight.
Posted 2012-02-18 06:35:06
Off topic posts removed. If you have a different question, open a new topic, don't derail someone else's.
Posted 2012-02-18 08:01:51
mogandave, on 2012-02-01 09:19:43, said: Didn’t Singapore used to have the Singapore to Las Vegas non-stop?
No, one-stop service via HKG (SIN-HKG-LAS), 777-200ER, 3 times per week, a short-lived experiment circa 2002.
|
Sponsored by ...
|
0
