Thai Airways - Plans to resume flights to the USA next year

[Jun]

I would rather take a long (17 h in this case?) direct flight than change plane

Delta's layover in Tokyo is less than an hour.

I expect Christian is looking at a much less desirable layover to you.
If Delta has a reliable sub 1 hour layover in Tokyo, out of a 17 hour flight, obviously it's only a minor delay.

Taking a European perspective, as Christian might, from London to Bangkok is about 12 hours, maybe slightly less from Germany. The indirect flight options involve a layover in places like Helsinki, Amsterdam, or much less desirable options like Moscow,Dubai, Doha or Bahrain.
Usually the layover in one direction is many hours, often up to 8, or more.
Then I don't want to fly via the middle East, as despite the good track record of their airlines to date, it still strikes me as being risky and unsound to fly with them.

Back to your long haul US flight, in addition to the improved efficiency of a newer twin engine plane (suggested by Windwalker), oil prices are probably much lower than they were when the direct flight was cancelled. So I guess it may be economic to fly all that fuel around currently. When oil prices go to $150 a barrel, the 17 hour flights may get canned again.

[thaiworthy]

The newer non-stop flights will utilize a Boeing 787 according to my informed source.

Here is another source.

THAI will take delivery of two Boeing 787-900 aircraft next year and they will serve on the new US route, he said.

"The service will be the first non-stop flight from Bangkok without stopping over in Korea or Japan like before. It will be a key selling point for us because no other airlines operate a direct flight from the US to Bangkok . . . "

Oddly enough, the first Bangkok Post story above does not mention the new aircraft. This Post story released the day before, does.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/transpo ... ghts-to-us

Still not sure why this is a selling point just because no one else operates the same kind of service. Once again, the non-stop term is used at the same time as direct flight. This is clearly just marketing.

Here is your seat, Windwalker.

[windwalker]

Actually Trump's airplane is a 757 not a 787. He however would like to trade it in on a certain 747.

[Jun]

Actually Trump's airplane is a 757 not a 787. He however would like to trade it in on a certain 747.

A fleet of two, if I am not mistaken. Lets hope Hillary gets the use of them.

[thaiworthy]

The Boeing VC-25 is a military version of the Boeing 747 airliner, modified for presidential transport and operated by the United States Air Force as Air Force One, the call sign of any U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the President of the United States.

Only two examples of this aircraft type exist; they are highly modified Boeing 747-200B, designated VC-25A and having tail numbers 28000 and 29000. Although technically the Air Force One designation applies to the aircraft only while the President is on board, the term is commonly used to refer to the VC-25 in general. The two aircraft often operate in conjunction with Marine One helicopters, which ferry the President to airports whenever a vehicle motorcade would be inappropriate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25

Lets hope Hillary gets the use of them.

January, 2017?

"Hello!"

"Goodbye."



BTW, Thai Airways does have a flight from Bangkok to Tokyo then onto Dulles.

[christianpfc]

I would rather take a long (17 h in this case?) direct flight than change plane

The article discusses both "direct flights" and "non-stop flights." This is confusing. A nonstop flight does as its name suggests: flies from one airport to another without stopping. A direct flight, on the other hand, makes stops along the way. Often, passengers traveling on direct flights make a stop at a midpoint airport and remain seated on the plane while some passengers exit and others board.

I have never flown "direct" to the USA. I go through Tokyo, get off the plane and go through security before boarding another plane again. 6-7 hours, then another 10, depending on destination and going east or west. I don't see how a non-stop flight for 17 hours represents any practical time saved. Delta's layover in Tokyo is less than an hour.

I meant non-stop flight. I have never been on a direct flight (landing in between without change of plane, not even having to leave the plane) and am surprised such thing still exist, I would think that was before non-stop flights between Europe and the US, when re-fueling in Greenland was necessary.

Layover of less than 1 hours seems impracticable to me, the lightest delay and you miss your flight. Two hours is realistic. I once missed the Kiew-Berlin part of Bangkok-Kiew-Berlin with less than 2 hours layover in Kiew and about 1 hour delayed departure in Bangkok. They put me on the next available flight to Berlin and in total it cost me 6 hours, difference of being home at 14 or 20.

From Europe, non-stop flight would be 11 hours (Vienna) to 12 hours (Paris or London). Currently there are no non-stop flights from Berlin (but occasionally from Cologne or Munich), anyway with stopover (I had almost everywhere in between: Istanbul, Moscow, Kiew, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Muscat, Bombay depending on which airline was cheapest and had most convenient times) it's generally cheaper and stopover is on average 3 hours.

[Jun]

I meant non-stop flight. I have never been on a direct flight (landing in between without change of plane, not even having to leave the plane) and am surprised such thing still exist, I would think that was before non-stop flights between Europe and the US, when re-fueling in Greenland was necessary.

As you know, the Pacific is significantly wider than the Atlantic.

Then there is the issue that flying the mass of the fuel adds to the cost. So, if I'm not mistaken, some flights from Singapore to the US stopped when oil prices were high (including even a long one to New York ?). With improved efficiency of latest generation engines & lower oil prices, some of these flights might reappear for a while.
Still even that is it's a temporary trend, with 7 billion people and depleting oil resources.

[Oldbear]

I used to take the New York - BKK the years it was in service, it was 17-18 hours but if you walk around its fine. When they stopped I have been using Cathay, their service is also good but I miss flying with Thai. at that time Thai was one of the few airlines that had premium economy class and it was cheaper and better service then other premium economy.
I hope SAS can help Thai straighten out their problem after all SAS was a founding part of Thai. An alternative for them would fly JFK - CPH - BKK. then they would have passengers both to Europe and US and that may bring in more business. Malaysian Airlines fly New York-Stockholm-Kuala Lumpor I used to fly with them JFK-ARN. And Singapore still do New York-Frankfurt-Singapore with Airbus 380.

[gkwanger]

Both United and Singapore fly non-stop from San Francisco to Singapore. Singapore has announced additional flights non-stop from LAX and New York.