Thai Airways Royal Orchid Plus - No F in and out of LAX?

I tried finding F on several dates but apparently only Royal Silk is available in and out of LAX... I want to try their new sleeper F, is it true that no Royal First offered from LAX-BKK-SIN?

TG operates an A340-500 from LAX-BKK-LAX and that particular aircraft has no F, so, yes, you have heard correctly.

As for BKK-SIN, depends on the plane. They mostly run the 777s on those (especially if you take TG403, which connects to the inbound TG795 from LAX @ 8AM or so) and, no, those aircraft do not have F either.

I tried finding F on several dates but apparently only Royal Silk is available in and out of LAX... I want to try their new sleeper F, is it true that no Royal First offered from LAX-BKK-SIN?

As noted there is no F on the A345 or regional 777s. AFAIK there is no "new sleeper F" product other than the leased 77W's that are running the CDG-BKK and BKK-NRT routes.

Thanks for the confirmation everyone.. Am curious as of why there are no Fs to the US, ah well.. I guess I'll just have to stick with SQ F then until they fly their 77Ws to LAX.

Cheers!

As noted there is no F on the A345 or regional 777s. AFAIK there is no "new sleeper F" product other than the leased 77W's that are running the CDG-BKK and BKK-NRT routes.

A346 and refurb 747 have flat beds in F which could be classed as sleeper seats... Obviously the new T7W are much better...

Cheers,

AG. :-:

Right, I don't think you can class the F class on the 747 and 346 as "new" since it is a generation or two behind the newest F products in the air these days.

Right, I don't think you can class the F class on the 747 and 346 as "new" since it is a generation or two behind the newest F products in the air these days.

It is about time that they replace them. They are outdated compared to most airlines Asian/European (except LH dinosaur).

Am curious as of why there are no Fs to the US

BKK-LAX is very expensive for TG to operate because it's so long. The added weight of F class (seats + catering) is considered uneconomical. As far as I know, only Emirates has F in their ultra-longhaul aircraft (A345 & B772LR).

David

It is about time that they replace them. They are outdated compared to most airlines Asian/European (except LH dinosaur).

If the seats are every bit as good as SQ's 744 Fs then why not? I'd rather fly on their 744 than 77W in F...

BKK-LAX is very expensive for TG to operate because it's so long. The added weight of F class (seats + catering) is considered uneconomical. As far as I know, only Emirates has F in their ultra-longhaul aircraft (A345 & B772LR).

David

Well, I guess they never thought of a good transit location don't they?

Well, they did have a stop at KIX when they were running a 777 on the route to LAX for a while. But they need to get some use out of the 345s, otherwise they would sit around costing money and making no revenue. Since it is the only a/c in the fleet with enough range to go direct/non-stop they do what they can to make it work. In all likelihood they don't think they would sell enough F class seats anyway, which is probably true for what is basically a leisure route. So, ultimately they are being smart about utilizing aircraft that they would probably prefer not to have in the fleet...given how many times they have rumored to be shopping them around but getting no takers.

Well, they did have a stop at KIX when they were running a 777 on the route to LAX for a while. But they need to get some use out of the 345s, otherwise they would sit around costing money and making no revenue. Since it is the only a/c in the fleet with enough range to go direct/non-stop they do what they can to make it work. In all likelihood they don't think they would sell enough F class seats anyway, which is probably true for what is basically a leisure route. So, ultimately they are being smart about utilizing aircraft that they would probably prefer not to have in the fleet...given how many times they have rumored to be shopping them around but getting no takers.

Then perhaps just scrap them and get something else instead? Do they plan on getting more aircraft? lets just hope then they'll think of adding F again...

Then perhaps just scrap them and get something else instead? Do they plan on getting more aircraft? lets just hope then they'll think of adding F again...

So are you saying you'd rather have F and a stop, than just flying C? Is it really that important, in the overall scope of things? Once you've gotten out of the cramped coach cabin and into a sleeper (in C), there's not much more to be had in F, except ego padding

Then perhaps just scrap them and get something else instead? Do they plan on getting more aircraft? lets just hope then they'll think of adding F again...

TG's competitive advantage is that they fly LAX-BKK nonstop. If they added a stop (and First Class) then they'd be competing with a dozen other carriers, all of which offer one-stop service from LAX to BKK.

If they added First Class to their existing A345's, they believe the flight would lose so much money they'd have to cancel it (as they did the longer & even costlier JFK-BKK).

David

So are you saying you'd rather have F and a stop, than just flying C? Is it really that important, in the overall scope of things? Once you've gotten out of the cramped coach cabin and into a sleeper (in C), there's not much more to be had in F, except ego padding

Actually that's the very reason I love flying SQ 11/12 and 1/2.. Coz they have stops.. I flew with their 37/38.. I'd rather have transit than sitting for more than 16 hours straight..

I want to try it once anyway, and what good will it do if the flight is short?

TG's competitive advantage is that they fly LAX-BKK nonstop. If they added a stop (and First Class) then they'd be competing with a dozen other carriers, all of which offer one-stop service from LAX to BKK.

If they added First Class to their existing A345's, they believe the flight would lose so much money they'd have to cancel it (as they did the longer & even costlier JFK-BKK).

David

Well, I guess that is true..

TG's competitive advantage is that they fly LAX-BKK nonstop. If they added a stop (and First Class) then they'd be competing with a dozen other carriers, all of which offer one-stop service from LAX to BKK.Agreed.


If they added First Class to their existing A345's, they believe the flight would lose so much money they'd have to cancel it (as they did the longer & even costlier JFK-BKK).I don't follow that logic at all; although that sounds like typical Thai logic for you... :D

JFK-BKK was predominately O/D traffic. Who in the US would want to backtrack (travel west-east or south/north) to JFK only to get on a what was a seriously long flight to begin with?? Flying thru LAX is on the way to/from BKK for most of the country.


SunLover

I don't follow that logic at all; although that sounds like typical Thai logic for you... :D

JFK-BKK was predominately O/D traffic.

Maybe I'm starting to think like my Thai friends! Honestly, it makes sense to me.

BKK-LAX is primarily O/D too, at least in the eastbound direction, since it arrives at LAX too late to connect anywhere. For JFK, TG couldn't charge enough to make the flight pay for itself, especially with all those Economy and Economy Plus seats to fill. Neither could SQ -- that's why they converted their A345s to all-Business Class from both EWR & LAX.

David

...Neither could SQ -- that's why they converted their A345s to all-Business Class from both EWR & LAX.

David

Which is usually 1/2 full anyway... hence F on those planes might be an option too...

JFK-BKK was predominately O/D traffic. Who in the US would want to backtrack (travel west-east or south/north) to JFK only to get on a what was a seriously long flight to begin with?? Flying thru LAX is on the way to/from BKK for most of the country.


SunLover
"Flying thru LAX is on the way to/from BKK for most of the country." Though it is easy to get that impression when thinking in terms of flat maps (instead of global maps), it really isn't true.

Look at the link below:
Great Circle Mapper routes to Bangkok (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lax-BKK%0D%0AJFK-BKK&MS=wls&DU=mi)


Seeing as the population center of the USA is seriously skewed toward the eastern time zone and eastern seaboard*, it would seem less backtracking would occur to get a flight out of JFK, for more of the population.

* Approximately 48% of the U.S. population resides in the Eastern Time Zone.


A few other points about these two routes:
The JFK-BKK route is only 417 miles longer than LAX-BKK
The LAX-BKK route actually takes slightly longer flying time than JFK-BKK (particularly in the winter) due to strong Pacific head winds.

"Flying thru LAX is on the way to/from BKK for most of the country." Though it is easy to get that impression when thinking in terms of flat maps (instead of global maps), it really isn't true.

Look at the link below:
Great Circle Mapper routes to Bangkok (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lax-BKK%0D%0AJFK-BKK&MS=wls&DU=mi)


Seeing as the population center of the USA is seriously skewed toward the eastern time zone and eastern seaboard*, it would seem less backtracking would occur to get a flight out of JFK, for more of the population.

* Approximately 48% of the U.S. population resides in the Eastern Time Zone.


A few other points about these two routes:
The JFK-BKK route is only 417 miles longer than LAX-BKK
The LAX-BKK route actually takes slightly longer flying time than JFK-BKK (particularly in the winter) due to strong Pacific head winds.
While the Great Circle Mapper is a nifty tool; practice is a better indicator than theory ;)


SunLover

While the Great Circle Mapper is a nifty tool; practice is a better indicator than theory ;)


SunLover

:confused: Huh? Perhaps you could elaborate on what "practice" and "theory" you're referring too?

As far as I know, only Emirates has F in their ultra-longhaul aircraft (A345 & B772LR).

David

Air India has F in their ultra-longhaul aircraft (USA-India nonstop routes).

:confused: Huh? Perhaps you could elaborate on what "practice" and "theory" you're referring too?Check out flightaware.com. You will see the actual distances flown can vary significantly from the Great Circle Mapper.


SunLover

Check out flightaware.com. You will see the actual distances flown can vary significantly from the Great Circle Mapper.


SunLover

Well of course they will. That point is not disputed. They generally fly a path of least resistance based on winds for any given day, and other traffic considerations. Great Circle Mapper (GCM) shows the shortest path by distance. Any actual flight is going to deviate (to a point) from the path shown on GCM, and take a longer path (but perhaps a shorter duration) due to prevailing winds. In the case of TG 795, sometimes it takes a more northerly route to BKK and passes over Russia, China, and Hanoi. Sometimes if goes further south and flies across the Pacific to Tapei and then proceeds to BKK. And most times it's probably something in between those two extremes.

The point of mentioning GCM was that it provides a great visual that disproves your contention that "Flying thru LAX is on the way to/from BKK for most of the country." That statement is just not true, and even more so if you start considering where the population center of the USA is.

Of course, that begs the question of why (two years ago during the fuel spike) did THAI choose to drop NYC, but not LAX? Why not drop LAX and keep NYC? One can only speculate here as to whether the reasons are even strictly business related, or political in nature? LA has a large concentration of Thais. Does that mean they have more O/D traffic? Is it the history of service to LAX? Were the loads out of LAX better? Or maybe the yields? It's all hard to say.

"Flying thru LAX is on the way to/from BKK for most of the country." That statement is just not true, and even more so if you start considering where the population center of the USA is.

Agree with you 250% on your point, Sam. The original statement is categorically incorrect.

Of course, that begs the question of why (two years ago during the fuel spike) did THAI choose to drop NYC, but not LAX? Why not drop LAX and keep NYC? One can only speculate here as to whether the reasons are even strictly business related, or political in nature? LA has a large concentration of Thais. Does that mean they have more O/D traffic? Is it the history of service to LAX? Were the loads out of LAX better? Or maybe the yields? It's all hard to say.

LA has the LARGEST concentration of Thais in the country. I've been flying this route since the 345 first started.. the flights are almost always completely full. I hear this was not the case for the NYC to BKK flights.

The 345 is already a plane that really doesn't have that many seats to begin with. Basically, to adapt to the ultra-long haul, the thing is a flying gas can due to all the fuel it's carrying. Cutting down the number of seats even more to accommodate a few first class passengers (most of whom would not likely be paying--they'd be upgrading or Thai VIP's pulling rank), and you'd end up with an even more financially non-viable flight than now.

Frankly, the fact that there IS a nonstop option with no other competitors is the key here, and most people would gladly fly Business class this way, rather than First Class with a stop somewhere. If you MUST fly first class, you'll need to find another option/carrier to go the long way. Horses for courses, but the reality is that these days, only a tiny minority of travellers will pony up their own hard cash for First over Business, anywhere.

Having flown on both the JFK flight and the LAX flight multiple times, I agree that the LAX flight is almost always full or nearly so...the JFK flight was not full even in Royal Silk. I think it was strictly a business decision to drop the JFK as it lost money once fuel prices shot up so high, whereas the LAX flight is likely somewhat profitable even at $80/barrel oil because they can fill seats. It was a blow to me, as the JFK flight connections worked like a dream for me, heading to my final destination (US Southeast), whereas the LAX flight requires more painful gyrations and many extra hours on redeyes or an overnight hotel.

...a few first class passengers (most of whom would not likely be paying--they'd be upgrading or Thai VIP's pulling rank)Yes that's the nub of TG's problem

Apologies from a UA / NH flyer.

I've been checking the forum and it seems that the only USA point that TG
serves is LAX.

And the only route is LAX - BKK direct? Is this correct?
I thought there would have been some weird continuation of something like
BKK - TPE - ICN - LAX...

Could someone also point me to a pdf timetable? I couldn't find it on the Thai website, but it might be a firewall at work preventing access.

Thanks!

Apologies from a UA / NH flyer.

I've been checking the forum and it seems that the only USA point that TG
serves is LAX.

And the only route is LAX - BKK direct? Is this correct?
I thought there would have been some weird continuation of something like
BKK - TPE - ICN - LAX...

Could someone also point me to a pdf timetable? I couldn't find it on the Thai website, but it might be a firewall at work preventing access.

Thanks!

Currently the only TG route to the USA is BKK-LAX direct. It goes daily on an A340-500 with Royal Silk, Premium Economy, and regular economy.

Departs BKK around 730pm, arriving in LAX at 720pm (yep, you go back in time!). For the LAX departure, the flight leaves around 930pm and arrives in BKK around 630am.

For the LAX departure, the flight leaves around 930pm and arrives in BKK around 630am.

+ 2 days.