Sam Drucker

Just posted some newspaper links about USA relaunch hopes in the NEWS thread.

A couple of thoughts:

1) They talk about the destination likely being SEA or SFO (rather than LAX), due to better geographic connectivity to the rest of the USA. Since Star Alliance connectivity would be much stronger in SFO as a hub for United Airlines, gotta wonder what would motivate them to not go there?

2) One of the articles mentions the 787-9 as being the planned aircraft for this route. As I recall, on THAI's 787-8's they configured the business class cabin more like a medium-range aircraft with 2-2-2 seating, rather than the all-aisle access 1-2-1 layout that seems more state-of-the-art on modern long haul aircraft (including THAI's 777-300ERs). Any news on how these 787-9's will be configured?

Maybe I'm spoiled now, but once I'd gone with the all-aisle-access layouts, it was hard to look at anything else as being anything other than sub-standard. I like window seats, but hate being boxed in and having to step over my reclined seat mate (or being stepped over!) to get to and from the aisles.

BinSabai

I am surprised that they do not plan to reinstate their LAX flight as they flew there for so many years! and I also doubt that in SFO or SEA the connectivity would be better.
I agree with you that the 2-2-2 seating of the Dreamliner is not really state of the art for long haul flights

1353513636

I think they should go SFO. There are probably more passengers in the LAX area than the SFO area but on such an ULH flight, those last 300 miles make a big difference, and I don't think that the yields they would get from serving LAX vs. SFO would be worth it.

Also, I don't think THAI plans to make money on the route. They just want a route to the US for pride reasons, so they want one that loses as little money as possible and if they can tap into UA's domestic network at SFO it will help them lose less money.

Sam Drucker

I was a loyal THAI customer for about a decade, initially using the New York nonstops. When those ended, I flew across the country (from Florida) and caught the nonstop out of LAX and then the one-stop through Seoul. But even with the benefits of Star Alliance Gold, the service deteriorated to the point that it would take something extraordinary in this planned relaunch to make me cross the country on domestic flights just to use THAI.

I used to get better domestic fares when US Airways was still Star Alliance. They were almost always easier to work with than United (as far as mileage-qualifying fares went.) Sadly, that option is gone now.

Also, United reduced the extra baggage benefit extended to Star Alliance Gold members a few years ago. Makes them almost always not a compelling option now.

And finally, THAI Royal Orchid made that attempt a few years ago to double the mileage requirements for most business class awards. Ultimately, they backed down but kept the option opened, but it still struck me as a most peculiar time to make a move like that and alienate customers, when they were tanking themselves and needed all the good customers they could get. I don't know if that regime is still in power at Royal Orchid, but it created a real sense of distrust in me about the future of the program.

They have a lot of issues to address to relaunch this business and make it compelling enough for people to bother to connect to and from SFO or SEA just to fly THAI.

Kacee

Connectivity would be much better at SFO because UA has a much larger presence there than at LAX. SF bay area is also a very strong O/D market (though certainly smaller than Los Angeles).

SEA makes no sense at all (unless they are planning to codeshare with AS).

eponymous_coward

Can they even do that through *A? AS has zip, zero, nada partnerships with *A airlines. That would also be a pretty serious snub to UA to blow them off at SFO and LAX.

(Also, I have to think SEA is WAAAAAY down on the list of USA O/D markets for BKK.)

Kacee

Yes, it's all subject to negotiation . . . SQ has for years codeshared with B6 and VX rather than UA.

Yobodon

There is not enough demand to support this route. BKK is not a business destination like Singapore. They have to come up with something really creative to make this US route work.

transpac

The president of THAI has been dropping hints of Seattle or Vancouver, where competition is not as stiff. SEA was TG's first U.S. destination I think?

I think TG is still banned from the U.S.?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/busi...-30291388.html

cyborg

deleted

tookay

I do agree with you regarding C class seating layout. Seems nearly every other carrier has gone to 1-2-1 for Transpacific and if TG elects to go 2-2-2 they will already have one strike against them with a new route.

But that said, it seems that over the past few years TG have been focusing on Y class revenue, rather than paying attention to C services and resulting revenue.

restlessinRNO

Sadly that does not include UA, which flies B787-9 transpacific 2-2-2 in C.

ManFactSpendLA

I think you are on the right track. If you were trying to make sense of this (let's all admit, Thai is not all that good at making sense sometimes, but that's why we love them ) my thoughts are you'd want to go to the U.S. market with a big Thai population. I'm not sure if SFO or SEA has that big of a Thai population like LA does, maybe SFO, but I could be wrong.

If Thai is smart, they will fly to the U.S. market with that has a large Thai population.

Anton33

Maybe it will be tough to make profit for USA routes but it will increase their competitiveness as now only SQ fly to USA from the region. TG could also capturing tourism traffic into Thailand and around the region. Their onboard service also very good. It's good for them to try. If they relaunch USA, they better deploy A350 than B787-9.

eponymous_coward

SQ isn't all that friendly with the rest of *A though. Try booking a C or F award on one of their A380/77W flights using UA miles to see how friendly they are. Or note how they send *A G fliers in Y to a ghetto lounge instead of the KrisFlyer business class lounge.

Historically TG has been MUCH more willing to rely on *A partnerships than "rolling their own". As I recall they even partnered with US back in the day.

I have to wonder what he's thinking. SEA-BKK O/D traffic has to be pretty negligible. In terms of connecting Asia traffic there's BR to TPE, KE and OZ to ICN, HU to PEK. In terms of connecting India traffic, there's EK to DXB (plus some of those other airlines I suppose).

YVR makes a bit more sense because you could flow US-bound traffic through AC, but the arrival experience for YVR (having to enter Canada and then enter the US) is going to be painful.