I'm going to flying on TG795 from LAX-->BKK. I haven't been reading any great reviews about the Business Class seats. Can anyone tell me what to expect? Are the seats old? Does anyone have any photos that they can share? I fear that it's not what i'm going to be expecting.
and if BKK is your final destination the direct flight beats making a connection in most cases.
It is basically the same sloping "flat" seat that other carriers like ANA have in business class. Personally I find these seats useless for sleeping. But they are roomy enough to make such a long flight bearable. Unless you can get a seat on Singapore's business class A345 which is 180 degrees flat it's not a bad way to go.
and if BKK is your final destination the direct flight beats making a connection in most cases.
It is basically the same sloping "flat" seat that other carriers like ANA have in business class. Personally I find these seats useless for sleeping. But they are roomy enough to make such a long flight bearable. Unless you can get a seat on Singapore's business class A345 which is 180 degrees flat it's not a bad way to go.
Is TG 795, the LAX-BKK "westbound" direction of this flight, also nonstop or just a "direct" flight? I know that BKK-LAX is nonstop but thought I have read that this flight had a technical fuel stop going the other direction.
Programs: LH SEN, BD*G, KF, IC Amb/PC Plat, Hyatt Plat, HH Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,761
I took the flight a month ago BKK-LAX and LAX-BKK and as long as there is nothing like extrem headwinds on the BKK-LAX it is nonstop flight. No technical stop anywhere.
__________________
"Customers who complain are the company's best friends." (Nirmalya Kumar - Prof. of Marketing, LBS)
It's LAX-BKK, not BKK-LAX that would be a problem if any. Winds are in their favor going BKK-LAX and against the plane going LAX-BKK.
I'm on TG 795 from LAX to BKK in early June, and now that I've seen the actual itinerary, it definitely says "nonstop." If anyone has been on this flight recently in C (I have read some trip reports from while back on this flight), would love to know if the TG service has been of late, and whether there have been any subs to A340-600s.
I flew it in February in C and didn't notice any changes in the service from the past. It was the A345 on my flights and I haven't heard of any substitutions, and doubt they will have any, being they've discontinued the JFK flights so have plenty of spare planes now.
I flew it in February in C and didn't notice any changes in the service from the past. It was the A345 on my flights and I haven't heard of any substitutions, and doubt they will have any, being they've discontinued the JFK flights so have plenty of spare planes now.
Agreed. When they were running daily service to both LAX and JFK, it stretched the 4-plane A340-500 fleet pretty thin. Now that they just have LAX four days a week, and a few shorter A345 destinations, it's much easier to schedule maintenance and still have full coverage of the LAX route.
As for service, I just flew C on April 2nd from LAX. Nothing seemed changed to me, except for a much nicer amenity kit than that "purple sack" they used last year.
The trip clocked at 17:57 wheels up-wheels down, non-stop.
Agreed. When they were running daily service to both LAX and JFK, it stretched the 4-plane A340-500 fleet pretty thin. Now that they just have LAX four days a week, and a few shorter A345 destinations, it's much easier to schedule maintenance and still have full coverage of the LAX route.
As for service, I just flew C on April 2nd from LAX. Nothing seemed changed to me, except for a much nicer amenity kit than that "purple sack" they used last year.
The trip clocked at 17:57 wheels up-wheels down, non-stop.
Wow, that is one long flight! Thanks for the information.
Flew it last week. Service is better BKK-LAX than LAX-BKK. FA's must be grumpy after layover. Seat is not very comfortable for sleeping IMO.
This flight will change to A-330 later this year and will not be non-stop.
It's not a bed, but it beats trying to sleep in a coach seat.
I have heard no announcements other than the continuation of nonstop service on the Los Angeles route, and when they were talking about going 1-stop via Osaka last year, that was going to be using a 777-200ER.
For an A330-200 (which THAI does not use) it is almost at maximum range (going against the wind) to make LAX>Japan. An A330-300 (which is what THAI uses) does not have the legs to make that distance.
It's not a bed, but it beats trying to sleep in a coach seat.
I have heard no announcements other than the continuation of nonstop service on the Los Angeles route, and when they were talking about going 1-stop via Osaka last year, that was going to be using a 777-200ER.
For an A330-200 (which THAI does not use) it is almost at maximum range (going against the wind) to make LAX>Japan. An A330-300 (which is what THAI uses) does not have the legs to make that distance.
What is the source for your statement above?
Yes, I'm well aware it's not a bed. I've taken these flights over 20x in the last 4 years. That's why I said, IMO, it's not very comfortable to sleep in. Just my opinion....
My source is Thai Airways USA. I had a scheduled flight for 12/1/09 and gave them my seat request for the 340-500. They replied they will have an aircraft change to Airbus A330 and could not accomodate my request.
(Nirmalya Kumar - Prof. of Marketing, LBS)
