TG vs. CX

Old Jan 18, 12, 10:32 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West New York, NJ
Programs: UA 1K, Typical hotel chain gold
Posts: 137
TG vs. CX

I am curious how TG compares to CX. I have flown CX before and would fly them again--but it would require going LAX>HKG>BKK vs. LAX>BKK on TG. How does the LAX>BKK flight compare to CX? It looks on the dates I would fly that TG flies a 340 and CX flies a 773--so no real preference based on aircraft type.

Unfortunately, I have to fly Y with no chance at upgrade on either.

Thanks in advance for any input or advice.
Wonderboynyc is offline  
Old Jan 18, 12, 10:41 pm
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,579
Originally Posted by Wonderboynyc View Post
I am curious how TG compares to CX. I have flown CX before and would fly them again--but it would require going LAX>HKG>BKK vs. LAX>BKK on TG. How does the LAX>BKK flight compare to CX? It looks on the dates I would fly that TG flies a 340 and CX flies a 773--so no real preference based on aircraft type.

Unfortunately, I have to fly Y with no chance at upgrade on either.

Thanks in advance for any input or advice.

hmmm... in this case I would probably take Thai airways.

Their A345 is configured for 36' seat pitch on this ultra-long haul - that's a good 4' over the pitch on CX.

Yes it's a very long flight on Thai - but you are served two meals and a substantial snack from what I have read.

The inflight entertainment on Thai is not to the same level as CX, TG is quite a ways back in terms of choice.

However - after a long transpac - maybe better to just get there and get off the plane rather than be concerned with another transfer and flight down to BKK.

I also believe the CX seats are the shell ones - many people report problems with seat comfort on those. They are in the process of converting them back to normal economy ones - but I'm not sure how progressed they are on that yet.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Jan 18, 12, 10:54 pm
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West New York, NJ
Programs: UA 1K, Typical hotel chain gold
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
hmmm... in this case I would probably take Thai airways.

Their A345 is configured for 36' seat pitch on this ultra-long haul - that's a good 4' over the pitch on CX.

Yes it's a very long flight on Thai - but you are served two meals and a substantial snack from what I have read.

The inflight entertainment on Thai is not to the same level as CX, TG is quite a ways back in terms of choice.

However - after a long transpac - maybe better to just get there and get off the plane rather than be concerned with another transfer and flight down to BKK.

I also believe the CX seats are the shell ones - many people report problems with seat comfort on those. They are in the process of converting them back to normal economy ones - but I'm not sure how progressed they are on that yet.
Thanks. I didn't notice the seat pitch difference. That is indeed a deciding factor in addition to avoiding transfer
Wonderboynyc is offline  
Old Jan 19, 12, 6:53 am
  #4  
TPJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: TK*G (E+), AA OWE (EXP), IHG Plat
Posts: 6,433
I agree - in Y TG is great...
TPJ is offline  
Old Jan 19, 12, 11:45 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,076
Just go with your gut feeling. I've been on CX / TG / MH / SQ flights with AVOD and you may argue that one airline can offer a better selection in inflight entertainment over another. However, you may end up not liking the offerings at all. Avoiding transfer is a big plus and a very valid reason to choose TG in your case.
zhaobao is offline  
Old Jan 20, 12, 5:34 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: AA PLT 2MM
Posts: 473
If you are not concerned about OW vs *A mileage accrual, to me this is a no-brainer. It has to be the non-stop TG flight.

I have not been on that flight myself but I have done CX in Y LAX-HKG. The flight was full and the seating was cramped. Thai are well known to offer better Y seat pitch in most of their aircraft, and I understand that the 345s they use for LAX-BKK have above TG average pitch. My experiences of other longhaul TG in Y have been favourable.

Both options involve very long flights and whichever you pick you will be very glad to get off at the far end. But I would think that TG would be quite a bit more bearable overall.

The TG Premium Economy gets good reviews if you could stretch to that.
Random Flyer is offline  
Old Jan 23, 12, 11:46 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: Hyatt Ex, Marriott Bonvoyed Gold, HHonors Gold, DL, CX Marco Polo
Posts: 312
I agree with the other comments regarding seat comfort and AVOD comparisons. One thing to keep in mind...the TG flights from LAX -> BKK arrive in BKK very early in the morning. If the early arrival time is not an issue, and accruing mileage from a preferred airline alliance is not an issue, then the TG nonstop ought to better suit your needs than CX flight offerings from LAX -> BKK.
conde is offline  
Old Jan 27, 12, 7:55 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: Hyatt Ex, Marriott Bonvoyed Gold, HHonors Gold, DL, CX Marco Polo
Posts: 312
Earlier I suggested TG over CX mainly due to the nonstop flight offering. Unfortunately, after May 1, that option will no longer be available. If a nonstop flight between LAX-BKK is desired, one would need to travel before May 1, 2012. Per the Thai Airways web site, http://thaiairwaysusa.com/flight-inf...formation.html, there is an announcement which posted today that effective Effective May 1, 2012, LAX One Stop service to Bangkok via Seoul-Incheon (ICN), Korea will be available 4 days a week - Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday.

While TG without a nonstop option is still competitive with CX, it would be best to choose the flights of TG or CX with the best times and price.
No more nonstops between LAX and BKK... quite unfortunate, really.
conde is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread