SFflyer123

What do you guys think? I am going to BKK in a few months, and I'm wondering what the best business class option would be:

1) SQ Pros: legendary, historic, and tried and true. New A350, great departure time of 10pm. Cons: Angled footwell makes it uncomfortable to sleep, food is just okay (yes, it's just okay, not great), no amenity kit, no PJs, no PQD on UA

2) UA via TPE (I refuse to give united $8000 to fly their crap 787 2-2-2 configuration) Pros: 777 with 1-2-1 Polaris, get PQD. Cons: horrible departure time for sleeping (12pm noon, which means 1am arrival in TPE--dead tired).

3) EVA: Pros: Great product on their 777, which I heard is better than SQ's A350. Great 1am departure time for excellent sleep. Cons: No PQD on united (I could not find a code share on UA to guy a ticket with "016" on EVA).

What do people think? Thank you.

jsloan

Given those options, UA if you need the PQD; EVA otherwise. Codeshare or not, you wouldn't be able to ticket the TPAC BR flight on a United ticket. I do like the long-haul EVA product a lot.

The SQ A350 is, IMO, the least comfortable lie-flat seat for sleeping that I've ever flown, and that includes the UA 2-4-2 config. (I actually like the UA 787, as long as I can get a center column seat, but I digress). It's a great seat for sitting, but awful for sleeping.

goodeats21

You kind of laid out the pros / cons, so really depends on how much you want the PQDs.

Agree with jsloan. EVA would be my preference for best overall option of the 3 presented.

Kacee

I've flown them all in J within the last six months. CX is IMO the best overall option, as they have the best frequency and the best transit at HKG. I would put BR second, slightly lesser frequency and I don't like the TPE transit (lounges suck), but the service and amenities are better than CX. SQ is a less convenient routing and the seat is uncomfortable. SQ food and service are excellent and Changi is a great airport. I put UA last because I HATE the daytime departure/late night arrival, and there is no good option for the return. You basically waste two full days with the UA flights due to the departure/return times.

Between the Cirrus seat (CX, BR) and the Polaris seat I'm ambivalent - Cirrus is more spacious, Polaris is more private if you can get odd-numbered window. UA has the best bedding and the air vents are a nice plus.

If you fly CX or SQ, you can credit to AS and get a boatload of miles. BR doesn't work well from a points crediting perspective.

You might also consider the NRT routing on a UA ticket. You can either fly the UA or NH 77W for the TPAC, and the NH 789/781 for NRT-BKK. I think that's a preferable routing compared to TPE, and NH service is IME the best of them all. One final consideration is, if you put your last flight (back to SFO) on UA, you can use the arrivals lounge.

restlessinRNO

I like the UA SFO-TPE route, but I agree UA's flight times are a problem. Not so much for sleeping, but UA makes connections in TPE almost impossible. Flight arrives ~ 7 pm, but is often late, so booking BR TPE-BKK that evening is a roll of the dice. It departs ~ 10:30 am, so you better be prepared to spend the night at TPE. It seems UA only sees this as a O/D route.

Kacee

And that's still better than the return, where you have to take the BR 2:15 a.m. departure from BKK to connect same-day. At least with an NRT transit, you can take the 7:10 a.m. NH departure (which is supposed to switch from 788 to the brand new 781 soon).

ExplorerWannabe

Personally, I enjoyed the midnight NH flight from BKK-NRT followed by UA metal from NRT back to the US. Had a long layover at NRT but I actually enjoyed that.

goodeats21

Anyone been following closely the financial condition of Hong Kong Airlines?

I have been using them quite a bit. Business Class flight to HKG, then United Airlines onto home. So far, all has gone well, but hearing that HX may be in some financial difficulty...and may have to give back some of their A330s?

Any opinions for using them for a trip late May, on a scheduled A350?
Would purchase directly from them on credit card, and I guess re-book on TG...or even CX...if I have any sort of notice of irrops....

Am I overthinking this?

spartacusmcfly

SFO-BKK is 6894 nm. Does that mean the 787-8 can handle that route?

EWR764

Theoretically, yes, but the issue with BKK isn't volume (calling for smaller gauge like 788), rather, it's whether the market can drive a sufficient premium for nonstop service that same would be economically viable. The lack of any nonstop options from BKK-USA (despite UA being able to add such service as needed) suggests this might not be the case.

spartacusmcfly

Well, the only other carrier that could reasonably add non-stop service would be TG and they're not in great financial shape. I think it's reasonable for UA to take the lead here. I was stunned at the EWR-CPT addition. UA is clearly willing to do some experimentation into new markets. Does anyone know:

1. The number of 787-8 frames UA has or will be receiving in the next 24 months?
2. Any labor issues flying the 787-8 out of SFO?
3. How many frames will be needed to serve SFO-BKK. 2 or ~2.5?
4. If they did that route seasonally, what US season would they pick?

EWR764

Without derailing this thread too far, for clarity, TG can't start new service to the United States until Thailand passes a FAA Safety Audit at the Category 1 level. Thailand failed another audit earlier this year, so that's not happening any time soon, even though TG has the equipment (787/A350) to launch nonstop service if they were able.

To answer your questions:

1) 12 in service, 0 on order. UA converted its 787-8 orders to 787-9s. UA has 13 787-9 and 7 787-10 on order.
2) None.
3) Depending on timing, a daily SFO-BKK can be operated with 2 frames.
4) BKK has large cohorts of business, VFR and leisure traffic, so it doesn't lend itself to an easy determination of peak seasonality.

EWR-CPT is a high-end, seasonal (IATA winter) leisure market where UA thinks it can extract a premium with a relatively limited, non-daily seasonal service entry, much like SFO-PPT. It's not really comparable to BKK. For UA to go back to BKK, and hope to generate a premium over the many one-stop routings (some of which are priced at significant discount) it would probably have to enter with a daily, year-round service on a very costly flight to operate, which would be instantly be United's 3rd longest 787 route, and 4th longest overall.

Kacee

I think the issue with BKK is not so much the market itself, as there is lots of premium demand, but the competition. As you note, it's just an extremely competitive market, with the Chinese carriers competing on the TPAC routings, and the ME carriers competing on the TATL routings.

That said, UA does not currently offer even a moderately competitive option, either in terms of price or convenience (referring specifically to the NRT routing connecting to NH).

jsloan

Well, that, plus the fact that the range numbers don't really apply. UA's 787-8 is likely denser than Boeing's "typical three-class configuration," and you have to deal with seasonal winds that will reduce the effective range further. That's not to say that it can't make it, just that it's not a slam dunk.

spartacusmcfly

Agreed. Especially considering most leisure travelers aren't really going to BKK. They're heading to the islands, which makes current options a 2-stop journey. That's rough... Maybe when they do the 787-9 retrofits to Polaris, they can consider creating a few frames that are PP heavy. That would allow them to differentiate the BKK non-stop from the cheaper options (HKG, SIN, TPE...). Looks like RT leisure fares in econ to HKG and SIN are $475 and $580 respectively. A non-stop to BKK in econ/pp/bus for $750/1200/4000 doesn't seem unreasonable.