Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38512 posts, RR: 80 Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6675 times:
I'd love to see Thai do LAX-BKK non-stop with their A380.
I'll be happy with their 747-400s as well.
Given the long distance (18 hours and sometimes 22 depending on weather), I'd like to see First Class as an option.
The current 777-200 one stop and previous A340-500 non-stop only offers business class as the most premium on this route. The new business class lay-flat seats are not that comfortable.
Their First Class seats are still tops.
usflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1788 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6611 times:
I doubt TG or MH will ever send A380's to LAX. Both carriers routes to LAX are notorious money losers so I doubt they would want to increase the losses by adding even more capacity...
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38512 posts, RR: 80 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6452 times:
Quoting Lufthansa747 (Reply 5): As likely as you and me guzzling Dom on a 747-300 to HKG.
Haha!
You know those old TG 747-300 seats are the most comfortable airline seat I've ever sat in to date. I like them better than the new First Class on the 747-400.
I've been on their new Business Class lay-flat seats on their 747-400 on short hops down to Phuket and up to Chiang Mai. The seat cushion is too thin and wouldn't feel so premium on the 18 hour haul from LAX.
laca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3749 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6357 times:
I don't think we'll ever see TG or MH bring the A380s to LAX. MH cut their frequencies and TG now flies via ICN. TG is going to upgrade LAX to a 77W if they haven't already done so. The A380 is just too much a/c for these routes. Look for them to send the A380 to their respective partners mega hubs and routes where there's a lot of demand (LHR, FRA, CDG).
lawair From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 186 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6219 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 3): The current 777-200 one stop and previous A340-500 non-stop only offers business class as the most premium on this route. The new business class lay-flat seats are not that comfortable.
If this route switches to the 77W as was planned, then at least you'll have an even newer lie-flat business class seat, the same as you would have gotten had the A380 flown the route. Still no first class though.
Edit: Schedules suggest the 77W is already on the route, so the business class product is already different (and most would agree, a lot better) from that used on the 772, 345, and 744.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22062 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6144 times:
I don't see a reason why they should.
Both are loss making airlines, and both are very weak in the Americas.
I see a bigger probability of them dropping LAX all together then dumping massive capacity via an A380. Neither one can even maintain daily service on their current flights to LAX.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38512 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6098 times:
Quoting lawair (Reply 8): If this route switches to the 77W as was planned, then at least you'll have an even newer lie-flat business class seat, the same as you would have gotten had the A380 flown the route. Still no first class though.
lawair From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 186 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6060 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9): Neither one can even maintain daily service on their current flights to LAX.
I'm not commenting on the profitability of the LAX-BKK route for TG, because it probably isn't profitable. But they do want to go daily on BKK-ICN-LAX; TG is just restricted by Thailand's bilateral with Korea from doing so.
Back on topic, TG will only have 6 A380s at the end of the day (as will MH). TG believes there are far better routes on which to deploy the limited number of aircraft it does have. FRA, which it has operated double daily, CDG which has at times been 10x weekly, and SYD which in the past has been between 10 and 18 weekly, if I recall correctly. LAX is not a priority route for TG; the airline just wants to maintain a US presence. (The US is too difficult to work with logistically for them, given the necessity of either using fuel guzzling aircraft on the nonstop flight or entering the highly competitive fifth freedom market between East Asia and the US. They've chosen the latter, but for them, it's the lesser of two evils.)
ICN, NRT, and HKG are all potential/planned A380 regional markets for TG though.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22062 posts, RR: 51 Reply 12, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5800 times:
Quoting lawair (Reply 11): I'm not commenting on the profitability of the LAX-BKK route for TG, because it probably isn't profitable. But they do want to go daily on BKK-ICN-LAX; TG is just restricted by Thailand's bilateral with Korea from doing so.
TG could operate other means to the US also also - eg via KIX where they have daily rights.
But even the TG A340-500 service at the end was not daily, so I dont really think its an issue of frequency either.
Regarding the A380, the TG CEO stated he saw the model more of a regional aircraft then long-haul. Thankfully for TG its intra-Asia regional flying is doing well at the time. Thai - Struggles To Find A380 Role (by LAXintl Oct 15 2012 in Civil Aviation)
For MH not only have they reduced LAX frequency over the years but also capacity going from the 744 to 772. Also add in like TG they dropped NYC service as well.
Ultimately I don't believe a US route is much of a priority for either airline (not that it should be imo, if Americas service has long been loss making).
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5484 times:
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38512 posts, RR: 80 Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5047 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 13): Thai airways currently does 4x weekly 777-300ER. This would go to daily first before any A380, or even a 747.
They were planning on upgrading the route to a 747-400 in March but it sounds like TG changed their mind again before it started. He had an active thread about that a few months ago.
If it's now a 777-300ER, that means that there is now First Class available on the LAX route.
Still not as cool as the A-cabin of a 747 or up front on the A340-600.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 15, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4972 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 2): I heard about Thai and Malaysia decreasing LAX recently but I think it's logical to think their A380s will land at LAX at some point
As others have mentioned, TG and MH have never been able to operate North American routes profitably. I highly doubt LAX is a top priority for such an expensive asset as the A380. The problem with BKK and KUL is that they are not ideally located to serve as hubs for North American traffic and these days high yield passengers demand nonstop service. Operating costs for such very long range nonstop routes are extremely high in markets without a lot of premium traffic.
aaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1443 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4507 times:
Having a money-losing route to Asia ex-LAX doesn't preclude the initiation of A-380 service - reference China Southern. But, I digress...
In the spirit of the OPs' question, based upon my observations of both operations at LAX, I believe that TG would begin 380 service before MH. 2014, or later, IMO.
Quoting lawair (Reply 11): ...they do want to go daily on BKK-ICN-LAX; TG is just restricted by Thailand's bilateral with Korea from doing so.
That would be the conundrum. OZ has already signaled it's intent to begin A380 service ICN-LAX-ICN. Korean govt is likely to limit 5th freedom rights of any Asian competitors considering the capacity that can be deployed region wide.
With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22062 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3827 times:
Quoting aaway (Reply 16): Having a money-losing route to Asia ex-LAX doesn't preclude the initiation of A-380 service - reference China Southern. But, I digress...
I believe CZ is an interesting case.
Frankly it seems the deployment of the model to LAX was an act of desperation as the CAAC fails to bless CZ's desire for a Paris flight using the model. Its hardly optimal to be stuck using a fleet of 380's on shuttle flights between CAN and PEK.
Thankfully it seems TG and MH have a bit more network opportunity for the model compared to CZ.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
g500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 726 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3565 times:
" i see a bigger probability of them dropping LAX all together then dumping massive capacity via an A380. Neither one can even maintain daily service on their current flights to LAX."
No no no they're not pulling out of LAX anytime soon. LAX is their gateway to North America. They're going to stick around, both Thai and Malaysia
caliatenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3078 times:
What separates MH and TG from say.. SQ..? which has been able to operate North American routes profitably
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22062 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3009 times:
Quoting caliatenza (Reply 19): What separates MH and TG from say.. SQ..? which has been able to operate North American routes profitably
One or more of the below realities probably significantly effect the outcomes;
1. Larger O&D market (for example LAX-SIN is a 3x larger market then LAX-KUL)
2. Much more premium demand
3. Well developed global hub operation.
4. Long history and developed US market presence
5. Commercially profit driven airline
6. Large cargo market
[Edited 2012-12-16 21:09:55]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Gunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3462 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2452 times:
Not happening. Other posters have detailed why not. The A388 is simply too much airplane for either route and the fact that TG and MH are both historically weak carriers in North America doesn't help. Look for the whales in FRA/LHR/CDG and the larger hubs in East Asia. LAX isn't going to work for either carrier.
caliatenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2276 times:
i would agree with you . But LAX-KUL was daily for a long time...
25 Superfly: Will it have premium economy that was on their A340-500? I've flown in coach on their 747s and 777-200s and was very pleased.
26 oykie: With President Obama signing more trade with Asia ans Pacific partners I would believe that over time there will be more traffic to the U.S. from Mala
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 726 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 635 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38512 posts, 
From Philippines, joined May 1999, 3174 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
