shygye Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 [color:"green"] Why not fly to London, Amsterdam or Frankfurt and go direct to Bangkok. [/color] Cost. Flying transAtlantic adds over $1000 USD to the price verse transPacific fares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAL875 Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Having been assigned to cover the Pac-Rim out of NY then moving to Tokyo while maintaining a residence in the Big Apple, I can give you insights on getting to Asia from JFK. Never go via Europe. The airlines have not designed their NY - Asia routes to transfer through the West. As such, the cost is greater and the connections barely existing. I had a colleague do it because of an emergency and he said ?never again?. As I mentioned, because the routing has not been drawn up to connect through Europe, the traveler most likely starts off the first leg with one carrier and then finds himself switching to another. This means having to clear immigration (I think) or, at the very least, gathering all the luggage and schlepping to a different terminal to (re)check-in. And in airports like Heathrow this is not fun. I remember having to do this in LAX on my way to Sydney to change from AMR to Qantas. Geez Louise, what a nightmare. Never, ever travel via California. I did that once (JFK-LAX-HK-BKK) ? and only once. Terrible. The fastest and most civil way to Bangkok from JFK/EWR is through Narita. Cutting over Alaska and now Siberia knocks the Tokyo leg down to thirteen hours or so. The savvy traveler can really collect himself at Narita (clean up, grab a bite to eat, shave ? what have you) so that the last six point five hours to Bangkok are smooth sailing. I just don?t see the benefit of going through Singapore to get to Bangkok. Just draw the route on a map, it?s not direct. For me, going through NRT which is thirteen hours in plane ? three on ground ? six hours in plane is more comforting than eighteen hours in plane ? two on ground ? two hours in plane even if it is about the same in terms of collective hours (by the way it is NOT 28 hours to Bangkok from NYC if going the standard, Narita route). Granted I would love to go direct to Bangkok but the timing of the break in Narita is just about right. As far as doing the eighteen continuous hours to Singapore? If my final destination was Singapore ? sure why not? When I used to do NY ? Hong Kong I would take the great Cathay Pacific. We used to touch down in Vancouver for a short (2 hours?) layover. Quite frankly, I wish the routing was direct as I felt the three hours getting to and stopping in Vancouver would have been more useful to me on the ground in Hong Kong. Business is business and a lot of folks traveling to Asia need to get there as quickly as possible. Face time is way more valuable then sitting in a plane or airport. So from that perspective, I think direct to Singapore (or Hong Kong) is the way to go. I wonder if the demand for a direct route JFK ? BKK exists and what the airlines intend to do about it? Every once in a while I hear something but then the murmurs fade away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooNoi Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 I wonder if the demand for a direct route JFK ? BKK exists and what the airlines intend to do about it? Every once in a while I hear something but then the murmurs fade away. Well, I believe that Thai are ordering some of the new Airbuses as well, starting with delivery next year extending into 2006. Once they have these aircraft they would be able to start a direct service if demand exists, but I do believe the new aircraft are going to be used on Europe services first. We'll have to wait and see! I did hear that TG are upgrading their fleet this year, (about time!), starting with their 747-400's. Seat back TV's in economy (yay!), new Biz and First class etc. Might help them get a bit of their market share back that they lost to SQ and CX with their far superior "top-end" products. Fly P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 Thai current plan is for a nonstop LAX-BKK in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stars99hk Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 UAL875 Cathay start their non stop to New York on July the 1st..... you can still go via Vancouver if you want though. http://www.asiamiles.com/am/1,,83078_109813_eng,00.html The above link gives the flight schedules and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Stars99hk, Do you know if Cathay Pacific will purchase any of the new Airbus A340-500s? Bkk22 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minuman Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Hi! No mention of these A340-500s but check out this... How does this model differ from SIA's "Leadership", other than by offering a proper cattle-class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Minuman, Thanks for the link! A340-600, Hmmm ... It appears that Cathay Pacific is already using this aircraft. BKK22 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 I am so thankful to be in Seattle, closest point in Continental US for trips to Asia. 9-9.5 hours to Tokyo, or 11.5 to Taipei. I don't understand why people go through SFO or LAX, which just adds 2-3 hours of flight time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Price. SFO and LAX have HUGE Asian population so more capacity to Asia. Plus cheap transcon fares to LAX of around $200 USD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.