The Bangkok Post reports on how we could see the resumption of nonstop flights between Thailand and the United States in the near future, for the first time in nearly a decade. Thanks to reader Drew for flagging this.
In this post:
Thailand expects Category 1 FAA rating soon
Back in the day, Thai Airways used to fly nonstop from Bangkok (BKK) to both Los Angeles (LAX) and New York (JFK) using Airbus A340-500s. These ultra long haul flights ended up being canceled because they lost money, and we haven’t seen any nonstop flights between the two countries since 2015.
Unrelated, in late 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted a safety audit of the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT), and found deficiencies in oversight. As a result, the country’s safety rating was downgraded from a Category 1 to a Category 2, preventing airlines from Thailand from adding nonstop flights to the United States.
For background, with the International Convention of Civil Aviation, every country is responsible for the oversight of its own air carriers. Of course once in a while there also need to be audits to ensure that regulators are doing their jobs correctly.
The FAA conducts the International Aviation Safety Assessment Program (IASA). The assessment is intended to determine if the relevant civil aviation authorities provide oversight to carriers that are in line with international standards. That’s why Thailand’s rating was downgraded back in 2015. Note that just because a country’s safety rating is demoted doesn’t at all suggest the airlines from that country are unsafe. It just suggests there’s a lack of oversight from regulatory authorities.
For the past many years, Thailand has been working to regain its Category 1 rating, and there’s now a positive update. Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister has stated that the country has made significant progress in regaining its Category 1 rating, and expects that to happen by February 2025. Goodness, this sure has taken some time, but it’s good news.
Will we see nonstop flights between Thailand and the United States?
The Bangkok Post suggests that because Thailand’s FAA rating will be upgraded to a Category 1, we’ll see the resumption of nonstop flights between the countries. However, I don’t see anything specifically suggesting that will be the case. So let’s talk about that for a second.
Currently the only nonstop flight between North America and Bangkok is on Air Canada, as the airline launched a seasonal route in late 2022. That has returned for a couple of years now, so that suggests the route is performing reasonably well (then again, there are limited places you can profitably fly wide bodies in winter).
I think it’s safe to assume that if a US airline were to fly to Bangkok, it would be United Airlines, since it’s by far the most global US carrier, especially in Asia. That being said, despite United’s creative expansion, we haven’t seen new service to Thailand.
I wouldn’t necessarily expect that to change. Then again, with The White Lotus Season 3 coming out soon, and being filmed in Thailand, maybe we’ll suddenly see a huge increase in demand for travel to the country from the United States. I wouldn’t be shocked if United added a winter seasonal route to the country, like Air Canada.
Beyond that, it seems most likely that Thai Airways would be the airline flying between Thailand and the United States. Admittedly Thai Airways is a bit of a mess at times, and has struggled with profitability. However, at the moment, the airline is in full-on expansion mode.
Unlike in the past, I could potentially see merit to Thai Airways flying to the United States:
- Planes have become much more fuel efficient than back in the day, so the economics of ultra long haul flying work better than in the past
- Thai Airways is owned by the government, so this route could largely be about increasing inbound tourism to Thailand
- Thai Airways has big expansion plans, and has 45 Boeing 787-9s on order
So I do think we’ll eventually see Thai Airways fly to the United States, though I question the timeline. Thai Airways is only expected to get its new 787s starting in 2027. The airline could make the service work with some existing planes, though it would have to come at the expense of some other routes.
For now we’ll mark this as “developing.”
Bottom line
Thailand believes that it will soon regain its Category 1 rating with the FAA, which would allow Thai Airways to resume nonstop flights to the United States. While getting a better rating from a safety audit is good news regardless, it remains to be seen if we actually see nonstop flights launch between the two countries.
Travel to Thailand is of course heavily leisure oriented, but then again, premium leisure seems to be pretty lucrative nowadays, even in long haul markets.
Do you think we’ll see the resumption of nonstop flights between Thailand and the United States?
Given the dynamics of ultra-long haul flying, I can’t see YA or any US carrier going f with a true US-TH non-stop.. IMHO, the first and perhaps largest roadblock isn’t demand - Bangkok and Thailand have always been high demand markets- but it’s the lack of consistent paid demand for premium cabin space.. I look at how SQ operates their SIN-JFK as a CJ/PE only config.. THAT to me is how someone like TG/UA or...
Given the dynamics of ultra-long haul flying, I can’t see YA or any US carrier going f with a true US-TH non-stop.. IMHO, the first and perhaps largest roadblock isn’t demand - Bangkok and Thailand have always been high demand markets- but it’s the lack of consistent paid demand for premium cabin space.. I look at how SQ operates their SIN-JFK as a CJ/PE only config.. THAT to me is how someone like TG/UA or whomever could profitably operate this kind of non-stop
UA was always able to fill their 744/777 they used, but I think if you look at the YIELD, it just wasn’t there.. and operating as a fifth-freedoms ex NRT meant one dedicated closed loop aircraft committed to that route.
I just don’t think BKK or any other city in the region (excluding SIN) has the consistent demand for premium cabin traffic that would justify a non-stop versus a one-stop or similar.
I think BKK-BNE, BKK-AKL, BKK-AMS, BKK-SDJ should resume before BKK-LAX.
I would definitely love to see a non-stop between Bangkok and major US cities after TG is less fleet-constrained than the current situation. Heck, they just leased ex-VS plane with that horrible Herringbone seat... They are dire for more aircrafts to join its fleet.
This would be excellent as there is already a big demand to travel between Thailand and the United States.
Los Angeles has the largest Thai diaspora with over 80,000 however there are many one stop options. The yield would generally be very low given the absence of business traffic, and mostly VFR and holidaymakers.
And that's just L.A. County. You can add another 30,000 to that if you're counting the entire L.A. Basin, all of which is within LAX's catchment.
Then there's the tourist component. Then there's connections.
There's no question it would fill. The question is: at what yield? Then again, if PAL can pull it off multiple times per day (as well as now Vietnam), it's entirely feasible that with a 787/A350 at the right density, Thai could make a successful return too.
United is doing well with the Philipines route
It will do better w higher yield on BKK route
Its a destinatiin with higher visitor numbers and wide offering of top market luxury hotels products so potential for permium seats is higher than manila
Seriously no brainer year arround
I saw a Thai airways ad in Times Square this week so I think they are heading back to the US!
THAI is not government owned, with a shareholding below 50%, and the airline is not a state enterprise. in fact during its post pandemic rehabilitation in the military dictatorship government played no financial part. US tourism to Thailand is hardly high volume and is in gradual decline. Additionally it is low yield making non stop flights uneconomic so competition with SQ is out of the question as that airline has cornered all US-SE Asia high...
THAI is not government owned, with a shareholding below 50%, and the airline is not a state enterprise. in fact during its post pandemic rehabilitation in the military dictatorship government played no financial part. US tourism to Thailand is hardly high volume and is in gradual decline. Additionally it is low yield making non stop flights uneconomic so competition with SQ is out of the question as that airline has cornered all US-SE Asia high revenue traffic with its special dedicated fleet. It is unlikely that even direct, one stop flights will be high priority even when fleet capacity constraints are reduced. Tourism growth is focussed on Middle East, India and regional destinations so TG will increase service to those countries rather than stagnant or declining markets.
"US tourism to Thailand is hardly high volume"
US visitors are consistently on top 10 for inbound tourism to Thailand.
"THAI is not government owned, with a shareholding below 50%."
How naive Ian Bromley.
In some parts of the world the 20/80 rule works differently.
The 20% ownership controls 80% of the company.
I do remember as another poster pointed out that TG flew to DFW for a number of years. I believe the flight operated via SEA.
Also - NWA flew to Bangkok for years from NRT on a 747. Sad to see it go!
The route (great circle) SF0-BKK is about 800km shorter than SFO-SIN. So technically I suppose it would be doable for United. Will be interesting to watch this space… right now they flow a lot of their Thailand traffic via HND/NRT.
The issue isn't feasibility. If UA wanted to fly SFO-BKK they would do so. The reality is that yields are just a lot lower for BKK given the weaker economy.
Singaporeans have 12x the per capita GDP of Thai. Thailand is also a mostly leisure destination vs Singapore having business travel as an Asia-Pacific business center.
In UA's eyes, they probably don't see a lot of difference in funneling one-stop connections via Japan vs one-stop connections via SFO.
The difference is that they can get Japanese and Thai travellers to fill the plane on BKK-NRT/HND! A321 XLR or UA 757 would be a good fit!
@yolo: I made this comment below, too: Perhaps from North America SIN is more practical for a carrier, but declaring BKK "a leisure destination with low yields" doesn't feel accurate in the grand scheme of things. Flights from Europe, Africa, Australia, and other parts of Asia into BKK are always full, and J capacity is signficant (KE, JL, NH, QF, KL, AF, LH, TK, EK, AY, QR, AI, and others fly their 777s, 787s, A350s...
@yolo: I made this comment below, too: Perhaps from North America SIN is more practical for a carrier, but declaring BKK "a leisure destination with low yields" doesn't feel accurate in the grand scheme of things. Flights from Europe, Africa, Australia, and other parts of Asia into BKK are always full, and J capacity is signficant (KE, JL, NH, QF, KL, AF, LH, TK, EK, AY, QR, AI, and others fly their 777s, 787s, A350s and A380s there, many multiple times each day). These airlines have no problems filling those seats. BKK continues to explode with growth, and the finance/construction/food industries are leading the way...they're just not led by Americans...
Flights from BKK to all the placed you mentioned also don't push 16-17+ hours while being filled with VFR/tourism traffic.
If anything regarding United and the NRT revival, HKT would be probably pursued over BKK since both TG and NH serve TYO to BKK.
Maybe UA could serve BKK from its new revived base in NRT?
Otherwise I predict non-starter of this at all, or for it to fold within a year of trying. Too difficult/uneconomical for even a national carrier to lose money on.
Surely the logical choice would be for TG to fly the route and cooperate closely (extended codeshares if not JV) with their alliance partner UA to coordinate feed on both ends.
TG has A359s that could make the distance as well as many 77Ws that could do a one stopper. I see any carriers launching any route as a seasonal at best and I somehow see this route being tagged with KUL instead of taking any capacity away from SIN since both are low yield tourist destinations.
If ua does a long turnaround here they could align the flight with tg's flights to India. It does remain whether india would approve codeshares on tg flights since they blocked ek codesharing but this might have a better chance of getting through. UA should be able to make a decent chunk off of india travel.
if united is that desperate for access to india why wouldnt they just codeshare with their partner air india
Because for that to happen, United needs to operate first to India and that’s currently not feasible due to Russian airspace restrictions.
United still flies to India every day. In fact, ORD is scheduled to rejoin NYC next year.
Where they've cut, is to BOM from the US east coast, and to DEL from the west coast.
I live in Dallas, Texas and I remember that back in late 70's and early 80's Thai Airlines flew here.
Too bad that Delta is gotten too cowardly to launch year-round long-haul routes to anywhere other than partner hubs, anymore.
In an ideal world, I'd love to see Thai to LAX, United to San Francisco, and Delta to Seattle. Betting we'll eventually get at least two of those though.
bangkok doesn’t have to be year round…. What does that and delta have to do with this?
"What does that and delta have to do with this?"
One would think that the answer would be fairly obvious, but if you truly need an explanation: Delta was the last US carrier to fly with its own metal into Thailand, and there's nothing stopping them from choosing to return, from either of their west coast gateways if they opted.
As for seasonality, the US carriers generally don't do seasonal transpacific routes, barring government subsidies...
"What does that and delta have to do with this?"
One would think that the answer would be fairly obvious, but if you truly need an explanation: Delta was the last US carrier to fly with its own metal into Thailand, and there's nothing stopping them from choosing to return, from either of their west coast gateways if they opted.
As for seasonality, the US carriers generally don't do seasonal transpacific routes, barring government subsidies (Brisbane) or adjustment to a massive influx of new competitors on a route that previously didn't have them (e.g. Papeete, Auckland)
TG is a little fleet-constrained at the moment, what with the Rolls-Royce engine parts shortage affecting the availability of their 787s. With regards to profitability, they’re already doing quite well and are expected to return to the stock exchange in December and completing their “rehabilitation” period next year, I believe
There are also other, less-risky routes they haven’t yet returned to like Amsterdam & Brisbane they still can’t resume because of fleet constraints. Heck, they...
TG is a little fleet-constrained at the moment, what with the Rolls-Royce engine parts shortage affecting the availability of their 787s. With regards to profitability, they’re already doing quite well and are expected to return to the stock exchange in December and completing their “rehabilitation” period next year, I believe
There are also other, less-risky routes they haven’t yet returned to like Amsterdam & Brisbane they still can’t resume because of fleet constraints. Heck, they had to reactivate 777-200ERs, didn’t they? Maybe they could take China Southern’s GE-powered 787-8s. They would only have to update the IFE and reupholster the seat finishes
I would think Brisbane is more likely to restart before the USA, and they haven't gone back to Auckland post-covid either.
I noted a couple of their 772s on FR24 headed off to Chennai and Hyderabad, so perhaps they're using them just for short flights across to the subcontinent?
Yeah I’m only seeing the 772 for regional flights to India and Indonesia, where basically people won’t mind the old interiors for short haul flights, but demand & yield still good enough to fill the back. More than that, it’ll be easier to maintain considering perhaps the plane’s age if they’re only for regional operations.
You’re quite right, they also haven’t returned to Auckland post-pandy. Maybe though with investments in retrofitting their A320 & 777,...
Yeah I’m only seeing the 772 for regional flights to India and Indonesia, where basically people won’t mind the old interiors for short haul flights, but demand & yield still good enough to fill the back. More than that, it’ll be easier to maintain considering perhaps the plane’s age if they’re only for regional operations.
You’re quite right, they also haven’t returned to Auckland post-pandy. Maybe though with investments in retrofitting their A320 & 777, they can wait for their additional 789s to grow more sustainably. Maybe Air NZ will end up flying Auckland-Gatwick via Bangkok, which I view as viable an option as Bali
Obviously a nonstop is more marketable, but maybe a one-stop?
Way ways way back UA flew BKK-NRT-SFO, I flew that on my first trip to Thailand, and it was operated by the DC-10 (yes, I'm aging myself). Given UA's imaginative upkeep at NRT, would they consider again?
And as for yields, if US operations to the Phillipines can be maintained then so can Thailand... just depends how operated.
Enjoy your flights y'all!
There is literally no point of doing a one-stop service, when both UA/NH, AA/JL and DL/KE offer plentiful one-stop options via TYO and ICN, to say nothing of foreign options via other Asian hubs.
"LiTeRaLLy". "I can't get through a sentence without using the word 'LiTeRaLLy' because my IQ is 14"
Why start now though? There's never been anything stopping United (or Delta) from returning to Thailand at any point, 1-stop or non-stop, other than their own assessment that it's not worth doing so.
The legal restrictions applied to Thai airlines flying to the USA, not the other way around. Thailand never did anything to prevent US carriers from entering in reciprocation.
True, but they can't codeshare with the Thai carriers, which may (particularly for United) affect their calculus.
I miss those one stop, no plane change flights that were long haul with planes like the DC-10s, MD-11s, 747s, L-1011s, 767s, 777s, etc. They were pretty cool. I think it was pretty common for flights going to or originating from Asia. I had to do it numerous times going to and returning from Bombay.
You can still do this today on various Ethiopian routes (I think I have flown 3 of those) and a few other airlines operating one-stop flights with a fifth freedom portion.
For a few decades, TG flew a three-class, one-stop service BKK-LAX, via SEL / KIX / NRT with 747-200s and 400s, until they jettisoned first class and put 777s on the route before canceling it outright. Before that SEA was their US gateway.
One would think / hope they could deploy FC on the LAX route again. More wishful thinking on my part.
TG also few JFK-BKK around 2006-2008 using A340-500s. The route was a flop. US-Thailand skews heavy leisure and isn't a profitable market.
38" pitch in Economy, 42" in Premium Economy on the A345; numbers we'll unlikely see again!
It's a different world than the days of the flying-deadweight that was the A340-500.
The thing literally weighed 100tonnes more than the A350s flying SIN-NYC today, or that Thai possesses now, despite being a smaller aircraft. I'm not by any means saying that aircraft type alone would solve Thai's past failures at ULH, but it would indeed be a huge component.
Air Canada is showing that there's indeed an appetite for nonstops between N.America and...
It's a different world than the days of the flying-deadweight that was the A340-500.
The thing literally weighed 100tonnes more than the A350s flying SIN-NYC today, or that Thai possesses now, despite being a smaller aircraft. I'm not by any means saying that aircraft type alone would solve Thai's past failures at ULH, but it would indeed be a huge component.
Air Canada is showing that there's indeed an appetite for nonstops between N.America and Thailand. I find it tough to believe that LAX or BKK cannot replicate the fortunes of YVR.... particularly if TG successfully (re)develops a cooperative effort with AS or UA, making either route Hub2Hub.
Thai Airways have lost quite a lot of capacity since Pandemic, and while the airline acquired some second-hand planes over past couple of years, there're still a long way to go. There're also quite a number of routes to re-launch or to recover frequency, so I'd assume that TG isn't really capable of launching a direct flight to the US at the moment, due to the opportunity costs.
Maybe United could launch SFO/LAX-BKK flights...
Thai Airways have lost quite a lot of capacity since Pandemic, and while the airline acquired some second-hand planes over past couple of years, there're still a long way to go. There're also quite a number of routes to re-launch or to recover frequency, so I'd assume that TG isn't really capable of launching a direct flight to the US at the moment, due to the opportunity costs.
Maybe United could launch SFO/LAX-BKK flights first? Their TPAC presence is already strong, and Bangkok being a Star Alliance hub would add some conveniences for them.
I have to imagine there is some capacity on UA that could shift from SFO/LAX-SIN to SFO/LAX-BKK. BKK is still a great connecting hub to the rest of SE Asia plus you get the Thailand O/D traffic. Seems crazy that *A basically flies 4 daily SFO-SIN flights with near identical timings.
SIN is a business center with high yields, BKK is a leisure destination with low yields, so the airlines go where the money is…
@ Dominic: Perhaps from North America SIN is more practical for a carrier, but declaring BKK "a leisure destination with low yields" doesn't feel accurate in the grand scheme of things. Flights from Europe, Africa, Australia, and other parts of Asia into BKK are always full, and J capacity is signficant (KE, JL, NH, QF, KL, AF, LH, TK, EK, AY, QR, AI, and others fly their 777s, 787s, A350s and A380s there, many multiple...
@ Dominic: Perhaps from North America SIN is more practical for a carrier, but declaring BKK "a leisure destination with low yields" doesn't feel accurate in the grand scheme of things. Flights from Europe, Africa, Australia, and other parts of Asia into BKK are always full, and J capacity is signficant (KE, JL, NH, QF, KL, AF, LH, TK, EK, AY, QR, AI, and others fly their 777s, 787s, A350s and A380s there, many multiple times each day). These airlines have no problems filling those seats. BKK continues to explode with growth, and the finance/construction/food industries are leading the way...they're just not led by Americans...
Any US carrier launching flights to Thailand should make sure it stocks an ample supply of nitrile gloves in case another obese passenger asks the flight crew to wipe his ass (cf. EVA in 2019).
Did you hear the news?!
Eva and Thai are different airlines, and Taiwan and Thailand are even different countries!
The more you know…!
@TravelinPenis
It's actually pretty relevant.
An American flying EVA with the...
@TravelinPenis
It's actually pretty relevant.
An American flying EVA with the final destination of Bangkok.
But of course, you just go through a denial against this Paul Weiss guy and decided to not look into the details.
Yet another common TravelinPenis L.
But you and Paul Weiss are the same sock puppet / troll, as has been noticed and pointed out many times before.
Keep on trolling’…
Taiwan, a country!? You’re now persona non grata in The People’s Republic of China and will be under surveillance by their secret overseas police, operating freely throughout the world (including in the EU, Canada, Australia, The USA....)