Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TG Stops BKK-LAX non-stop

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lingua101 View Post
    I think the main reason they stopped BKK-LAX is becuase they will get rid of their A345 right? Without this aircraft there is no other aircraft that can do BKK-LAX nonstop (??).

    It is not about load factors or profit I suppose.
    It is definitely about profit. As 9V-SIA said... why else would they get rid of the A345? If fuel prices were what they were when the A340-500 was being developed then it would probably be a very different story.

    Very few airlines bother with the A340-500 at all, Emirates used to use them to Australia but long since replaced with 777-300ER.
    My SQ and flying Videos: Youtube My Travel Blog: AussieFlyer.net

    Comment


    • #17
      Thankfully, SQ still operates 5 of them - and as far as my limited technical knowledge goes, there aren't any alternatives that will allow a non-stop SIN-NYC at the moment (772LR? with new extended ETOPS?). After trying out SQ25 JFK-FRA-SIN last month, I'm definitely going to stick to SQ21/22 for the convenience of a non-stop. And if they can come up with a plane that can do non-stop SIN-IAH, I would be thrilled to bits!

      Comment


      • #18
        I was just doing some random Great Circle Mapping (as you do...) and found something very interesting:

        BKK-ICN-LAX is literally 1 mile longer than BKK-LAX nonstop, as shown here

        Out of all the one-stop longhaul services, I can't say I've ever seen one that is so, so close to the non-stop great circle distance!

        (PS. Of course, I know that this does nothing in terms of inconvenience and additional time associated with the fuelling stop...)

        Comment

        Working...
        X