echster

Not only will a stop save money, there is in all likelyhood a profit to be made by adding a stop. For those of you not aviation savvy, I'll break it down so a 5 year old can understand. 1. An aircraft can only leave an airfield at or under it's max weight. 2. Not taking into account winds, the shortest distance from: BKK-LAX is 7186NM, BKK-PVG-LAX is 7198NM, BKK-ICN-LAX is 7187NM. 3. The distance being added is almost non-existant. 4. For a non-stop flight on an A345, most of the weight carried is fuel. 5. By adding a stop and flying almost the same exact distance: a. TG can use a B772ER or B773. These are twin engine aircraft and burn less fuel than a 4 engine aircraft. This lowers their fuel costs. b. By adding a stop, TG doesn't need to carry a lot of fuel. It only needs the necessary fuel plus a reserve. Carrying extra fuel, or full tanks, when not needed actually burns more fuel. Simple physics. c. By carrying less fuel, and here's where they and other airlines make money, they have more room to carry cargo. It's no accident that they want to connect BKK and LAX with either Incheon or Shanghai. A lot of goods flow into the US via those 2 places. To wrap-up, like aircraft (talking weight class here) with 4 engines burns more fuel than a 2 engine aircraft. A non-stop flight carrying fuel for almost 7200NM has limited space to carry cargo. Adding a stop will allow more cargo to be carried. Another way to show this is with the cargo industry. Have you wondered why almost every cargo flight between the US and Asia stops in Anchorage? Almost every aircraft can make that flight non-stop. However, it is not profitable without the stop. You may wonder why. Seems it would be more expensive. But think of it like this (not using exact numbers because I don't have them in front of me as I type this): A B744 carrying cargo from China to LAX. It can take 75 tons of cargo all the way without a stop, or it can take 125 tons of cargo with a stop in Anchorage. You don't need the fuel to go all the way (which the airline pays for) so you can cram more cargo (which the customer pays to ship). The less weight used for fuel, the more weight used for cargo. Airlines make a lot of money carrying cargo. EVA made a full 50% of its money last year just on cargo, Singapore Airlines about 44%.

Seemingly right on time. From Monday's USA Today travel section: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/b...ancatelli_x.htm

I have flown them JFK-STN-JFK and think it's decent. They fly B767s with 102 seats. I think they go out with about 60-80 pax on them. They use lounges before flights. Seats are comfortable although not electrically controlled. They recline to 160 degrees (which I like as opposed being flat). No PTV but you do get a portable, on-demand player. The service is darn good, the food I thought was darn good. I even managed 2 desserts. I believe all their meals are 4-course on real china with real utensils with champagne and/or wine. Damn good value for the money. I wouldn't refer to it as premium economy at all.

Check-in at Business Class. The worst thing that can happen is they send you over to economy. It's unlikely, though. Make sure they tag your bags priority so they come out of sooner. Have a good trip!

Best I could come up with was with EVA Air in economy for $1054 or evergreen deluxe for $1350 all in, August 8-22.

Just my 2 cents worth, but it is best to take an earlier flight if connecting on different airlines. I flew DL once ATL-SFO and connected to EVA. I was offered 2 flights and chose the earlier one. As it turned out, the 2nd one, and one with less wait time, was late into SFO because of fog. If you're hitting an airport like SFO or SEA to transfer to EVA, arriving early isn't that bad because those airports are decent - unlike LAX, which sucks!

Piece of cake if you check-in early. Tell them you want an aisle or window.

Its ICAO code will be VTBS and the IATA code of BKK will transfer over from Don Muang. The present BKK will get a new IATA code.

Well, IMHO, airline ticketing is based on supply vs. demand principles. That would tend to lean this discussion towards buy now because, as the World Cup draws nearer, supply will narrow and demand will increase. However, one thing that throws in a monkey-wrench is airlines know more folks will be traveling to Germany this summer, so they will have more flights. More flight + more seats = more supply. It is hard to compare Germany vs. South Korea/Japan because, unless you are living there, you HAD to fly to South Korea (only has land connections with North Korea) and Japan (country of islands not connected to any other country). Many Europeans can take alternate methods of travel to reach Germany. IMHO, we're 4 months away from the World Cup. Check ticket prices every day. If the demand is not there, prices will fall. If demand is there, prices will start to rise. That should help you make a decision. I'd like to note one thing for you. Airlines know a lot of folks are flying to Germany this summer and will raise their prices. One thing you may want to do is see if it'll be cheaper to fly into another country that surrounds Germany and then price out a train or bus ticket. That may be a cheaper alternative.

I take it you're referring to flying in economy. If that's the case, take CI. As far the the aircraft being full, most LAX-TPE legs are full on all the airlines. CI is almost done with their B744 conversions, so if it comes down to 744 vs. 744, stick with CI. One other note, if you fly mostly CI and are in their FF program, stick with that, too.

Just found out EVA is putting a B773ER on the LAX-TPE-LAX run beginning the last week of June thru the end of October. It'll fly out of LAX as BR15 4-5 times a week, leaving at 0120L.

I assure you, dude, the B777 is faster than an A340 in both max and cruise speeds.

I assure you, mate, you place too much emphasis on deliveries. Let's say we both delivered pizzas. You delivered 30% more than I last year. That's cool with me because I was more likely in Pattaya for an extended time! However, you also happened to sell 30% more cheese pizzas (A320 series) than I at a profit margin of $1/per. I, though, sold 70% more 3 toppings pizzas (B777/B747 series) than you at a profit margin of $5/per. Tell me, which profit margin would you rather have? It's OK, I already know the answer!

Yes, I am a yank. No, I am not spewing sour grapes. I love all aircraft! don't get me wrong, there are some folks here let the A vs B thing get to them, just not me. To answer your question, Boeing simply got complacent. That, poor management, and one very poor decision allowed Airbus to one-up them on a few deals. From there it snow-balled.

This subject is so.......yawn! It's an accounting gimmick. When you look at it from a true perspective, and not that of a fan, Airbus and Boeing count their orders differently. IOW, it's counting apples vs. oranges. It's clear Airbus counts every order in the year irregardless if they have a signed contract. Boeing only counts its firm orders with a signed contract. See, apples vs. oranges. To me, the very telling story is 70%+ of Airbus' orders were for the A320 and smaller family. I mean, they're not making money with these planes. Their widebody fleet is really suffering while Boeing's is thriving. 2006 should not be any different. There are going to be several large widebody orders this year, and as it stands, they're Boeing's to lose. Premium airlines like Qantas, Singapore, Cathay, and BA are in line for new long haul fleets. IMHO, Airbus has killed their A340 line with the introduction of the A350. On top of that, Boeing will have its B787 on the market 2-3 years before the A350. It's unlikely we'll see many - if any - A380 orders until the first few are in service (now scheduled for November 2006). Airlines want to make sure it lives up to its billing money-wise. Airbus has paid millions to airlines for missing promised savings targets with its A340 fleet and there are rumors the A380 may not meet expectations either (however I probably think they will....or be very close). Oh man, I love this aircraft shit! I can talk about it for hours!

With EVA, if you're crazy enough to wait until you get to the airport, I say good luck. I have never been denied an upgrade I asked for, but then again I'm a Gold FF member and usually fly paid C class. I usually just buy my ticket then call the airline's reservation office and tell them I want to use miles to upgrade. Never a problem and worked on Evergreen Deluxe to Business, as well. I'll second the post re: not to go from L to C on a 744. It isn't worth it. However, C to F on the 744 to/from the US is worth the 30k miles.

I've never experienced the carry-on deal with EVA at LAX and I fly with them 3-4 times a year from LAX. If it happened during the holiday season, it's because all the aircraft were full and weight restricted. Don't forget that the jet stream is more southerly in winter and the aircraft need to carry more fuel. This is why summer flights are 12.5 hours and winter flights are 15.5 hours. More pax + more fuel = more weight. They simply cannot afford to let every person have a loaded carry-on. Also, every airline I can think of limits carry-ons to 15 pounds. Just because they needed to enforce the rule doesn't make them a bad airline. As far as showing a credit card at check-in for an e-ticket, well, when you buy your ticket on the website, a warning pops up and says to expect this. Also, they email you an e-ticket and in plain English, it says, "2. PASSENGER OR ONE OF THE TRAVEL COMPANION MUST BE THE CREDIT CARD HOLDER. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRESENT THE CREDIT CARD USED TO PURCHASE THE TICKET DURING CHECK-IN AT AIRPORT. PASSENGER WHO FAILS TO DO SO WILL BE DENIED BOARDING UNLESS THEY PURCHASE A FULL FARE TICKET AT THE AIRPORT TICKET COUNTER." I fly roughly 10-15 times a year from LAX....all on e-tickets. I've needed the credit card I paid for the ticket every time with every airline. If you're so hard-headed as to not be able to follow simple instructions, maybe EVA should dump you instead of you dumping them.

This was an expected increase by TG. I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so long ago. TG's plan from the start was to set fees at an "introductory rate" then raise them to begin 2006. The reason being is simple. They have lost a ton of money to start this route and now that folks are hooked, they can raise the price. If folks stop flying the route, TG will cancel it and return to a B744 and put the A345 on a route to Europe. Simple economics.

UK ticket prices are shrouded by extras that aren't as transparent as in the US. Taxes in the UK can simply be labeled "for airline use only". Where that money goes is anyone's guess. In the US, ticket price (the 2 letter codes are what you'll see on a ticket) is from the following sources: Base fare - airline fare without any taxes applied + Federal ticket tax international/domestic (US) - 7.5% of base fare (used to fund FAA operations and the Airport Improvement Program) + Federal segment tax (ZP) - $3.30 per segment (used to fund FAA operations and the Airport Improvement Program) + Passenger facility charge (XF) - up to $4.50 per segment, max $18/ticket (used by specific airports for airport improvement projects) + Federal security service fee (AY) - $2.50 (used for passenger and baggage screening) + Additional fees for travel to/from Hawaii and Alaska can add roughly $20/ticket = Total ticket cost If you're flying international to/from the US, there are additional taxes: International arrival/departure tax (US) - $13.70 (each arrival/departure to/from the US) + Immigration user fee (XY) - $7.00 per arrival + Customs user fee (YC) - $5.00 per arrival + Animal and plant health inspection fee (XA) - $3.10 per arrival + Animal and plant aircraft inspection fee - $65.25 per aircraft + Jet fuel tax + leaking underground storage tank (LUST) taxes - $0.044 (4.4 cents) per gallon These fees are added on.....you didn't think the airline was paying did you?

With concern of NC headphones and the 3-prong adapters, I still use my NC headphones on EVA and they have 2 prongs. By 3-prong, I take it you're referring to the "upside down triangle". I simply plug my 2 prongs into the top 2 of the 3-prong adapter. Works a charm!

Part of the initial delay was SQ wanted an interior that essentially didn't exist. It's taken a lot of work to get what they want and how they want it. The main delay, IIRC, was weight and flight test related.

Not at Airbus' doing, though. The 6-month delay has pushed Air France's delivery to the autumn. That is their slow period and they don't want to get them at that time. Air France is volunteering to pushback delivery another 6 months til April 2008.

Maybe they could get some loans from the EU!

Below is a report issued by the flight's engineer. One thing not mentioned is ATC at Hong Kong allowed them to refuel at the runway edge and gave them priority for departure thus limiting their fuel use on the ground. "The National Aeronautics Association (NAA) is the group that sanctions all aviation records. Part of the NAA is the Contest and Records Board, which sets guidelines and keeps track of record-flight attempts. I serve on the board with other aerospace industry and general aviation volunteers. An NAA representative was onboard the flight to officially record the results. There are other NAA rules that affect the airplane's final route on a record attempt. Once the airplane takes off, we can't change our declared route or chosen "turn points." For the purpose of computing the record distance, the NAA rules allowed us to declare three turn points, between Hong Kong and London. The flight's official distance is measured by adding up the miles between points: Hong Kong to point A...point A to point B...point B to point C...then point C into London. The trick is to put those turn points where they will maximize the wind advantage and take into account all of our other flight restrictions. Before we took off from Hong Kong we spent a lot of time checking weather charts for where the jet stream was going to be - all the way across the north Pacific, North America and north Atlantic. We were trying to pinpoint a route of flight that maximized tail winds to help give us the greatest distance. We made the final decision just hours before takeoff. In addition to favorable winds, another critical factor in setting a new record is fuel. I already mentioned the auxiliary fuel tanks. Two other variables are fuel density, as measured by pounds per gallon, and BTUs per pound (BTU stands for British Thermal Unit, a measure of energy.) The highest energy fuel available comes out of southern California; typically, the lowest density fuel in the world is in southeast Asia, where we took off. We thought about shipping fuel from California to Hong Kong, but it just wasn't practical. We also had to pick the best cities for our departure and arrival. We wanted big cities with a lot of impact and public exposure and eventually chose Hong Kong and London. The planning started about six months ago and now, with a world record under our belt, all of us involved with the flight think the hard work and extra effort were well worth it."

By new Boeing, I take it you mean the B787. For one thing, the A380 is a hub-to-hub or slot-restricted airport aircraft. This is going to be the type aircraft you can really pack with bodies and fly major city to major city (ala SIN-LHR, LHR-NYC, SYD-LAX). In other words, using industry slang, the A380 "will haul the mail." The B787 is generally designed to be a long-range aircraft that carries roughly 200 less passengers. In other words, it's the type of aircraft that will fly SYD-NYC-SYD. You could fly an A380 that route, but you couldn't put 500 passengers on it 7 days a week. You could, however, fill a 300 seat B787 7 days a week for this route.