US to Bangkok Direct

[sensei 0]

Does anyone know of a flight that takes off from anywhere in the US and goes direct to Bangkok with no connection?  Info is appreciated...

[eltib 54]

Does anyone know of a flight that takes off from anywhere in the US and goes direct to Bangkok with no connection?  Info is appreciated...

 

At the moment, I don't think there is a plane that can fly non-stop from USA to Bangkok. I'm sure when the 777-LR and A380 are brought in to service in 2005-2006, that feat will be achieved.

[Emil 0]

I believe the airlines have the capability to fly that distance, at least from San Francisco.  The problem I think is that they can't fill up an aircraft on a routine basis to fly directly to Bangkok and must hit a hub currently to accomplish that.  That problem may be resolved in a few years after the new Bangkok airport is completed.  From what I hear the reason they are building the new airport is to make Bangkok a hub for Southeast Asia destinations and the current airport can not handle the additional  flights.  At least when the new airport is completed, which is located southeast of Bangkok, it will reduce the travel time to Pattaya by at least half an hour.

 

Emil

[irishman 0]

Once upon a time I did run across a direct flight from either LA or Seattle.  It's been a while and I don't have time to do the search for you but if you try one of the big flight discounters like Orbitz(?) or Stable and just specify "non stop" you should be able to come up with the info you desire.

[Jimmybb 0]

Emil is right, the Boeing 777 can make the trek from USA to BKK no problem.  For whatever reason, however, a stop in Narita or Seoul, or Taipei etc. is the norm, which must be purely financial.  Regards, Jimmy

[Guest]

There are various reasons why the current 777 can't do continental US to BKK in one hop - hence Boeing developing the 777-300ER and 777-200LR.

 

The current engines aren't good enough to carry the maximum payload (fuel and pax/bags) that sort of distance.

 

Twin jet pax aircraft on that route are currently required to have a 3 hour diversion capability built in to the flight calculations.

 

Maximum crew operating time is 14 hours - to do BKK you need 2 complete crews and the accommodation built into the aircraft for the resting crew.

 

There is no problem with existing airport facilities for accepting the new 777 derivatives.  The problem is with the A380 airbus which will effectively be a double-decked aircraft with two lots of doors.

 

Boeing's strategy is developing smaller aircraft to fly greater distances (point-to-point) with the 747-400 doing the shorter (under 14 hours) hub-to-hub routes.

[eltib 54]

There is no problem with existing airport facilities for accepting the new 777 derivatives.  The problem is with the A380 airbus which will effectively be a double-decked aircraft with two lots of doors.

 

Hence partially the need to build a new BKK airport. It will be able to accomodate the A380.

I've seen the plans for LAX, what a mess it is. They have to demolish 3 terminals and all the parking. Plus demolish part of the Bradley International terminal. All that for a plane that turns out to be a big headache. It's hasn't really done so good. Less than 100 orders for the A380.

[Guest]

Hence partially the need to build a new BKK airport. It will be able to accomodate the A380.

I've seen the plans for LAX, what a mess it is. They have to demolish 3 terminals and all the parking. Plus demolish part of the Bradley International terminal. All that for a plane that turns out to be a big headache. It's hasn't really done so good. Less than 100 orders for the A380.

 

Eltib,

 

Any truth in the rumour that you work for Boeing?  I must admit that I prefer the point-to-point concept that Boeing are going with.  SQ are starting a direct service using the 777 from Manchester to Singapore next April - if only Thai would do likewise!

 

Regards,

 

Tom

 

p.s.  Good to meet you on the last trip.  I understand FLB Airlines prefers the Euro version due to the extra length and capacity for extended operations!

[eltib 54]

Eltib,

 

Any truth in the rumour that you work for Boeing?  I must admit that I prefer the point-to-point concept that Boeing are going with.  SQ are starting a direct service using the 777 from Manchester to Singapore next April - if only Thai would do likewise!

 

Regards,

 

Tom

 

p.s.  Good to meet you on the last trip.  I understand FLB Airlines prefers the Euro version due to the extra length and capacity for extended operations!

 

Yep, I do. Work for the defense sector though. And I'd really like to see Boeing build the Sonic Cruiser. Though they aren't going to stimulate any interest unless they keep the cost factor at or below what a A380 costs. Not to mention with technology today, proper aerodynamics can reduce fuel burn, and increase performance. I'm no enginneer, but a B-2 bomber has less drag than any other conventional aircraft.

[Emil 0]

Eltib,

 

Is the Sonic Cruiser the commercial airliner that Boeing is developing that resembles a flying wing?  Before I retired 2 years ago from Air Force (civilian) I was working in the F-22 system program office.  I was quite surprised this year when DOD selected Lockheed Martin for the JSF.

 

Emil

[vegasdave 0]

singapore is now flying non stop to and from Las Vegas.

So I would think that the distance is a not that much of a problem. They are using a 777. For me I just feel safer on a 4 engined larger plane like the 747-400

[Guest]

Vegasdave,

 

I think you will find that SQ9/SQ10 goes via Hong Kong - it is a direct flight (the same aircraft) but not non-stop.

 

Tom

[eltib 54]

Eltib,

 

Is the Sonic Cruiser the commercial airliner that Boeing is developing that resembles a flying wing?  Before I retired 2 years ago from Air Force (civilian) I was working in the F-22 system program office.  I was quite surprised this year when DOD selected Lockheed Martin for the JSF.

 

Emil

 

Emil,

 

That is the BWB(Blended Wing Body) It's just an idea right now. Here is a photo of the sonic cruiser.

[bigdelta 46]

Wow,someone outside the industry actually knows the difference between direct and nonstop.Amzazing.

I may be wrong,but the US might be the only county requiring 180 minute ETOPS.(Quick run and look that up

Tom).

El,they're not going to build the Sonicruiser,right?

John

[Guest]

LTGTR,

 

Sorry to have missed you on my last trip.  I was looking forward to buying you a beer.

 

Tom

[eltib 54]

El,they're not going to build the Sonicruiser,right?

John

 

The newspapers say no, Boeing says it hasn't abandoned plans yet. It's still a viable option along with a 767 type airliner that flys farther than 777-200LR.

[bigdelta 46]

Tom,I'll be there the entire month of April at RG.

John

[redwood13 56]

Here's a link to one man's discussion of ETOPS with pros and cons of time extension.  Interesting stuff.

 

http://www.avweb.com/articles/etopsman/

 

-redwood

[Marky 0]

You guys are what we the UK call anoraks (or train spotters)!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Only joking and keep the info coming!

 

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[echster 1]

 The newspapers say no, Boeing says it hasn't abandoned plans yet. It's still a viable option along with a 767 type airliner that flys farther than 777-200LR.  

 

The Sonic Cruiser has officially been canned by Boeing.  They will introduce some of the properties of the BSC into a newer version of their 767.  Items such as use of composites, an aero package to reduce drag, and an ability to travel farther due to the saved fuel.

[eltib 54]

The Sonic Cruiser has officially been canned by Boeing.  They will introduce some of the properties of the BSC into a newer version of their 767.  Items such as use of composites, an aero package to reduce drag, and an ability to travel farther due to the saved fuel.

 

Yep, I read that in Friday's Boeing News.