As Air Canada launches its third nonstop route to Southeast Asia, is there room for United Airlines to add its own nonstop transpacific flight to Bangkok, especially as Thai Airways considers a return to the United States?
Will We See More Nonstop Flights To Southeast Asia On United Airlines?
United Airlines recently announced new service to Bangkok (BKK) and Ho Chi Minh City (SGN), but not from its West Coast hub in San Francisco as many expected, but from Hong Kong (HKG). These routes will mark a resumption of historic routes that date back to Pan Am (United acquired Pan Am’s Pacific division in 1985).
The economics of operating nonstop service to traditionally low-yield leisure destinations like Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok are daunting, even with fuel-efficient aircraft (like the 787-9) and connecting options (Thai Airways, a Star Alliance member, is hubbed in Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport and offers domestic and regional connections).
Air Canada is not touting its new service to Manila (MNL) and nonstops to Bangkok (BKK) and Singapore (SIN) in terms of business travel, but in terms of Hollywood connections:
Southeast Asia is a dream destination for movie and TV fans. Air Canada’s direct flights bring you to the heart of three of the most sought-after travel destinations in 2025:
-
Thailand – The White Lotus: The breathtaking backdrop of The White Lotus Season 3, Thailand is a paradise of luxury, nature, and culture. Fly nonstop to Bangkok and experience it firsthand.
-
Singapore – Crazy Rich Asians: From the Marina Bay Sands infinity pool to world-class hawker food, Singapore brings the opulence and vibrancy of Crazy Rich Asians to life. With nonstop flights to Singapore, indulge in your own high-society adventure.
-
Manila – The Bourne Legacy: High-speed chases through Manila’s bustling streets made The Bourne Legacy an action-packed spectacle. With nonstop flights from Vancouver to Manila you can dive into the city’s energy, history, and rich culture.
And indeed, many will want to go to Thailand after watching White Lotus or Singapore after watching Crazy Rich Asians…but is that enough to sustain a route? Or even the focus?
We see that United has had a lot of success in Manila, with a second daily nonstop set to launch later this year. When I flew this route I noticed there were many Filipino-Americans onboard: people like to visit friends and family! Air Canada has followed in United’s footsteps in launching its own nonstop service to Manila earlier this month from Vancouver (YVR).
Meanwhile, all indicators suggest Air Canada’s nonstop Vancouver – Bangkok route has been a resounding success: the carrier commands a revenue premium for the nonstop route and has expanded its seasonal service from three times weekly to five times weekly.
Just last week, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reinstated Thailand’s Category 1 International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) rating. Now Thai-based carriers can fly nonstop to the United States.
Will Thai Airways try to resume service to the USA? As late as 2012, Thai flew an Airbus A340-500 from Bangkok to Los Angeles nonstop – then until 2015 flew to LAX via Seoul Incheon. It’s widely thought, however, that the route never made money.
But could a nonstop United flight from San Francisco to Bangkok, with all of United’s connectivity, actually make money? I’d have to imagine that if Patrick Quayle, United’s SVP Global Network Planning and Alliances, and his team thought that it could, it would be launched…
Even so, would United consider such a route just to deter Thai Airways from starting its own?
Or is the better to focus, as American Airlines has done with JAL or Delta Air Lines has done with Korean Air, on funneling passengers to JV partner hubs for onward connectivity?
As Quayle has told me before, sometimes you just have to try a route and see how it does…
CONCLUSION
New aircraft and changing travel patterns have opened up more opportunities for nonstop flights between North America and Southeast Asia. Even so, the economics of these routes are difficult and I would be surprised to see Thai Airways resume direct service to the USA and think that United’s experiment to Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City via Hong Kong (or Cebu and Ulaanbaatar via Tokyo Narita) represent the realities of limited demand and yields on nonstop flights.
image: Air Canada
Makes me wonder if NH has to give their blessings to UA, if they’re to start a non-stop US-BKK flight with feeder flights to TG. Even though transiting SIN is a better experience than BKK, I’d rather connect via BKK to other SE Asian countries due to a shorter flight time.
IIRC, the JV between UA and NH is for all Asian routes?
I truly doubt ANA need UAL blessings prior to starting NRT-MEX service. The same logic applies to UAL’s double daily non-stop routes like SFO-ICN, SFO-TPE.
More service to Southeast Asia and India is plausible because United cannot compete with North Asia (ANA, JAL, EVA Air, Starlux, Cathay Pacific).
Southeast Asia has weak competition except Singapore Airlines. Malaysia has decent service but is a weak airline.
The same for Europe before. Years ago, the European carriers were better than the US, except Italy was weak. Italy is still weak which is why US carriers can go there. The US 3 are now not so inferior to the big European carriers. True, some differences but not that much.
why not try some flights from the Guam hub instead of flying from HKG?
For one, we are not subject to the whims of Winnie the Pooh when flying from Guam
and as an aside, can I PLEASE type what I am thinking without having to do 100 edits per post. This has been an issue since my stroke 3 years ago!
LAX-BKK would seem to make more sense than SFO-BKK. The Thai ex-pat community in LA is the largest outside of Asia with nearly 100k people. SF is a fraction of that. And while SFO does have slightly better connectivity than LAX, there are still nonstops from LAX to every other major market in the country.
I’d personally love to see that flight as I visit Bangkok at least once a year. I’m already booked on the 1-stop through HKG in December but a nonstop would be amazing.
what UA does is probably less about profitability and more about status and trying to block competitors.
For about a decade, DL has been operating its TPAC network at a higher margin than UA’s even though DL’s is half the size of UA’s.
UA is most likely to make decisions about expansion based on the availability of new 787s and whether they can restore some of the routes that were dropped due to Russian airspace closure as a result of the embargo.
If Trump really succeeds at brokering a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine and Russian airspace reopens to western airlines, there will be a mad dash by many carriers with UA at the front to restart and start routes from the east coast to East and South Asia and the west coast to the Middle East that are not viable or operationally possible w/ Russian airspace off limits
The tags onto HKG that they just announced accomplish much of what they need in SE Asia w/ little aircraft commitment.
DL does start receiving the A350-1000s next year and has said they will be used to help DL push further into Asia so UA is undoubtedly going to do anything it can to limit DL’s success in parts of the world that UA sees as its own.
What new routes do you think DL would be looking to try once it has the A350-1000s?
I don’t know about specific routes but I would think that a return to SIN and BOM are both on DL’s radar.
SQ is the only carrier serving LAX-SIN and UA is very likely thinking about using its high J 787s on LAX-SIN.
DL could also serve SIN from JFK; I think they have figured out with HND, ICN and PVG that the Eastern US generates TPAC yields as good as or better than from the west coast. And DL is stronger in the eastern US than UA.
They could do more routes from the eastern US now with the 359 but the 35K has better labor economics and greater cargo and passenger capacity even if the fuel burn per seat is about the same for the two 350 models.
Tim, saying DL is half the size of UA across the Pacific is false, DL is a fraction of UA’s size across the Pacific. In fact, UA’s SFO hub has a larger TPAC network alone than all of DL’s hubs TPAC routes combined.
And talking about profitability, why don’t you look into SEA-TPE? It’s bleeding cash.
DL can want to grow TPAC as much as they want, but at the end of the day they don’t have the right hubs for it. They know LAX is too crowded of a market, so they tried to build out SEA. And while I don’t think SEA would have worked regardless, now with AS entering long haul SEA has no chance. LAX and SEA are not SFO.
A route like LAX-PPT is a perfect example. Can only work from SFO.
Jared,
the size of US airline networks is well known because they are reported on their very public financial statements.
UA is twice the size of DL across the Pacific which is twice the size of AA.
DL’s size to Europe is about the same size as UA’s.
DL makes more money flying its international network than UA does. Those numbers come directly from DOT data which the airlines provide.
If you don’t think those numbers are right, then tell us how they should be restated – but the total has to remain the same – which simply means that if you want to tell us that UA makes more flying the Pacific, then the profits have to come from another region which has to be domestic.
UA has always been more focused on size and status than maximizing profitability. DL and UA get pretty comparable amounts of revenue in markets where they are similarly sized.
SFO is a great asset but the vast majority of UA’s TPAC network operates from there; DL manages to fly to ICN and HND from 3 hubs that are not on the west coast and DTW is the only city in the eastern US that currently has 3 US carrier destinations to E. Asia.
DL isn’t trying to duplicate what UA has at SFO; DL is generating the highest profits.
and, yes, DL can and will grow faster than UA to Asia; they just did in the 1st quarter.
And DL has a more fuel efficient fleet flying the Pacific – it is almost entirely A350s and the A350-1000 will be far more capable and efficient than anything in UA’s fleet. UA’s TPAC fleet includes 777s that burn $15-30k more fuel each way across the Pacific than DL’s 350s.
those are just facts even though they are very threatening to many people.
And let’s not forget that UA is benefitting from about $1 billion less in labor costs because of their multiple amendable labor agreements. Virtually all non-pilot unionized UA employees – 65,000 employees represented by 6 labor groups -will have amendable labor groups by the summer.
yes, DL is regrowing the Pacific, UA will either cling to size or watch its profits relative to DL fall or use alot of the 787s it has on order to retire older aircraft and at least put the 777s on the Atlantic and to S. America where the fuel burn difference is not as great.
I’d suspect that if a really low yield destination like Manila warrants a second daily flight then Bangkok nonstop is an absolute no-brainer. Ever since United bought Pan Am’s Pacific Division, United’s strength has been flying to Asia. Since Delta has been milquetoast about ramping up Asia flights and American has drastically reduced rather than increased Pacific flights, United is clearly in the best position to utilize their position of strength there. More flights and trying new destinations simply makes sense.
One would hope that TG could operate the non-stop LAX-BKK route a bit more efficiently now. I flew that route a few times back in the day when it operated. That plane was horribly configured with angle flat J seats and they often utilized one of the A340’s they had with a First Class…though they didn’t offer first class. It took up a fairly large part of the forward section and only once did I see anyone in it and he was in full military uniform with regalia…assuming some high ranking official. Even the J cabin was half full most times. This was around 2006-07 days.
As a regular flyer to MNL I can tell you that everyone is grateful for this UA service. Not only is it affordably priced in J but you can see it is successful by how full the plane is. This was a stroke of genius.
Even IF I’d prefer ANY regular Asian Carrier ahead of US.
DL could potentially launch SEA-BKK non-stop to replicate AC’s recently launched YVR-BKK route.
Good luck to AC.