DumFarang

Thai Airways runs a pretty tight ship, but you know there are always those people who get a gold nugget and they say, "Oh, I was expecting a gold necklace. Can I have that instead?"

I own a business, and I can safely say that there are customers who will simply never be happy. There's just not a product that meets their needs. For the majority of us who don't fall into the "I'm impossible to please category" Thai Air is doing a pretty good job.

If you're the type of person who asks for something and when they bring it you smile and thank them then Thai Air will probably work for you. However, if you're the type who asks for something and upon receiving thinks, "has this person made me feel special, like a unique snowflake" as you are frowning at them then Thai Air may not be for you.

The first Thai Airways flight I was ever on seemed pretty nice to me, but there was this old German couple that had a problem. It was a one hour quickie from Bkk to Krabi, and drinks were served once along with snacks. By this time, when people were finishing, we were going to be on the ground in like 15 or 20 min. Suddenly these Germans call a stewardess over, who was very polite, and they started bitching her out, I mean hard. They felt so entitled and so angry. The reason: everybody on the plane was served one drink.

Now that I think about it, I believe that flight takes less than an hour. Having one drink is all that makes sense really. So anyway, this couple keeps bitching, "this is Thai Airways...this is supposed to be a world class airline..." blah blah blah so forth and so on. While everybody on the plane was just thinking, "shut the hell up you whiners."

Anyway, I thought the staff handled those two middle aged toddlers quite well. I can tell you that the only problem Thai Airways had was having to deal with these two snobs. The rest was just a problem with that's bound to occur anytime stupid people open their mouths or attempt to do anything. For me that incident is actually what makes Thai airways a good airline. You can have the newest planes on Earth and the flashiest everything, but top rank airlines like Thai train their staff very well and teach them good customer service, and it makes all the difference.

So they are better then Lufthansa, Air France, KLM all American airlines etc.. they must be blind or on drugs at Sky trax.

My comment:

1. American Airlines - did about 10 flights with them over two year period until one year back (no choice of airlines - company contract), Tokyo to Houston, worst trips I ever did, cabin crew average age about 65, passengers just a nuisance, every request became a complex issue, unbelievable time involved to get meals to every passenger, a couple of flights I requested a small bottle of white wine (not free, and it turned out to be crap) when the meal tray was delivered to my seat. Initial response was confusiion and comments like 'not sure if i'll be able to handle that, my colleagues are really busy' etc etc., plus a look on the atendants face which meant 'do you want to cancel the order?' It was served about 30 minutes after the trays had been taken back.

2. Re Thai: ".........second place for Best Airline Ground Services category ........" This must be must be a mistake in their data. The attitude of check-in staff and any other ground staff is apalling. Staff in their business class lounges at swampy are simply lazy. Initial response to most question is a total blank look, and it takes 10 explanations of simple matters to get some simple understanding, then standard response is mai dai.

So, when you're in Swampy the Thai Airways staff speak Thai with you? Hmmm. Are you Thai? Then I would believe you.

You doubting Thomases are not alone......

These folks are convinced that Skytrax (research group) filters responses, see this link and scroll down http://airlinersindi...ftopic9408.html

http://www.airliners...d.main/3635097/

http://www.businesst...e-they-for-real

http://boardingarea....tar-airline-is/

Shocker, a corporation performing a large, complex set of tasks has critics. Who'd a thunk?

No problem being better than an airline from The states. I refuse to fly any US airline on international flights and I am from the US.

I'll second that. Although I did fly on Virgin America fro LAX to DFW. Very nice.

But Virgin, while being American by law, is Sir Richard Branson's brainchild. It's British. There's just a law in the U.S. that foreign investors can't own the majority of an airline based in the U.S.

Terribly small seats in economy- no IFE, even in buisness on many flights. Plus THAI has some of the oldest stewardesses in the industry- and for some reason they put them all in buisness class- so businessmen who paid a premium for buisness class get served by hostesses who literally look like their mothers while economy class gets the hotties:)

Oldest stewardesses in the industry? Have you ever been on an intl. flight on an American airline, my god, thanks for the beer granny.

I've never flown Qatar airlines, but since it's number one, at least in this survey, I just checked prices on Kayak for BKK to IAD (Wash DC). For business class, one-way, on Sept 21, it's $3269. One stop (Doha), with 3 hour layover. This beats all in price but Eva/China/US Air, thru Taipei and LA, for $2900. But, the additional stop, plus no lie-flat seats, isn't worth the savings. If I wanted one-stop, and lie-flat seats, United's business class has now been refitted -- and the layover (Tokyo) is about the same as Doha. However, the price is $1300 more than Qatar. Plus, Qatar's seats are bigger (78 vs 55 pitch, 22 vs 20.5 width), their IFE is better advertised, AND it really is quasi first class, as Qatar, unlike UA, has no first class, so its business class is as good as it gets. (Oh, first class, BKK to IAD on UA, is *only* $8000. I'd choke putting that much out -- and for less service, no doubt.)

Mileage going thru Doha is almost the same as going the other way, thru Tokyo. But, it is a couple hours longer due to jet stream. No big deal, in a comfortable seat, with a good movie and a martini.

Anyway, I mention all this because, at my age, flying coach half way 'round the world no longer works. Plus, I'm 99.9% sure our money will outlive us, so why would I want to scrimp so that my nephews and nieces get even more of my money.

Anyway, at least to the US East Coast, Qatar seems like a great deal, particularly if the service is as advertised. (The coach fare is $1141, complete, -- the lowest I found on Orbitz.)

Thai Air to Washington DC? $5053 business class. Seats are quasi lie flat (almost flat, at 170 degrees). One-stop (LA) -- but it's for over 8 hours. Then you catch a UA 319, where you get a first class recliner seat. Coach? $5053. Both options are laughable.

Your laughable options represent a small percentage of the plane and a small percentage of people. Good points though, just not points most of us care about.

So they are better then Lufthansa, Air France, KLM all American airlines etc.. they must be blind or on drugs at Sky trax.

You've got to be kidding. Everytime I get on an airline from the U.S. I cringe at how rude they are. One woman almost chewed me out when I asked for another cup of water, she was barely able to control herself. Obviously it was a bad day for her, but that would only happen on any Asian airline after lots of pushing, and finally pushing them too far. The American intl. flights usually have nice seating and things like TV's with touch screens on the all the seat backs, but the staff just utterly ruin it. I doubt this survey failed to note that too.

This is not my own opinion but that of my Thai wife. She has flown Thai a few times betwen BKK and LHR and after the last flight vowed never to use them again. Old planes, poor IFE and seating, terrible food and poor service are her reasons. Those ranked below 5th must be utterly appalling if her experience is accurate.

Sorry to say she's not accurate. I was actually surprised to see Asiana ahead of Thai. I've flown on both and, while both are quite good, I thought Thai had a slight edge on Asiana.

No doubt jails, state prisons and Federal Penitentiaries are generally horrific places to be but it is almost certain that these people are going to a minimum security federal prison 'camp' where they can receive graduate degrees in much shorter time than on the outside while also not paying for the education. They will receive well well balanced meals and live better than many people in the US including likely having access to such things as cable TV and tennis courts not to mention gyms. Lets not forget these folks also appear to be able to keep the millions upon millions of dollars they made off of forcing these folks into slavery.

I believe there needs to be serious prison reform in the US as well as curbing the number of people sentenced to time BUT this sentence is ridiculous and incredibly unfair to people being sentenced to much longer sentences for doing much less harm. The ring leader got convicted of forced labor as if he did this to one person and not 600. In another words under Federal Sentencing guidelines somebody who committed forced labor on 1 person will receive this same sentence. But again, the real joke is the lack of restitution to the victims and the state and letting these scum keep their illegal profits which I doubt they paid any tax on either.

Definitely valid points all if these guys essentially get sent to a fenced in country club. But, has it been stated anywhere where they are being jailed?

Based on numerous factors it is pretty much a guarantee they will NOT do time in a Federal Penitentiary (max. security) and will serve their sentence out in a minimum security (called a camp) facility with white collar criminals. The minimum security facilities don't even have cells, it is dormitory style living and they can pretty much walk away (escape) any time they want. They also will have about 15% of their sentence reduced for good time. Keep in mind this is The Federal Prison system and they don't have jails. They only have what they term Detention Facilities (bad places) where you are held before sentencing and then basically 4 levels of the Prison System .. minimum, low, medium and high security.

The way they determine where you are housed is based on a point system .. example, if you don't have a High School Diploma it adds 2 points and if your offense is minor you get 0 points but depending on the severity of the crime it could add up to 7 points while not having a criminal past will give you 0 points but having an extensive criminal past can get you 10 points. To be sentenced to a a camp you simply need to be below 11 points. Oh, and they even consider things like age .. somebody under 25 gets 6 points while somebody over 55 gets 0 points.

In other words, they try to keep the worst prisons reserved for the poor minorities who are young and lack an education and often stopped by the police and cannot afford a lawyer to take what should be at least 600 charges of abuse and get it down to basically 1 white collar crime when all is said and done.

Well, I think we're all in agreement that it's a system badly in need of reform. I also heard that, in some cases anyway, prison labor is a multi-billion dollar business that basically doesn't have to pay its staff. We used to call it indentured servitude or sometimes slavery, right?

I've noticed on forums like this that the layman usually comes up with the harshest punishment imaginable for most crimes. It actually makes me glad that that there are lawmakers, judges, etc. who see the right path and come up with fairer sentences.

I don't think the average person has a concept of what even a day in prison is like. We're talking about regular people who aren't hardened ending up sobbing like a little girl after day one. Most criminals go into jail as dangerous people and come out worse. And, that's not even touching on the "Bubba" effect, know what I mean?

I think if somebody gets 3, 4, or 5 years in one of these places they can easily come out very wrecked. And, don't forget that many of these people can't get work after leaving prison and they end up right back in there.

It's a pretty nasty thing to get sentenced like that, nasty enough that many people feel that it should be different b/c the harshness of it doesn't seem to do anybody any good, only harm.

Think about it.

+1.

Having both worked in U.S. jails, and had loved ones incarcerated, I can say you are absolutely right. Sadly you will not likely find rational debate on this subject in a forum such as this. It's known that after about the 10 year mark people are usually not able to return to a functional, normal life again. People tend to only focus on the "punishment" wishing suffering on the prisoner with no thought about what is to come of them after they are released. Education of prisoners seems abhorrent to many. Very short term thinking.

Interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth as it were. Let's hope the guys who did this don't come out of prison as even worse criminals.

No doubt jails, state prisons and Federal Penitentiaries are generally horrific places to be but it is almost certain that these people are going to a minimum security federal prison 'camp' where they can receive graduate degrees in much shorter time than on the outside while also not paying for the education. They will receive well well balanced meals and live better than many people in the US including likely having access to such things as cable TV and tennis courts not to mention gyms. Lets not forget these folks also appear to be able to keep the millions upon millions of dollars they made off of forcing these folks into slavery.

I believe there needs to be serious prison reform in the US as well as curbing the number of people sentenced to time BUT this sentence is ridiculous and incredibly unfair to people being sentenced to much longer sentences for doing much less harm. The ring leader got convicted of forced labor as if he did this to one person and not 600. In another words under Federal Sentencing guidelines somebody who committed forced labor on 1 person will receive this same sentence. But again, the real joke is the lack of restitution to the victims and the state and letting these scum keep their illegal profits which I doubt they paid any tax on either.

Definitely valid points all if these guys essentially get sent to a fenced in country club. But, has it been stated anywhere where they are being jailed?

I've noticed on forums like this that the layman usually comes up with the harshest punishment imaginable for most crimes. It actually makes me glad that that there are lawmakers, judges, etc. who see the right path and come up with fairer sentences.

I don't think the average person has a concept of what even a day in prison is like. We're talking about regular people who aren't hardened ending up sobbing like a little girl after day one. Most criminals go into jail as dangerous people and come out worse. And, that's not even touching on the "Bubba" effect, know what I mean?

I think if somebody gets 3, 4, or 5 years in one of these places they can easily come out very wrecked. And, don't forget that many of these people can't get work after leaving prison and they end up right back in there.

It's a pretty nasty thing to get sentenced like that, nasty enough that many people feel that it should be different b/c the harshness of it doesn't seem to do anybody any good, only harm.

Think about it.

+1.

Having both worked in U.S. jails, and had loved ones incarcerated, I can say you are absolutely right. Sadly you will not likely find rational debate on this subject in a forum such as this. It's known that after about the 10 year mark people are usually not able to return to a functional, normal life again. People tend to only focus on the "punishment" wishing suffering on the prisoner with no thought about what is to come of them after they are released. Education of prisoners seems abhorrent to many. Very short term thinking.

Interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth as it were. Let's hope the guys who did this don't come out of prison as even worse criminals.

I've noticed on forums like this that the layman usually comes up with the harshest punishment imaginable for most crimes. It actually makes me glad that that there are lawmakers, judges, etc. who see the right path and come up with fairer sentences.

I don't think the average person has a concept of what even a day in prison is like. We're talking about regular people who aren't hardened ending up sobbing like a little girl after day one. Most criminals go into jail as dangerous people and come out worse. And, that's not even touching on the "Bubba" effect, know what I mean?

I think if somebody gets 3, 4, or 5 years in one of these places they can easily come out very wrecked. And, don't forget that many of these people can't get work after leaving prison and they end up right back in there.

It's a pretty nasty thing to get sentenced like that, nasty enough that many people feel that it should be different b/c the harshness of it doesn't seem to do anybody any good, only harm.

Think about it.

That is disgusting and you would not think that 600 goes to farm in USA so easy.Getting in the country so easy as long in the company of Americans.4 to 5years in prison is a Joke.

However, 4-5 years is a long time to constantly look over your shoulder for fear of the next butt raping session, random beating, or possible stabbing.

I'm a victim. I was born with this terrible growth between my legs. Don't you understand? I need help to get it removed. I'm the victim!

March 18, 2020

Rueters

Cambodian courts today jailed 51 year old, James Alger, a British national, for 8 years after he was convicted of having sex with a 41 year old prostitute.

The victims chidren, both in their 20s, said their mother was shocked to find that her short-time partner was over 50, as he had assured her he was only 45.

Alert staff at the 5 star hotel where he was staying recounted seeing him bring the woman back to the hotel and then alerting police. "We were amazed that he would have the audacity to take a woman back to his room when he must have known we saw his age on his passport upon check in". Police colonel Syet Sor said he regretted not being able to break into the room in time to stop the act happening.

Alger's 25 year old daugher expressed horror at her fathers behaviour after the sentencing, but laid some of the blame with British lawmakers who last year voted down the "mandatory castration for men at age 50" bill for those who intend travelling overseas.

Ridiculous!................. 41 + 51 = 8 yrs. .. Castration before enterin' Cambodia is OK for all Foreigners. I'll support otherwise there will be many cases similar to Alger's. By now, I think they are serious from what we can see here.

You are not very bright are you? Anybody with an ounce of common sense would recognise this post as a parody. Borrow a dictionary and look up sarcasm.

Sorry, but anyone old enough to collect a pension should not be making babies (unless you are retired at 30 from professional sports). That is terribly unfair to the child, who deserves to have their father around and healthy enough to raise them well into adulthood, and the wife, who should not be burdened to be a widow AND a single mother. Never mind all the studies linking autism and countless other health issues to children born from older parents. Humans were not meant to breed past a certain age for many good reasons. It is just pure selfishness on behalf of the parents. If you are that desperate to have kids, there are millions of unwanted children starving or being neglected in the world, and your DNA is just not that special, anyway.

And to listen to everyone completely ignore the notion of human trafficking and forced prostitution is proof enough why Cambodia does need this law, to protect those poor women from all the predators that are already in SE Asia.

Seems the creator had a plan by stopping women from having babies after menopause. So far so good we agree. But I guess you took over the role of the creator when it comes to men.

What would you do sterilize men after the age of 50?

Jack O'Sullivan, co-founder of Fathers Direct argues that the advantages to late fatherhood outweigh the disadvantages. "Research shows that old fathers are three times more likely to take regular responsibility for a young child. They are more likely to be fathers by choice and this means that they become more positively involved with the child. They behave more like mothers, smiling at the baby and gurgling ."

Celebrity older fathers include: Tony Blair (at 45), Ken Livingstone (at 57), Mick Hucknall (at 47), David Bowie (at 53), Mick Jagger (at 57), Phil Collins (at 51), Rupert Murdoch (at 72), Michael Douglas (at 58), Des O'Connor (at 72), Gordon Brown (at 54), Rod Stewart (at 60), Paul McCartney (at 61), David Jason (61), Eric Clapton (at 59), John Humphrys (at 56), John Simpson (at 61), Julio Iglesias Sr. (father of the singer Julio, at 89), Charlie Chaplin (at 73), Augustus John (at 47), Saul Bellow (at 84), Anthony Quinn (at 81) Pablo Picasso (at 68) and Luciano Pavarotti (twins at 67), Jonathan Dimbleby (at 62), David Letterman (at 56), Larry King (at 65 and 66), Woody Allen (at 51), Warren Beatty (at 62), and Jack Nicholson (at 53), Mike Oldfield (at 54), Rick Parfitt (at 59), Van Morrison (allegedly at 64), Kevin Costner (at 55), Rod Stewart (will be father at 66), Kelsey Grammer (will be father at 55), Ritchie Blackmore (father at 65).

Creator? Sir, are you a freemason by chance?

Good

Serves you old pervs right and we might hear less rip off cases .... which get just as old.

I always have to laugh when I hear this sort of comment coming from some young perv, who perhaps thinks his still being young makes him any less a perv. The joke is on you my friend, because, as hard as it may be for you to comprehend, you will will actually be an old man yourself, and it won't be such a long time from now. With every year, you will find that time passes more quickly. It flies by, and then, if you are lucky enough to still have a sex drive, and still have an appreciation of young women, and the money to indulge it, then you, too, will be an old perv. So any shots you take at the "old pervs," will come round back to you. In the big picture, you are only shooting at yourself. And if you really, then, look at yourself as an "old perv," then fine you can feel miserable and berate yourself for enjoying the charms of young ladies. Too bad for you. As for me, I am loving it!

Yeah Sam666's comment is just retarded.

It reminds me of when I was a teenager and thought I was right about everything, and that, naturally, all the stupid, old people were absolutely wrong. Thank god I was around elders who simply smirked and let me walk into every trap. It was good for me, and I'm stronger and wiser because of it.

Sorry, but anyone old enough to collect a pension should not be making babies (unless you are retired at 30 from professional sports). That is terribly unfair to the child, who deserves to have their father around and healthy enough to raise them well into adulthood, and the wife, who should not be burdened to be a widow AND a single mother. Never mind all the studies linking autism and countless other health issues to children born from older parents. Humans were not meant to breed past a certain age for many good reasons. It is just pure selfishness on behalf of the parents. If you are that desperate to have kids, there are millions of unwanted children starving or being neglected in the world, and your DNA is just not that special, anyway.

And to listen to everyone completely ignore the notion of human trafficking and forced prostitution is proof enough why Cambodia does need this law, to protect those poor women from all the predators that are already in SE Asia.

Should this be drafted into international law or something? It sounds like you have a pretty specific ethos concerning this. Maybe it should even go as far as to say old people just shouldn't be having sex, period.

Someone in an earlier post gave an eloquent description of how he was raised primarily by his grandfather who obviously didn't last well into his adult years. This was as a result of his grandfather having ample time and his parents being quite busy so often. You should backtrack and find it. I think it debunks your statement about middle aged people taking care of kids quite effectively.

Of course you are right about couples who are advanced in years having children in relation to autism etc., however I think this gets cut down considerably or negated when the mother is still youthful, but the father is older. I've seen evidence of it both ways. When the mother is older there seems to be a higher probability of some sort of problem, however, from what I've seen, the kids from an older father and young mother turn out just fine.

As far as morality goes, I can't see where you get your ideas on this issue. Some people just get the chance to start a family late in life. It happens. If you were talking about parents who are still too young I might see your point, but it seems to me that with an older parent the kid is more likely to be in good hands, as well as receiving a nice monetary buffer in the last will and testament left behind. Many aren't so lucky.

Listen.I'm married to a very good Thai woman, making a joke about Thais, you're making a joke about my family and friends. Shut up!:jap:

He wasn't making a joke about Thais, merely stating Thailand's reputation around the World.

Exactly, he wasn't joking man. I think he was making the comment that the international image is that a man with a Thai woman is also with a prostitute. Sorry if it offends you, but this image does exist. I'm married to a Thai woman as well, with a son, but I don't take offense to this comment. It's just the way it is and, hey, look around. There are a lot of prostitutes and ladyboys for that matter.

So we have a site called THAIvisa in a forum that is called THAIland news and there is a topic about Cambodia?

Seems strange but understandable because it will attract the most visitors, going against 'forum rules' in that case is acceptable?

Regionally it's quite valid news, though, considering that Thailand and Cambodia are so similar in this regard. An evolution of the law could get proposed here, although I doubt it, or the results of said law in Cambodia could affect the political landscape here due to the subject matter. So, yes, it seems quite valid to me.

Oh Gawd I am finally in demand. Im only 47!!

Man, you are going to get laid every night!

I don't see why you should be flamed even though I don't agree with you. I cant speak for Thai women as I am gay but my partner and I have been in civil partnership for 5 years now - there is a 40 year age gap but he would not have it any other way and does not find younger guys attractive - in much the same way as I don't find guys of 40 and 50 attractive. In asian culture there is I believe a different attitude towards age - sure some are money boys and girls and older guys make for less effort on their part. But after 5 years together the mutual attraction between us is as strong as it ever was. My partner is also attracted to overweight guys - everyone has preferences that should be respected. We were both adult when me met and I would hate to think of a government telling us whether we could marry or not.

Even where marriages are not quite as genuine there is still often mutual respect with the younger person happy to please their partner and the older partner happy to make provision for them after they die. In those situations it is a mutually beneficial relationship which hurts no one.

I believe that much of the trafficking is actually undertaken by much younger more attractive guys who are working for gangs anyway.

that's why i said for the wrong reasons. no doubt there are happily married couples with big age differences, but i'm also sure that for every 1 happy couple, there are 9 only about sex and money. i've met many couples where the husband is 60 or so and has a wife covered in back tattoos who's around 20, sometimes pushing around a baby stroller. and when i look at those women, i can tell they're not happy. i know this is not what you meant, but yes, there is mutual respect, guy gets laid, girl gets money.

They may or may not be happy man, who knows? You know a lot of people in our western countries have the luxury of saying things like, "money isn't everything" and "money can't buy you love." If you look at a lot of people in S.E. Asia how is a statement like that going to make any sense to them at all when all they've ever know is hardly having any money? It's simply not an easy situation to point at and pick apart. You might have seen a woman in a bad mood. Likely as not she grew up in a glorified pile of sticks in Isaan or something. Ask her if she wants to be able to afford a stroller or go back to her pile of sticks surrounded by farms. Likely as not she'll take the latter, whatever it entails. Or, maybe she's just on the journey of life, and is discovering that money and happiness aren't necessarily linked. I say let 'em live and learn, and some might truly find happiness.

and that's my point exactly, they get married not out of love, but to get away from the pile of sticks. and a large number of men come here because they know they can emotionally "blackmail" girls they like into staying with them because they have an asset, their money.

Well we are still dealing with human beings here, despite some being brown and some white. Human nature always prevails. It'll likely correct itself one day. At no point in human history has one group taken advantage of another ad infinitum. Live and learn, it's the better way.

What ever the motives may be, i know that many Thai men resent and feel they are losing face because Thai women find them repulsive in their ways, they have the opportunity to chose a so called better and easier life,with a farang, high ranking officials,probably feel thay are being seen as dickless and inadiquate to fulfill a womans desires, and are really pissed off,...just a thought...

So why these "repulsive" straight Thai men do not get things right. Shower, shave, stop drinking etc... They are repulsive indeed.

What Thai men do you guys regularly come across? I'm a relatively hygienic person, but I've found that Thai people in general take it to another level. I haven't met hardly any Thai men who don't shave and bathe regularly (often two showers per day), not to mention keeping neat, pressed clothes. I usually look like a slob by comparison b/c I don't really care if I skip shaving for a couple days.

What I've noticed is that a very solid percentage of Thai men just don't commit to a woman very well. Okay, yeah, they drink, maybe gamble too, but I drink also. Big deal. More than anything I've seen Thai women get fed up with the men due to infidelity, and then just get to throw on the drinking etc. onto the pile of complaints. I don't know maybe I'm surrounded by proper Thais. Perhaps I should try living in the country for a while.