rajyindee

So basically you have it wrong.

I went to the airport with what I thought was a reasonable amount of luggage, one suitcase and a laptop bag, which I would not have been charged extra for if I had flown with TA. Was not even aware of the stupid excess baggage rule.

Had I known AirAsia were going to charge me for the privilege of carrying this luggage I would have just gone with TA.

You must have gone through the process to deselect any baggage allowance when you made the booking.

They most certainly do fly to Australia, incl Sydney, Melbourne, and 4 other cities!

No they don't. AirAsia X flies to Australia ... that's the airline you connect to in KL. Different airline and different airline code (AK for Thai AirAsia and D7 for AirAsia X). What's exorbitant about the fuel surcharge?

I suspect that the launch in January of Thai Lion Airways was another contributory factor.

Their fleet is building rapidly, they undercut TAA on the routes they have started operating thus far, and include 15 kgs of luggage & seat-selection within the price.

Their Thai-base is also DMK, so it's head-to-head competition, all good for us customers !

At what point do you do the seat selection ... it's not offered during the booking process?

...and this Aussie is rapidly losing interest in an airline which charges such exorbitant fuel surcharges.

Over $70.00 each way to Australia!!

Thai AirAsia doesn't fly to Australia ... only as far as KL (with zero fuel surcharges). It's a different airline responsible for your long-haul flight (and fuel surcharges).

the only positive with ''Air Asia'' is most of there Aircrafts, are new.....

I dont find them cheap at all...

What do you consider "cheap"?

I suspect Air Asia's Thailand business was down partly b/c of the political crisis and partly b/c Nok Air is simply beating them out for quality and value. I fly somewhere domestically almost every month and always book whichever airline is cheapest: 9 times out of 10 it's Nok Air. Doesn't always appear so at first but when you factor in Air Asia's checked bag charge, Nok usually wins. Nok also let's you pre-select seats for free and gives you a snack on board. It's a consistently better experience than Air Asia, in my opinion.

Thai Air Asia's add on fees are similar to Nok's. The only difference is that Air Asia's are optional (bags, seat selection), whereas Nok's are compulsory (airport tax, insurance, admin fee and VAT).

t

Section 43

(400-1000B)

No driver shall drive the vehicle:

a.

while being incompetent to drive

b.

while being intoxicated by liquor or other alcoholi

c drinks

c.

in a manner that obstructs the traffic

d.

with carelessness or recklessness which may cause d

anger to persons or property

e.

in a manner not normally practiced in driving a veh

icle or while unable to see the

way in front or at the back or either/both sides cl

early enough for safety

f.

beyond or on the line dividing traffic lanes, excep

t upon changing lanes, turning or

turning around the vehicle

g.

on a footpath without sufficient cause, except a ba

by-carriage or wheel-chair for

sick or disabled persons

h.

without thinking about the safety or suffering of o

ther persons.

ha ha taken from http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf

Are we meant to circle the correct answer?

Hmmm...so the Muslim men in Malaysia saunter into Thailand's southern border towns for hanky-panky; a big no-no in Muslim culture. And the Muslims are "hellbent" on turning these Thai border provinces into an Islamic state....so just where will these Muslim men go for hanky-panky if this transition to an Islamic state is successful??? At the very least, they really need to think this through a bit more carefully...

Most of the 'weekend tourists' are Chinese and Indian Malaysians. Same as Betong and Danok.

Mr Pongpat... a lot of good those ill gotten billions and artefact doing you now huh?

I bet you would have swapped those in a heart beat just to be back home again

sleeping in your own bed right?

I doubt that he's going to reply to you.

What channels for this weekend's games?

Is the Scotland - Tonga game on?

SC

Same as last week - 669. England v Tonga and Ireland v Australia appear to be the 'live" games. You can check with the programme guide.

I don't but it looks likely they will. They hate us ...

To be fair, so does every other country on the planet. Why single out the Jocks?

I don't agree. That's why Heathrow is one of the busiest airports on the very same planet. Tourists don't really go to places they hate.

It's not the place, just the folk.

But even the ones who hate us, don't hate us as passionately as the scots do.

I think the Scots are just much more focussed, whereas the English hate just about everybody, including the Jocks.

I don't but it looks likely they will. They hate us ...

To be fair, so does every other country on the planet. Why single out the Jocks?

" Absolutely Bugger All " -oh and another fabulous afternoon on the beach again today ( perched on my rock with 4 oranges and cool tunes from The Boomtown Rats) " Fabulous "

Sounds like one of the inhabitants of Khao Tang Kuan in Songkhla.

As I said, only one person on this forum has ever mentioned the "Anglo Siamese Treaty of 1902". You, and you alone. Oh, and you can cut out the personal crap.

Nope if you read all over this forum including the general forum people always mention only the anglo siamese treaty of 1902 only.

Examples? There's no need to read, there's a perfectly good search function.

I mean people in this forum probably you.

Could you care to elaborate?

You just take one small post and then post it to me without saying anything else trying to be a "smartass" so to speak.

As I said, only one person on this forum has ever mentioned the "Anglo Siamese Treaty of 1902". You, and you alone. Oh, and you can cut out the personal crap.

in post 13 i meant occupied in the early 1700s more than 200 years. of course thais were know as siamese back then so pls dont use some cheap bs technicality.

you mean to tell me prior to 1909 they were independent and not under thai/siamese rule?

proof pls and not from your ass.

I mean exactly what I wrote. They were not part of Thailand, as you claimed. What's so difficult to understand?

You see the key issue here is people always posting about the anglo siamese treaty of 1902

People? Who, exactly? The only person who has mentioned it on this forum is your good self.

Fabulous weather here in Pattaya! I have been on the beach all afternoon sunbathing on the rocks with some " cool tunes " not a cloud in the sky and with a gentle breeze ... " fabulous " F.J x

I have never really understood what is so fabulous about sunny skies. It is boring, and it is hot. Clouds, storms, rain, wind, now that is great weather. Guess I spent too many years in Los Angeles, which has some of the flattest, more boring weather in the world. My friends would always say what a beautiful day it was, and I would ask why? Because it is sunny?

I love the sunshine and the " outdoor lifestyle " that Thailand offers! (and 20 years living in the Canary islands before) Nice long 15 km daily walks in the morning sun followed by afternoons on the beach.... Love it!

What have your walks or lack of clouds over Pattaya Beach got to do with southern Thailand?

Ban Prakob (Nathawi District of Songkhla Province)-Kota Putra - Malaysia Border?

Also learn how to read the title of a thread. Did UK give those states to thailand?

Your claim in the OP was that prior to 1909 the southernmost provinces were part of Thailand. They weren't.

"The southernmost states have been under thai rule for a significant long amount of time and prior to 1909 they were obviously under thai rule that is they were a part of thailand"

By post 13, you were claiming they were "occupied" by Thailand. Make up your mind. That's the problem when you read Wiki and then ignore the references.

At the end of the day those southern states of thailand have been occupied by the thais themselves ...

These people are required to abide by the law.

What exactly does "the law" state?

If a guy due to finish his shift and hand back his taxi, he isn't going to head in the opposite direction to his changeover location. I'm not sure why some folk expect otherwise.

I agree with your reasoning, but most of the time I think it's an excuse.

Around 4 pm, as per the OP, it probably isn't.

These people are required to abide by the law.

What exactly does "the law" state?

If a guy due to finish his shift and hand back his taxi, he isn't going to head in the opposite direction to his changeover location. I'm not sure why some folk expect otherwise.

Channel 669 on True.

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

It was either that or a complete lack of urgency from the Nok staff

Quite possibly, but their scheduled turnaround time is 30 mins. Maybe they arrived early?

I got into Bangkok 40 minutes later than scheduled. The first time Ive used them for a long time so may have been a one off

In other words, your departure was delayed. Happens all the time to all airlines for a whole host of reasons.