new2here

I’m of two minds.. I agree that legitimate “whistle blowing” is a good thing as it can often uncover misdeeds that otherwise wouldn’t be uncovered or take much longer to discover and potentially cause much more harm.. and legitimate whistle blowing should continue to be legally protected… On the other hand, I am ALSO of the mindset that deliberate disclose of legitimate state secrets - and yes, I do believe that state entities can and do have legitimate secrets that deserve legal protection- should be a crime and punished severely. So, I guess where is the line between the two - when does otherwise legitimate whistleblowing become espionage or disclosure of protected state secrets?

Covers content Not interested Inappropriate Seen too often ADBRO is the full service ad network for high impact contextual advertising with direct access to the exclusive in-image inventories across major local publishers. We provide free creative adaptation into rich media, interactive and playable ads formats. Campaigns in our channel are delivered under guaranteed prices for actions with programmatic & managed delivery. We provide contextually segmented in-target audiences for over 60 industries with a full range of brand safety solutions. ADBRO operates across SE Asia, including Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and Malaysia. To test our channel for your advertising campaigns or consider partnership programs for publishers, please contact us at www.adbro.me I am not the biggest fan of this course of action. I DO think it’s fair for TGs “PR” or Media Unit to tell their side of the story and to get their version of the narrative out there.. but.. when you go the legal route -especially when the opposing side is an individual customer, to me, that makes you look some what like a bully or being “heavy handed” so to speak. In my head, given the amount of social media content that out there each day and the speed to which it comes and goes.. IF I were TG, I might be tempted to make one “corrective” statement - then leave it alone.. the odds that any one post will actually go “viral” is very very small… and the “shelf life” of any such post is quite small. Bangkok Covers content Not interested Inappropriate Seen too often ADBRO is the full service ad network for high impact contextual advertising with direct access to the exclusive in-image inventories across major local publishers. We provide free creative adaptation into rich media, interactive and playable ads formats. Campaigns in our channel are delivered under guaranteed prices for actions with programmatic & managed delivery. We provide contextually segmented in-target audiences for over 60 industries with a full range of brand safety solutions. ADBRO operates across SE Asia, including Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and Malaysia. To test our channel for your advertising campaigns or consider partnership programs for publishers, please contact us at www.adbro.me Bangkok

I wholly agree.. I also don’t think we will ever really see any “easing” so to speak.. KYC and related laws and BoT regulations I suspect will only increase .. who knows how it when, but I don’t see an easing coming. Given that for most banks the requirements for keeping the account open are very very simple and usually fee-free as well, if it were me, I’d make the reasonable effort to keep them open if possible.

Agreed. They don’t have enough “market” in the US via LAX (or SFO/SEA if they were to even go that way) to really sustain themselves - especially when one notes ALL the other one-stop options that currently exist, such as TPE/HKG/ICN/NRT/HND/SIN/PEK/PVG and i’m sure a few others. TG is much better off flying with their strengths; that being long-haul Euro traffic, intra-Asia and regional flying, plus the domestic market.

Those BKK-LAX/JFK non-stops were a good idea.. but largely fell victim to timing .. once fuel skyrocketed, that A340-500 quad-jet just become impossible to operate profitably on those kinds of “long, thin” routes.. The other issue is that as I’ve noted earlier US-TH traffic is skewed to the leisure end of the spectrum.. making any kind of ultra long haul US-TH non-stop very difficult to operate without consistently filling the premium end of the cabin. once TG went back to the single-stop routing (be that via JP or KR) on the 777s, they then ran smack dab into some of the most competitive and seat-saturated (lots of available seats) markets, with more than a handful of both Asian carriers flying this same US west coast JP/KR market, as well as US carriers too.. making it hard for them to compete and gain any real marketshare. MH tried the same thing; KUL-NRT-LAX and they too couldn’t make it work long-term either. They could fill that -400 easily.. but they filled it largely only in Y and with few true paid C/J seats.. I think that one big “strike” against TG is something that’s out of their direct control. Unlike SIN, BKK/DMK really has little true international connection traffic.. domestic, sure.. but as is common, domestic has to operated by a Thai carrier, and most every domestic route is covered equally or more by a LCC.. So anyone choosing to fly TG, is pretty much locked into terminating in TH. SQ by comparison, carries much more connection traffic beyond SIN.. and the north asian carriers like OZ/KE or JL/NH carry a massive amount - taking a lot of pricing pressure off their US-JP/KR sales quotas… all to the detriment of TG when it comes to flying to/from the US.

The problem for US origin is somewhat two-fold. While BKK has traditionally been a high demand market, and flights will “fill”, the issue largely is that the demand for US-TH seats falls disproportionately into the economy cabin and far less into premium cabins.. and for nearly all carriers, it’s their premium cabins that drive their revenue- disproportionately so .. not economy. That’s also why you see many carriers who operate 777s and other larger wide-bodies, configure them into 2 (or more) “layouts” one being a “high premium” with larger C/J cabins, a modest PE cabin and therefore smaller traditional Y.. the other is the “high-density”, which may have a much smaller C/J, may lack a PE, but has a much larger Y cabin. That’s what tend to see coming here — whereas flights to SIN might see the high premium, reflecting a much larger demand for paid premium seats. The second issue for US carriers is that right now, they can deploy their long haul fleet to European markets where demand is much firmer, premium seat demand still strong, as opposed to markets in Asia like BKK.

To me there’s a few ways you could go. Clearly a straight cash handout is the most desired, but the government looses their ability to target where those funds go So.. they could give vouchers that can only be redeemed against X, Y or Z purchases and can’t be banked/saved (as saving doesn’t drive immediate economic activity) nor used by anyone else (ie non-transferable) if the worry is that only a handful of larger corporations will benefit, then implement redemption caps both in aggregate as well as geographic. So a large entity can accept them but only up to X value, after that other smaller entities would be beneficiaries. to help multiple industries, you could also make X% of a person's total voucher value redeemable for Y type goods and another percentage redeemable for Z type goods

I think it’s fair to acknowledge that as the worlds most visited city, invariably there will be some who just plain don’t know … others will be lack of compliance… Either way, I think it’s fair play for the authorities to post relevant signage saying what is and what isn’t ok. True, you can’t really post EVERYthing that’s not allowed - you can take that past the nth degree, but I think a reasonable list of prohibited actions is necessary.. and then i’d be ok with the authorities taking punitive/enforcement action; as proper notice was given in advance

Agreed.. I’ve said many times.. rules or laws without reasonably consistent enforcement and with consistently applied material penalties, become only mere suggestions .. and when it comes to most traffic and motor vehicle issues, I’ll say that they’re effectively suggestions … really not laws in the most true sense. if you knowingly block an emergency vehicle and fail to use all reasonable measures to “yield” then I’m an advocate for the state to seize said vehicle for X number of days with storage fees and fixed penalties applied.. on any subsequent conviction, I’d support the court ordering the convict to forfeit said vehicle to the state, as it would then to be clear the convicts unwillingness to comply with law and that their non-compliance puts the public at risk.

I suspect this is one of those cases where the “system” will just drag out long enough such that the major players are now either deceased or too ill for the process to continue and/or the case effects gets forgotten by the public so that no action is really needed any longer and it can quietly and administratively “delayed” indefinitely.

just for my own knowledge as a non-UK citizen., Is this saying in effect that the income you have to have in order to bring your non-UK spouse with you has gone up? Again, i’m just trying to understand the issue as I’m not familiar with UK regs like this..

If I recall, is part of this issue also tied to the repayment of loans that were taken out in part to subsidize prices earlier? I recall discussions about how that was going to be repaid etc etc

What Id like to see is what does the schedule look like for CA, MU etc for all major routes; not just BKK. I suspect that both carriers have done some cutting across multiple markets - not just to TH… and probably more notable to leisure markets and less so to major trunk routes and other key markets.

I all honesty, this isn’t the world worst idea. If you look at TG (and for now, I’ll include Smile (WE) as it’s going to be rolled into parent mainline TG) while their mainline A320’s are are quite new- the fleet coming over from Smile appear to be all around the 10+/- age range.. not at end of life, but not exactly new either and as we know, there are more efficient models in todays market - not to mention lower MX costs as well. Ad for TGs mainline long haul goes .. that’s where I really think the idea takes hold. Their 772s are approaching 18 yrs.. and about half of their 773s are now pushing 10yrs So, I can see a solid logic for wanting to do fleet modernization now and replace their long-haul 772/773s and a bulk of their short-haul/domestic fleet A320s… I could ALSO see TG looking to find an aircraft that is more of a MoM (Middle of Market) that can be deployed on routes to cities in AU/NZ/CN/IN and such, that perhaps don’t need fleet type with extensive range (like a 778/9 or A359) but yet also don’t give up massively on the payload either..

I don’t know that the bond holders will be sorry. Right now, Thai sovereign debt holds - as I recall - mid Investment grade ratings.. and if I’m not mistaken, direct Thai government bonds are “general obligation” debts - thus backed by the governments full taxation ability. Different than say special purpose bonds which would be backed only by revenue from XYZ project… To me, the more.. realistic risk, as I see it, isn’t P&I repayment risk, but the risk that someone like Moody’s, Fitch or S&P cut the ratings on this kind of debt, after it’s issuance, causing the yield to rise as the price falls…. making it hard for a bond holder to resell in the secondary market or to use it as collateral for other investments (or margining).

Location aside, I think it’s one thing IF the price was NOT fully and prominently displayed on the menu before ordering… it’s something entirely else IF it WAS. It’s fair to perhaps argue the value of a B300 plate of noodles— ok, that’s a fair discussion…. but if it the price was disclosed up front and in advance .. and within that disclosure, you still went forward and ordered, then you can’t really argue that you were somehow duped, conned or ripped off. (so long as you got what was pictured and/or described)

It’s unfortunate, but that kind of how things are.. it’s when the MINority do something “wrong” that enforcement action is taken, and it commonly hits the MAJority who weren’t a part of the wrong that was done. I don’t know that percentage of Thais who enter are deemed to be illegals (ie entered under false pretenses and/or overstayed their otherwise legal entry) .. but it *sounds* like it’s not a small number — so — to that end, I can’t say that the KR Immigration service is unreasonable or acting without some measure of necessity. As far as their actions being “arbitrary” goes- I think by it’s very nature, immigration screening at the airport is almost always going to have some element of randomness and subjectivity to it - while the law may be written quite objectively, how each person presents themselves, the documents they have, the verbal statements made etc do require that an subjective assessment be made.

That’s the same for me.. I left mine in my pants pocket and it got warped in the clothes dryer.. So long as nothing has changed, it’s a simple process — passport , the actual damages DL (that they keep) and the issuance fee (not the renewal fee- only the smaller issuance fee)

agreed. I think it needs to be clear exactly what is the programs goal - which would then better define their target. On the surface, I don’t have an issue with state support for the low income and/or indigent persons.. I’m not so sure that it should be a flat, fixed amount for every Thai person … without some due consideration to their income level. Yes, it’s fair to assume that those who are on the high(er) income levels probably “pay” more into the state coffers via the various forms of taxation (ie income, VAT, excise, property etc) than those on the low(er) end.. and that perhaps then can or should translate into higher payments to these higher net tax-paying persons… but again, this is where better defining what the program is supposed to be, should give some clarity to this issue. I’d also want controls on those state funds to make sure they’re spent as directed.. So, perhaps limiting “redemption” of those cash funds, via the wallet app, at selected stores - like registered grocery, recognized transport operators, utility providers etc versus straight “cash”.

That’s a fair assessment.. Like airports - there’s a cut off for things like check-in and/or ticketing .. so, I think it’s fair to ask this question.. do they arrive early enough to allow for ticketing (NB If it were me, I’d post a formal cut off for same day ticketing — like “no later than :15 before scheduled departure” or the like.. just so there’s some explicit timeline that everyone can fall back to for guidance) I don’t think the onboard staff erred .. now, that said, IF there were perhaps a handful of people who all claimed the exact same issue … “the staff didn’t have time to issue tickets and we were told to buy onboard” then I’d think the onboard staff should have perhaps taken a step back, paused and checked with the station staff (by phone as I’d assume they were already rolling) to see what’s what before taking action. But in totality, I think the article shows the correct outcome, the station staff admitted their error/failure and the fee refunded accordingly.

It’s not uncommon for some smaller countries to have a diplomatic presence in country A that also has representation or jurisdiction for nearby countries of B and C. I believe they call them “Non-Resident Ambassadors” For example, there is no on-site Thai diplomatic representative to Ethiopia, but the Thai Embassy in Kenya is their Non-Resident Ambassador- so all the diplomatic processes (like visas for example) that would take place in Addis had there been an actual on-site ambassador, would take place in Nairobi. Check if that’s the case here.. It just might be that the ambassador to Thailand is non-resident and that it’s all done by a physical embassy in Jakarta, Singapore or maybe Hanoi.

I think there’s some truth to that… but… I don’t think it’s perhaps as narrow as that. Looking back to all the various “rough” patches thailand has been through.. we’ll be that civil unrest, C19, etc., by and large Thailand tourist appeal - it’s “draw” has remained quite high… again, that’s not to say that they can’t do any wrong — but more to say that the appeal to Thailand has remained fairly strong across the rough spots . So, my guess is that even IF they go forward with this, I honestly don’t think it’s going to have a long term, sustained and materially negative impact on the nett tourist inflows… It’s kind of like the tourist appeal here is a semi-teflon exterior.. so… to that end, I can’t say it’s a totally bad bet .. I’ll bet it works out net positive for them.. yes, some will stay away… but the number of those that stay away, and (most importantly the economic value they represent) I’ll bet will be dwarfed by those who come and spend.

I suspect that the issue is IF you were to hard-bake it into ticket prices (like all other taxes applied to airfare) you loose (or make it very difficult from a programmatic basis) the ability to; a) readily identify citizens versus non-citizen buyers - both would end up paying it as most booking engines don’t factor in passenger details (like nationality) when calculating fare. b) identify any subset of non-citizens who might otherwise be exempt. I recall reading that it was proposed that non-citizens who hold work permits may be exempt. So running with an upon arrival, kiosk style payment gives you the ability to better define exactly who is exempt or not. As far as dealing with those who arrive, but before being admitted, now refuse to pay goes… I highly suspect they will be a near-zero situation— only because if they were so set it up like that, once you arrive, they’ve essentially “got you” — you’re a captive market .. You don’t pay it? They don’t admit you or deem you inadmissible and repatriate you like those who Immigration won’t allow entry. For the country it’s basically a no miss no fuss answer … It’s the AIRLINES that I could see voicing a concern over this pay-upon-arrival system as they might be inadvertently swept into a problem if someone doesn’t. pay and Immigration wants to repatriate them, now the airline gets swept up as they’ve got to deal with the repatriation flight issues and payment for that. If it were me? I’d take the easy road.. just up the current “TS” tax from 700 to 800 across the board - citizen or not - make it 800 or whatever.. . it’s a tax that’s always on the books and easy to collect… it’s baked in so there’s no “in your face” of a new tax either.. and since everyone would pay it, it would be very hard for a person to really detect that the tax was increased versus the natural ebb and flow of ticket prices themselves . Yes, citizens would also pay it - true.. but to me the easiest way IMHO, is just bump the TS upwards.

You can’t get the “metered” stamp that includes the EMS tracking number on it (for your return mail envelope) unless you’re mailing it right then and there…. You CAN however, buy and affix individual postage STAMPS that equal the EMS price AND get one if the old style (orange/white) EMS tracking bar code stickers- and affix to the return envelop as well.

I’ve have 3 summons so far.. as i live and work here, attending isn’t a viable option. What I did was to email the clerk/jury duty office and inform them. My parents receive my mail and will open anything that looks to them as if it’s time critical or would require some action on my end. The first time they asked me to write a letter, hand signed and mail it back to them indicating my circumstances. The two later following times, I only needed to call.