kwilco

I wonder if this has any connection with the Samui property scandals of about 15 years ago which again involved a number of Danish people.

Your rather ill-informed reply still misses the point - Dual Pricing is Still a Bad Look, No Matter How You Spin It So now for you it's “cheap charlies” ruining Thailand? Give me a break. This kind of rant isn’t an argument—it’s a lazy insult wrapped around bad economics. The reality is this - studies have shown that doubling Thai entry fees wouldn’t deter locals, and that dropping the foreigner surcharge would actually increase visitors—and revenue. Dual pricing doesn’t help the parks. It shrinks the pie. You also aren’t seemingly aware of how the parks are funded. And those who run these sort of attractions elsewhere know: you don’t make money at the gate—you make it inside with food, tours, souvenirs, and services. Pricing people out before they even enter? That’s just bad business. The idea that “tourists should just shut up and pay more” because they’re on holiday is nonsense. Thailand is selling an international product. If you want international money, you play by international standards—not discriminatory pricing that treats guests like walking wallets. And no, means-testing tourists at the entrance isn’t the answer either. This isn’t about fairness—it’s about optics, economics, and common sense. Dual pricing hurts Thailand more than it helps, just economically it also damages the kingdom’s reputation

Let’s Stick to Facts, Not Deflections - Saying “dual pricing is dual pricing” is just a shallow comparison that ignores context, scale, and intent. The Louvre’s proposed price hike for non-EU visitors is about €3–€8 more on a €20 ticket—not 5–10x the local rate like Thailand’s national parks. That’s a small surcharge to fund an €800 million renovation, not a blanket policy based on nationality. In Thailand, many parks charge foreigners 400–1000% more, regardless of residency, tax contribution, or legal status. That’s the issue—not the idea of discounts, but the scale and execution. And despite this, most parks see no real income benefit from dual pricing. It’s been shown to deter tourists more than help conservation or funding. Also, public museums in much of Europe—including the UK—are free or low-cost to all, regardless of nationality. Trying to use one partial and temporary future example to justify a widespread and outdated policy in Thailand doesn’t hold up. The real discussion isn’t “do others do it too?”—it’s whether it’s smart, fair, and good for Thailand’s image. And on that, dual pricing fails.

When was the last time you visited a National Park? - I visit loads and I have D/L and pay tax and speak g=dood Thai and almost always fail these days.

seriously???

your making a false comparison.....Yes, the Louvre is planning a higher fee for non-EU visitors in 2026, but the difference is small—only about €3–€8 more than EU citizens. It's nothing like Thailand's dual pricing, where foreigners often pay 400–1000% more. Also, many EU museums are free or low-cost for everyone, regardless of nationality. I can't find any examples in Italy - i used to be a regular visitor to both France and Italy and their museums and cultrural sites

A profoundly ill-informed and prejudiced post. Let’s clear up a few things about your misinformed post on dual pricing. Calling budget travellers “cheap backpackers who offer nothing” is not only inaccurate—it’s offensive. These travellers helped build Thai tourism, stay longer, spend more broadly, and support small local businesses. They are not the problem. Dual pricing isn’t the same as local discounts. It’s discriminatory pricing based on nationality, often 10x higher, even for foreigners who live, work, and pay taxes in Thailand. That’s why it gets criticised. Comparing it to London is a poor fit. Most major UK museums are free, and discounted transport is based on residency, not passport. If Thailand adopts a smarter fare model for BTS—great. But that’s no excuse for unfair pricing elsewhere. Environmental damage? That’s on park mismanagement, not travellers with backpacks. Pricing won’t fix that—better infrastructure and rules will. Bottom line: Dual pricing damages Thailand’s image, discourages repeat visitors, and makes no economic sense. Fair, transparent pricing benefits everyone. Let’s stop scapegoating travellers and fix the system instead.

Your photos are precisely the things that Thai is destroying and losing - it doesn't matter to many businessmen as now the majority of tourists come for the concrete and deckchairs. ...and BTW - why are you so close to that coral?????

"Never heard them complain about the air." - Interesting - I worked with a lot of Chinese people In Thailand for about 3 years and pollution was not on the conversation every now and then, but we lived in the South - They were very concerned about pollution in their home towns but the overriding impression I got was that they were largely unaware of the levels of pollution in Thailand at various times - but when made aware, would certainly avoid it. Furthermore, we know that tourism figures in the north are getting reduced at times of pollution. Chiang Mai in particular is concerned about low number during burning season. I also know Euro-Thai families with children who are desparate to leave the region for good. A couple of years ago - I did or rather started a tour of the North west - every single place I visited was totally empty - usually it was Thai people I"d expect to see but they were deserted - some places were actually closed in Umphang the only other tourists we saws was a small group pf Swedes. In Mae Hong Son eading for Chiang Mai, I turned back and headed South with a chest infection. However you seem to had had extansive conversations with Chinese tourists - You do realise that Chinese New Year is celebrated all over the country by both Thai Chinese and visitors but you seem to have worked out the difference - BTW do you speak Mandarin?

Classic case of using cynicism to cover ignorance.

Sorry I need to edit this.....An exceptionally banal and misinformed comment. We are not talking discounts for locals here we are talking visitors be asked to pay TEN TIMES MORE than the national fee - that's not a discount it is a dual pricing policy.

Air pollution is a major factor for some - no-one in their right mind would book a holiday in the North between January and April

An exceptiona;lly benal and misinformed comment. We are not talking discounts for locals here we are talking visitors be asked to pat TEN TIMES MORE than the national fee - that's not a discount it is a dual pricing policy.

looks like he hasn't really got a grip on the situation and has in effect promised nothing.

Calling a Thai person any of these when you know they are Thai would be deemed as a way to insult someone. It's a shame that so many people can live in Thailand for years and have little or no understanding of Thai culture and manners. Connecting this with dual pricing one has to be very careful.

How long does a ticket last?

How has this gone for you? Please share your experiences of actually using the new system Please save questions for other threads - just your experiences of filling in and entering (or departing) Good, bad, indifferent?

I don't think you understand the issues and prefer to resort to stereotyping with no reasoned response.

in the past, studies have shown that when it comes to National Parks, Thais are prepared to pay double the entrance fee at least. Whereas the "extra" income" from foreigners is in most cases insignificant and reduces numbers. Anyone running an attraction like a national parks that entrance fees are not how you make money - it is numbers buying add-ons and their management that is important.

the OP asked - "Economic Necessity or Hidden Bias" They are most certainly not an economic necessity - not sure what the mean by a "hidden" ias.....I think there used too be a widely held opinion amongst politicians and other authorities that foreigners were "rich and could afford it". Whatever their reasoning dual pricing puts people off....either from purchases or just a perceived attitude. and it is part of mismanagement of a lot of Thailand's resources that they use to attract foreigners so it isn't beneficial economically and has a negative affect in tourism

best you don't think too much!

I don't understand - this pension thing has existed for decades - surely he would have had te gumption to find this out before moving? The Second issue is that before the EU were pressurising the UK to increase levels to EU standards - France for instance has effectively double the UK pension and Germany 3 times the UK pension. If they hadn't voted leave all pensioners would be hugely better off. Iy's their own fault. UK has much lower benefits than most countries in EU - keeps the poor on their toes!

"where a post-mortem examination will be conducted to determine the exact cause of death." so what do you know that the rest of us don't?

In Thailand, collision investigations are often chaotic and ineffective, unlike the thorough, evidence-based approach seen in countries like the UK. The METHANE protocol—focused on securing the scene, preserving evidence, and using trained specialists—is rarely followed. In Thailand, investigations are typically rushed, relying on unreliable eyewitnesses and minimal technology, leading to vague reports and missed opportunities for safety improvements. With one of the highest road death rates globally, a shift towards more professional, evidence-driven investigations is crucial for better road safety. But it means that most people on this thread are commenting blind

the former prevents bites, the latter does nothing for Leishmaniasis once you've got it.