Kaysfeld

PARIS 2007: Thai firms A330 order 20. june 2007

Thai Airways International has placed an order for eight Airbus A330-300s for delivery from next year, firming up plans which it disclosed earlier this year.

In February the Star Alliance carrier agreed to order eight more A330-300s at discounted prices in part as compensation for delays in the delivery of six Airbus A380s on order.

The airline said it would use the aircraft to replace six Airbus A300s and a pair of Boeing 747s.

During the Paris air show Airbus announced the firm order from Thai for the eight aircraft and deliveries are due to begin in 2008.

Thai already operates a dozen A330s powered by Pratt & Whitney PW4000s. No engine selection for the new aircraft has been disclosed.

In a related development, Thailand’s cabinet yesterday directed the national carrier to lease the eight aircraft rather than purchase them outright.

The carrier is expected as a result to seek out sale and lease-back agreements on the newly ordered twinjets.

Thai Airways president Apinan Sumanaseni says: “Thai is pleased to announce it has ordered eight more A330-300s, which will replace older aircraft in our fleet, as utilising this Airbus type has always proved profitable and efficient for the company.

"This order is in addition to our withstanding order of six A380-800 aircraft.

“The A330-300 was deemed most suitable towards operating the company’s regional routes in Asia, especially due to our continued increase in flight frequency and expanded route network.”

Last month the carrier said it was drawing up a new 10-year business plan that should include proposals for the replacement of dozens of older aircraft in its fleet. The plan will be presented to its board for consideration in August.

From http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...a330-order.html

Thai Airways fleet Age is 10.7 years according to airfleets.net

Details of the calculation based on supported aircraft

Aircraft Type Number Age Rank for the age per each aircraft type

Airbus A300 20 15.6 years On 45 airlines operating this aircraft Thai Airways is number 14

Airbus A330 12 11 years On 64 airlines operating this aircraft Thai Airways is number 61

Airbus A340 8 1.9 years On 52 airlines operating this aircraft Thai Airways is number 3

ATR 42/72 1 17.3 years On 115 airlines operating this aircraft Thai Airways is number 86

Boeing 737 6 11.1 years On 311 airlines operating this aircraft Thai Airways is number 18

Boeing 747 20 11.9 years On 104 airlines operating this aircraft Thai Airways is number 21

Boeing 777 18 7.2 years On 38 airlines operating this aircraft Thai Airways is number 23

Total 85 10.7 years

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Thai%20Airways.htm

The complete survey methodology is available at:

http://travelandleisure.com/worldsbest/2006/info.cfm

Numbers are dwindling becuase pollution, crime, industrialisation, globalisation, corruption etc etc are all the on the rise. The city is losing its charm quickly and becoming the same as any other sold-out latge city; charactless and formulaic.

It just happens, that's how i like it. But don't try and kid anyone.

I feel sorry for you. I think you would be better of i Pattaya. They have even more of the things you like.

There is plenty of rime, industrialisation, globalisation, corruption. Only on the pollution front, Chiang Mai can overgo Pattaya in your prefered areas.

You will find the survey results at http://www.travelandleisure.com/worldsbest....cfm?cat=cities

A350 and 787 set to vie for Thai A300 replacement deal

Two widebodies likely to go head-to-head to succeed flag carrier's ageing Airbus fleet

Thai Airways International is drawing up a new business plan that should include proposals for the replacement of dozens of older aircraft in its fleet.

At a recent board meeting directors tasked management with drawing up a 10-year corporate plan covering the 2008-2017 period. The plan will be presented to the board in August.

Airline executives say fleet renewal will make up a key part of the plan and several dozen new aircraft may be ordered to replace older aircraft. Types to be considered are not being identified, although it is expected that the carrier will primarily look to acquire aircraft in the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 categories, in part to replace its 20 Airbus A300-600s.

Senior airline executives said last year that they had already been evaluating the two types, although studies covered the longer-range variants on offer which would not necessarily be intended as A300 replacements.

Thai could also look at replacements in the years ahead for some of its older Boeing 777s and 737-400s as well as older Airbus A330s.

Earlier this year Thai agreed to order eight more A330-300s at discounted prices in part as compensation for delays in the delivery of six Airbus A380s on order. It said at the time that delivery of the A330s would take place between 2008 and 2010, although it has yet to firm up the order.

From Flight International:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...ement-deal.html

As I now regularly have to travel around the region, I usually fly Thai Airways.

In short - every single flight had problems. From never getting the seat you reserved, to inept stewardesses, to seat or entertainment equipment failure, not once this year has there been an uneventful flight. I have already decided that I will stick to Star Alliance flights until I get my 2-year ROP Gold for access to the lounges - then I am avoiding Thai Airways like the plague.

By contrast, I flew Singapore Airlines on one trip, four total segments - and everything went smoothly on every single segment. Paid a higher price for the privilege but it was worth every penny. Also flew Cathay once and they were also excellent.

Flew Emirates to HK once - boy, they've gone downhill as quickly as Thai, though service is still good.

Chiang Mai recognised as 5th most attractive tourism destination in the world in 2006.

"Travel and Leisure" magazine, a USA based tourism magazine with a circulation of 900,000 announced that its readers had voted Chiang Mai the fifth most desirable destination in the world, and the second in Asia, with Bangkok in first place.

Each year “Travel and Leisure” conducts a survey of its readers as to the most desirable tourist destinations via online questionnaires. The survey takes into account value for money, the level of arts and culture, and the general environment of the location. This year Bangkok was voted as Asia’s most desirable tourist destination for the fifth year running, with Chiang Mai following in second place. Chiang Mai also ranked fifth in the world’s desirable tourist destinations, with Florence and Rome in Italy taking first and second place respectively, Bangkok third place and Sydney, Australia in fourth place. The top five Asian cities were voted as Bangkok and Chiang Mai, followed by Kathmandu of Nepal, Kyoto of Japan and Hong Kong. The award was warmly received in Chiang Mai, after the disappointing news that Chiang Mai had dropped in the ‘World’s Most Liveable Cities’ index to 'only' 10th place.

I wonder what kind of damage the serious smog problems in marts-april 2007 have done to Chiang Mais future reputation. Only time will tell.

The Rose of the North เชียงใหม่

Chiang Mai is Thailand's second city, but in terms of quality of living and tourist attractions, we believe that it's second to none in Southeast Asia.

The city is famous for her friendly people, refined handicrafts, hill tribes, 'cool' climate and stunning mountain scenery.

The centre of the once-powerful Lanna kingdom, the northern Thai province of Chiang Mai is a favourite destination for tourists and backpackers alike and is also a tremendously popular province amongst Thai holiday-makers. Relatively mountainous and layered with a selection of National Parks, Chiang Mai is a nature-lovers paradise with ample opportunity for those wanting to explore the hinterland during their holiday.

More than three-hundred temples, among them some of the most beautiful and revered in the entire Buddhist world, give the city an atmosphere of calmness and timeless elegance.

The quality of living is unsurpassed. Accommodation and food are of the highest standard at very low cost. Entertainment is plentiful with numerous festivals, outdoor activities and great nightlife.

Chiang Mai has a distinct international atmosphere with many foreign businesses and organizations locating in the city over the past decade due to her excellent infrastructure with international direct flight connections to all countries in the region including China, Singapore, Malaysia, Laos, Burma, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Taiwan. There are also direct regional daily flights to Bangkok, Phuket, Chiang Rai, Ma Hong Song, Sukhothai and other cities in the region.

The province is also developing a reputation for health and spa resorts that are beginning to pop up along with a burgeoning real-estate business as the backpackers from yester-year return to retire in this comfortable northern Thai climate. The eponymous provincial capital is Thailand's second most frequently visited city but has a population of only around 200,000. An abundance of temples are spread throughout the city, which is easily navigated on foot. The influence of the plentiful middle-aged European tourists who flock here is strongly felt in the town, with a vibrant alternative-lifestyle community providing everything from jewellery-making to yoga classes. Chiang Mai's hotel scene is developing apace with some truly luxurious hotels now peppering the city's skyline along with the excellent choice of budget guesthouses and hostels that have existed her for decades.

Genuine adventure is to be found in the immediate vicinity of Chiang Mai with jungle tours, rafting, elephant riding and hill tribe villages to visit. Chiang Mai is a Golfer's dream with some of the best golf in Asia in fantastic surroundings. Shopping is great, be it for handicrafts, clothes or luxury items. Everything can be found at great prices in stores ranging from small family-run shops to world-class luxury outlets and shopping malls.

Surveys rank Chiang Mai among the most liveable cities in Asia. Everyone visiting or living here would attest that it's in fact number one.

from http://www.kaysfeld.com/Thailand/ChiangMai/index.html

According to http://www.airlinequality.com/StarRanking/5star.htm

there is only 5 airlines with top ranking these are:

Asiana Airlines

Malaysia Airlines

Qatar Airways

Singapore Airlines

Cathay Pacific Airways

The highest Quality performance 5 Star status recognizes airlines at the forefront of product innovation, that generally set trends to be followed by other carriers.

A 5 Star ranking recognises highest standard of Product across the different quality assessment categories, and consistently high standards of Staff Service delivery in Onboard and Airport environments.

Thai Airways is ranked a 4 star arlines, which is awarded to airlines supplying a good Quality performance across the range of Product and Service delivery rating areas.

A 4 Star ranking signifies airlines providing a good standard of Product across all travel categories - and a good standard of Staff Service delivery in Onboard and Airport environment.

As many know the can be considerable quality difference between a new Thai Airbus A340-500 or A340-600 and an old Boeing 747-400 or 747-300. They don't compare.

As a comment to my previous posting in this topic 34" on Thai is SEAT PITCH not legroom.

This is the distance between a row of seats - the measurement from the same position on two seats, one behind the other - it is NOT the legroom area as some believe. (For example, the back face of the seat in front of you, measured to the same point on the back face of the seat you are sitting in).

The 34" of Thai Airways may be their new standard on new product installations like the Airbus A340 that may not be completed or available across an airline's whole fleet of aircraft. So the Seat Pitch may or may not be smaller than the 34" on the old 747-400's.

Personally, I fly Thai, but it's because I'm over 6ft, and Thai's seats have more legroom.

I am surprised to hear that the legroom is better on Thai than on BA.

I think Thai have quite poor legroom, so BA must be terrible. Very surprising, as legroom hasn't improved on Thais 747 fleet the last 19 years as far as I am aware.

Legroom never improves... - Airlines are forever trying to squeeze in more people... The only way it will ever get better is if someone wins a lawsuit on DVT being caused by the aircraft seats, or some body, such as the EU, introduces some sort of legislation on seat pitch and flight time.

That or a mass heightening of the population... - i.e. If everyone was over 6ft, BA would have to have more leg room, or everyone, would be like me, and avoid them...

Anyway, one bad thing I did notice on the Thai flight from Japan last year... - the seatback TVs mean there was a metal box under one of the seats in each set of 3, which cut down on leg room (but not on seat pitch - which is simply a measure from the back of one seat to the back of the next).

It seems that Thai have very good legroom in economyclass compared to most other airlines with a 34", where most airlines, including Singapore Airlines only have 32". BA is even worse at 31".

The better quality of the seats on Singapore Airlines must be the reason why you feel more conftable on SIA than Thai, because according to the numbers Thai should feel better.

For a list the legroom in different classes on different airlines see the following list:

http://www.airlinequality.com/Product/seats_global.htm

The West with its secular approach has nothing to show for it in terms of preserving religions.

Buddhism is more than two thousand years old and all throughout its history it has been supported by the state (kings). What makes people think that secularism is the way to preserve and even farther advance it?

We had a not very conclusive argument about religion in the US, ok, but in Europe religion is as good as dead. What makes people think that these same European ideas will save Buddhism here, after they ruined Christianity at home?

Yes, if Thailand wants to be a fully democratic country, like in the West, they should separate state and religion, but if it wants to preserve Buddhism - it's a sure way to total destruction.

I daresay that no religion has ever prospered without massive state support.

>>>

I don't subscribe to the "West corrupted Thailand" theory, but maybe, just maybe, the decline in morality was caused by removing Buddhism from public life - people have got no visible reasons to behave in moral and ethical ways. In the West the religion was pushed out by "progressive" ideas, in Thailand it was simply shut out without any alternatives.

And for your grandpa, Tettyan, perhaps he was longing for good old Buddhist days when he could have cared for his mia noi without any social stigma attached to it. Isn't monogamy a western idea, still not fully adopted by Thais?

So Buddhism can't survive without massive government support.

If this is so its because people don't agree with the idea’s of Buddhism.

But I don't think you are right, Buddhism will survive with or without state support because Buddhism isn't really a religion but a lifestyle. Buddhism teach you how to take good care of yourself, so you will also be able to take good care of others. To make Buddhism into a state religion really go against the teaching of Buddha. Buddha never told anybody that they had to do this or had to think in this way. He tried to make people see a way to a less troublesome life. But he would never agree that his ideas should be forced on anybody.

You say Christianity is dead in the west. That is not true. Just see how President Bush uses the religion to veto many good new laws. In USA the religion and state is not separate and see how many bad decisions come from this. State religion lead to fanatism, and no fanatic religion is any good whether is Buddhism, Islam, Christianity or Hinduism. The history clearly shows how many bad think have been done by states in the name of a religion.

BANGKOK: -- A major group of Buddhists Monday vowed to submit 1 million signatures of believers in the faith to pressure the constitution drafters to have the next charter state that Buddhism in Thailand's national religion.

I have never understood why so many of the so-called believers in the faith find it so hard to follow the basic 5 commandments of the Buddhist faith. They listen to the Phra teaching what not to do, and then they go out and do what the Phra just told them not to do, and they don't seem to see their own mistakes, only others.

I wonder how many real followers of the Buddhist faith there are in Thailand, someone that not only follow the ceremonies, but also follow the teaching. Sometime I feel that many Buddhist Farangs are more Buddhist than any Thai.

Flying Singapore Airlines is like driving a Mercedes Benz compared to Thais old Pickup feeling.

It is only the passengers that can force them to improve by selecting better airlines.

Yes, it's true that SIA and Cathay are much better airlines with newer fleet. The problem is for those of us who live in Thailand, and who travel frequently around Asia, you have to default to Thai Airways, with the most frequent flight schedules, esp. for the gold ROP membership, clubs, wifi, etc.. A number of people prefer to accumulate miles on SIA (still star alliance), and willingly go out of their way to make connections in SIN. Depends on your priorities. time is more important to me than a seatback TV.

It is true that Thai have an advantage in direct flight to BKK, which is the reason why they can get away with charging the same price as SIA and deliver so poor quality.

For people living in Northern or Southern Thailand, you can get the quality of SIA for your long flight and make your change to Phuket or Chiang Mai in Singapore in stead of BKK, as SIA fly direct to these destinations from SIN.

I've given up on Thai. Frankly, it's a shockingly bad airline. I recall flying TG from Sydney to Bkk once, in business class. Not only did this particular plane not have inseat entertainment (in business class, mind), but I was positioned in a spot where i couldnt even see the ###### screen.

A similar experience flying back from Beijing last week too . . . . . NEVER AGAIN.

Thai Airways business class to Copenhagen and Stockholm have improved since last year, since Thai scraped First class on their old 747-400 to Scandinavia and moved Business to the old First class seats.

The old Business is now a Economy Plus with old, but large seats with good legroom, but still no inflight entertainment system as normale on all Thais 747-400 Business Class to Europe.

Personally, I fly Thai, but it's because I'm over 6ft, and Thai's seats have more legroom.

I am surprised to hear that the legroom is better on Thai than on BA.

I think Thai have quite poor legroom, so BA must be terrible. Very surprising, as legroom hasn't improved on Thais 747 fleet the last 19 years as far as I am aware.

Thai Airways 747-400 fleet also need replacement.

Nothing at all have happened to improve the quality for passangers the last 10 year.

Still the same old planes with the same old chairs and no inflight intertainment for economyclass passangers.

Still the same borring food and terible orange concentrate they call juice.

Flying Singapore Airlines is like driving a Mercedes Benz compared to Thais old Pickup feeling.

SIA have individual inflight intertainment for all economy passangers and superb food.

But when the planes are full anyway why should they improve their product ?

It is only the passengers that can force them to improve by selecting better airlines.

The funny thing is, that in Denmark little coverage has been made. It's currently running in some online editions of the newspapers, but is it gonna make tv? Hardly.

You were wrong.

It was mentioned in the main eveningnews at the main National Danish TV channel DR1 on Saturday 27/5.

RIP

Kaojai: I think you are being a wee bit unfair to TV posters. I have read many a response of posters at the disgust of all the perverts that have settled in thailand and the bad representation that some westerners have impacted on the thai society.

Most TV posters have no problems equally slamming anyone who is guilty of a crime.

LaReina: I think you are right. I have seen many report in both Danish newspapers and Danish TV about the bad behavor of many Farangs and Tourists in Thailand. I don't think many Danes can be in any doubt that a place like Pattaya is a Paradise for drinkers, perverts and criminals.

I believe that any Farang involved in any criminal activity should be punnished as hard as any Thai would be, no more, no less.

Saddening that there's no local or national coverage of this news.

Getting reports only from the other side of the world about news in Thailand's second largest city, Chiang Mai, is frustrating.

This could damage the moneymaking Turism Industry, so it tried covered up as usual.

I can remember when the Danish Queen visited Chiang Mai and Thailand some years ago, one the Helicopter transporting the Queen and the Danish Deligation went down. This was reported in Thai media as a minor malfuntion, even by Bangkok Post and The Nation, when in fact it was a serious accident and several persons was injured. This was reported in Danish newspapers, as there had been several from the Danish deligation in the helicopter. Don't believe all you read and hear in Thai media. Often the truth isn't told.

Errr.. the levels are back to normal. If you would have complained 2 weeks ago then I could understand..

You mean that an AQI (Air Quality Index) number of 99 is normal? This is todays Air Quality (polution) in Chiang Mai.

If you mean that extreme polution in normal, then yes, it is normal.

Todays AQI number for Phuket is 23, which is the highest in 11 days. Yesterday Phuket had a AQI of 13.

On the 31-Aug-06 Chiang Mai had a AQI of 14, so it seems possible, with maybe the help of a big rainshower.

It seems that everything below the critical level of 120 is accepted as normal.

Do you really want to accept breathing this kind of air every day?

Todays AQI can be found at:

http://www.pcd.go.th/AirQuality/Regional/Q...fm?task=default

City on fire. Article from ChiangMaiNews.com

Driving home after work during the second week of March, the setting sun was spectacular: a molten, pink-red globe, its colours intensified by a thick shroud of smog. 'There is a price to pay for skies that look like this,' I couldn't help but think. I had seen a similar sunset over 10 years before, in South Africa, when a spate of brutal forest fires had ravaged the mountains encircling Cape Town. In that instance, payment was made in the form of a massive loss of plant and animal life, as well as a number of houses that met a fiery demise at the tongues of the inferno. This time, public health paid the price.

In a blissfully air-conditioned office at the Unit for Social and Environmental Research in Chiang Mai, researcher Po Garden pulls up the official NASA Earth Observatory site (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/), clicking on a aerial photograph of South East Asia taken by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on Nasa's Aqua satellite. With the image blown up to full size, I can see a myriad of tiny red dots marking the locations of agricultural and forest fires. Burma is ablaze: like flesh bleeding from a multiplicity of pin pricks, flames rage across the country, so concentrated in some areas that the crimson dots blur into violent smudges. The burn sites, known as 'hot spots', become less savagely dense outside the borders of the military-controlled state, though Laos and Northern Thailand are also generously smattered with red. While annual burning practices and forest fires have caused hot season smog in Northern Thailand for centuries, the situation has worsened significantly in recent years, compounded by toxic vehicle emissions and dust from industry and construction. Further exacerbated by unusual weather conditions, including the lack of rain and a cold air mass that prevented dust particles from dissipating into the atmsophere, this year's burning resulted in Thailand's worst airborne crisis to date.

During the first two weeks of March, air pollution levels in Chiang Mai and the surrounding regions rose steadily above the safety limit; produced an eye-stinging, throat-burning, yellow-tinged haze that cut visibility down to less than 1000 metres. A profusion of minute dust particles, measuring less than 10 microns in diameter and known as PM10, pervaded the atmosphere, reaching a peak on March 14th at 383 µg/m3 (microgrammes per cubic metre) - over three times the acceptable safety ceiling of 120 µg/m3 - eventually prompting authorities to issue warnings against outdoor exercise and to declare the worst affected Chiang Mai districts, Chai Prakan and Phrao, haze disaster areas.

'As you can see from this satellite image, air pollution is usually a cross-country issue, not something that one small region can deal with in isolation,' says Garden. 'Sure, the air pollution is bad in Chiang Mai, but the scale of engagement has got to be a lot bigger than just Chiang Mai city or Chiang Mai province for things to get better. We don't know exactly how far pollution travels, how far dust is coming from, but from these images it seems that solving the problem needs to be a trans-boundary initiative.' Air pollution in Chiang Mai last exceeded 300 µg/m3 in the late 1990s, when forest fires blazed in Indonesia: a fact that seems to support Garden's statement. Another obstacle to resolving the issue, even within Thailand's perimeters alone, is the complexity of the problem, explains Garden. 'Many interacting factors are involved and most likely it is not a question of what has happened in the last 5 years, but what has happened over the last two or three decades to make this happen. And it may take just as long to resolve - this is not a short-term issue.'

So how do such severe levels of air pollution affect our health? The Public Health Ministry has estimated that up to 500,000 people were affected by the pollution crisis this year. Hospitals and clinics across the North reported a surge in the number of patients with respiratory problems during the month of March, an average increase of approximately 20 per cent from the same period in 2006.

Even more worrying is the potential for poor air quality to affect health in the long term. Particulate matter small enough to be breathed in is known as either PM10 or PM2.5, referring to dust particles smaller than 10 microns or 2.5 microns respectively. 'PM10 particles are small enough to be stored in the trachea, while PM2.5 matter is so minute that it can penetrate even deeper, into the alveoli, the air cells of the lungs," says Associate Professor Usanee Vinitketkumnuen of Chiang Mai University's Biochemistry Department. 'The PM10 dust causes irritation of the trachea that may lead to bronchitis or bronchial symptoms such as respiratory difficulties, a tight chest. This is particularly dangerous for asthma patients, children and elderly residents, who are at high risk when air pollution is above the maximum safety level. If we breathe in these dust particles over a long period of time, they can destroy the lung cells. And if this happens repeatedly, there is the potential for gene mutation that finally becomes lung cancer.' Research conducted by CMU found that the highest rate of lung cancer in Thailand was in Saraphee, an area known for a frequently high concentration of PM10 dust particles.

The response of the government to the air pollution crisis has been slow and lacklustre at best. Measures initiated by government departments include restricting the activity of barbeque vendors; keeping the moat fountains on 24 hours a day in an attempt to raise humidity and dispel dust; and a proposal to move the songkran celebrations forward - all superficial solutions to a deeply entrenched and complex problem. Despite media and public outcry for a national ban on burning, authorities failed to control fires in forests and agricultural areas across the North, while, on March 18th, the Royal Forestry Department finally issued a statement detailing several safety and precautionary measures to deal with wildfires in the province - weeks after the smog crisis began. Similarly, on March 21st, as pollution levels in Mae Hong Son remained above 300 µg/m3, Deputy Mayor Praphan Buranuprakorn eventually issued a statement to say that the municipality would crack down on outdoor burning and vehicle emissions with heavy fines, as well as initiate legal and public health measures to combat the problem.

However, the complexity of the air pollution issue is as integral to its proposed solutions as to its causes. 'Placing a sudden national or trans-country ban on burning is a tricky issue, considering the number of ethnic minorities that depend on slash and burn agriculture for their livelihood', says Po Garden. 'It would really impact most harshly on the poorest of the poor.' Rather than a short-term reaction to air pollution, what is needed to resolve the Northern disaster is a long-term programme of education and planning. Sadly, the focus of government, media and public attention on the air we breathe seems as transient as the haze itself. In June 2004, Thaksin waxed lyrical about tackling the pollution problem and a budget of 1.84 billion baht was approved for Chiang Mai province to finance alleviation of traffic congestion, waste water treatment of the Ping River, a circular electric train system, waste refuge treatment and the control of air pollution. One has to wonder where, exactly, it all went.

Local people are urged to inform officials of outdoor burning via the Environment Office's hotline number 053-890000.

"You would never drink fuel, so why because of someone else's laziness should you be forced to inhale fuel in an airborne form?"

Smoke from forest fires is one of many types of air pollution. Just a few months ago, before the forest burning began, there were still songtaew and buses belching black smoke, tuk-tuk producing white and grey clouds and two-stroke motorbikes adding a nice blue tinge to the air . . . Around every corner a rainbow of toxicity for all to inhale.

Let's look deeper into the blacks, whites and blues of vehicle emissions. Every day you inhale some 10,000 litres of polluted air. Around Chiang Mai the streets offer a mix of the most consummate diesel, gasoline and natural gas pollutants any country can offer.

What is quite ironic is people complaining about natural wood smoke that you can see, but semi-visible poisonous petro-chemical fumes are dismissed as just part of life here in Thailand. That malodorous dose of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, continues to go un-checked and un-talked about.

Pollution pouring out of exhaust pipes from different vehicles is a result of incomplete burning of fuel that enters the engine. Out of tune engines do not burn all of the fuel entering them, un-burnt liquid fuel is changed to a vapour and sent out the exhaust pipe as multi-coloured smoke. In reality the black, white or blue smoke is vaporised gasoline, diesel and natural gas that you are breathing. You would never drink fuel, so why because of someone else's laziness should you be forced to inhale fuel in an airborne form? Vehicle emissions contain Al, Aluminum; As, Arsenic; Cd, Cadmium; Co, Cobalt; Cr, Chromium; Cu, Copper; Fe, Iron; Mn, Manganese; Mo, Molybdenum; Ni, Nickel; Pb, Lead; Ti, Titanium; V, Vanadium and Zn, Zinc which in airborne form are considered toxins. These metals can also enter your body through the skin, so a pollution mask only goes so far in protecting your health.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) states that diesel exhaust is around 40 times more carcinogenic (cancer causing) than cigarette smoke on a weight/volume basis. Add in a group of cancer causing compounds known as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which include formaldehyde, methane, benzene, phenol, 1-3-butadiene (base ingredient for synthetic rubber) and ammonia swirling around and you will understand why over the last six months so many travellers have complained about bad air around the city and subsequently decided to leave Chiang Mai days earlier than they had planned. Speaking in economic terms, it is a fact that 100,000 visitors come to Chiang Mai each week during the low season. If each of those 100,000 people decided to leave one day earlier than planned, how much lost revenue is that for hotels, restaurants and tour operators? Imagine they left two days earlier? What if they skipped Chiang Mai altogether?

When The Nation published an article stating that air pollution is more than twice the normal average in Chiang Mai, you would have thought local politicians would have started discussing the issue. Sorry, no. In Thailand it comes down to citizens in the community that want to help on a local level, not government.

Enter Dr. Anucha Promwungkwa, Assistant Professor for the Energy Management and Conversation Centre (EMAC) in Chiang Mai University (CMU), a visionary man who wants to improve air quality and reduce Thailand's energy dependence from foreign nations through the use of bio-diesel produced locally. Together with EMAC he has started a Used Vegetable Oil (UVO) collection programme that accepts donations of cooking oil or animal fat from factories, slaughter houses, restaurants, fresh markets and individual family households around Chiang Mai. Initially he was looking for solutions to reduce the amount of waste oil dumped into the sewers which clogged pipes and required cleaning by hand or the addition of chemical solvents to remove the sludge.

Dr. Anucha explained that in petrol stations throughout Thailand the blend is 5% biodiesel mixed with 95% petro-chemical diesel or (B5). If the percentage of biodiesel is increased to 20% (B20) there is a 20-50% reduction in vehicle emissions and a 16-28% reduction in carbon monoxide. Other benefits include 40-50% reduced engine wear due to increased lubrication, 3-10% fuel economy improvement and a 2-3 baht lower cost at the pump than straight diesel. Biodiesel is also sold in B50 and B100 forms, which reduce emissions 80-100%. I asked if laws could be passed to force drivers to tune up their engines or switch to (B20-50-100) to improve air quality, but it seems the only way to get others to change is willingly, by explaining and showing them the advantages first hand. Get them to co-operate because they want to, because it benefits us all. Forcing policies on a population has not worked throughout history, but education as to why cleaner air and a cleaner environment is beneficial traditionally has. Education, not laws, is the way forward for change.

http://www.chiangmainews.com/ecmn/viewfa.php?id=1796

This new internet tax of 940 baht for Thais and 1490 baht for foreigners is another bad sign that the welcome mat for foreigners is being withdrawn. It's bad enough that the government is charging almost as much in tax as it is for the service but to charge foreigners more than Thais because, according to Sombat Merou-Ruang, director of the Alien Internet Control Division at CAT headquarters in Bangkok,

"foreigners that do not have work in Thailand only hang out on internet forums, visit pornographic sites and other website lamock, different from Thai citizens who mostly use the internet for banking, ecommerce, and furthering their education" creates an unfair two tiered system based on cultural stereotyping.

I am quite disapointed that they only charge Farang 50% extra in Tax.

It is normally 100 to 1000% extra.

Does this mean that they think that we Farang have gotten poorer or have they discovered that our money doesn't grow on trees.

I wonder

quote

That would be a definite yes. There are statistics on lung diseases which were quoted in another thread on the topic, and Chiang Mai had a 6 times higher total number of cases than Bangkok. At maybe 1/10th or less the number of people living in CM, that's a very clear statement.

unquote

It seems this statement is somewhat funny, do you really beleive that lungcancer figures in Chiang Mai are 60 times higher than Bangkok ??

You should try to find more reliable sources of information than the chaing mai mail or similar.

Lungcancer in the insustrialized world is much higher than here in Thailand and even here in Chiang Mai.

Even if the data are about 10 years old it will not have changed too much, data from Thailand cancer institute.

Lung cancer isn't the only disease that you can catch from this bad air pollution in Chiang Mai. In Fact these statistics doesn’t show much, because most lung cancer cases come from smoking, not air pollution. But a lot of other serious lung diseases do, and they do not show up in your statistics.

If you want to show the air pollutions affect on lung cancer, you must first remove all smokes from the statistics, as their lung cancer cases will far outweigh the cases from air pollution.

But I think nobody can be in doubt that it does raise the chance of getting lung cancer significantly, especially for none smokers. Just look at the effect of passive smoking. Nobody is in doubt that this has a serious effect. So what about polluted air that you have to breathe everyday for 3 month every year? That can only be very bad for your general health.

The statistics say it all. But they have to be used correctly.

If they engaged the local puu yai baans and kamnans, and put together a well-informed team with concrete, simple explanations of the effects of burning, they could wake up a lot of people.

A rally at each local wat with the local big shots involved (of course) to feel important, and legitimize the whole thing...

Coupled with better garbage collection services.

Not saying a lot of people would not just shrug the information off, but I am sure it would serve the purpose of making at least some people understand they are part of the problem, and can change things.

For maximum effect, it should be done as soon as possible, when people still physically can see the problem.

Good idea.

But sadly something like this will probably not happen, and if it does happen, it will probably happen to late to have much effect.

And there is alot the Thais can do to fix it.

So you saying the Thai government somehow has control over forest fires in Myanmar's Shan state?

No. But they should have control over the fires started in Thailand, by locals.

They say that much of the reason for the smog is that there isn't enough wind to blow it away.

How can they then say that it was blown in from Burma and Laos?

Some smog may come from there, but a lot of burning is going on in Thailand too.

How can it be that the politicians didn't learn from the 1999 lethal air pollution in the Northern provinces?

It seems that they have allowed the fires to happen, and not done anything to stop and punish the guilty that start the fires.

Now Chiang Mai may have a similar situation.

Will they learn anything this time? Probably not.