.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
nisakiman
-
Posts
1,280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Posts posted by nisakiman
-
-
I've never found a cheap airport!
Have you?
"Cheap Airport" is an oxymoron. They are all set up to gouge the max out of everybody.
I live on a Greek island, and at the airport here they charge €4.90 for an iced coffee. At my local kafeneon, it's €1.20.
-
1
-
-
Yes, fine, but that doesn't really address the question I'm asking, which is the viability of travelling to Mukdahan from Bangkok via Savannakhet. I know you can pick up a Lao visa at the Nong Khai crossing, as I've done that visa run. I also understand the same applies if you cross from Mukdahan over the new bridge. But can you get a visa on arrival at Savannaklhet airport?
-
I just searched this topic out as I was pondering the possibilities of the Bangkok - Mukdahan trip; not as a visa run (not now, anyway) but in terms of the quickest and easiest way to get there. It's quite a hike from Ubon, but I note that there is a daily flight from Bangkok to Savannakhet, and of course with the Friendship bridge now open, Mukdahan is a short drive from Savannakhet airport. Has anyone used this option? Are there any visa issues? I realise one would have to buy a Lao visa, but are they available on arrival at the airport? Or would one have to get it in Bangkok prior to travel (which would then make it a pain in the ass).
Any info on this gratefully accepted!
-
I recently paid for (separate) flights for my wife and me with my card (she's leaving before me and we'll return together), but I booked the flights via an online agent, as it worked out cheaper to book the domestic and international flights together as a package. As pointed out above, the airline will have no knowledge of how the fares have been paid for as they will have been paid by the agency. So just book her flight via Zugu or Momondo, whatever and the issue shouldn't arise. (Unless you are directed back to the airline to buy the tickets, of course! But I think normally you will be given price options with agents).
-
I rather like the "wringting". It conjures up all sorts of possibilities! You could say it has a certain 'wring' to it.
-
1
-
-
SOH will be passing through Doha later this year, and I'll be following a couple of months later. We'll be returning on the same flight, again via Doha. Latest thread on this was back in March, when changes were imminent. Does anyone have more recent info on the airport? We will thankfully only have about three hours stopover, but as with all airports, a little inside knowledge always helps! Recommendations for cafes, bars (do they have bars there?), eateries, somewhere comfortable to sit and have a quiet smoke, whatever. We'll be flying in from Athens, and then on to BKK (and reverse) with Qatar. Any opinions / info gratefully received!
Had long stops in Bahrain and Dubai in the past, but this is the first time via Doha. Oh, we'll be flying cattle class, so gold flyer lounges etc are not part of the equation!
-
I don't know for sure about this, but from various posts I've read here, Thai customs will tax the living daylights out of anything and everything you bring in.
I will be coming over with my wife later this year to look at possibilities for a business I have in mind, and we may well move in a couple of years. However, if my investigations show that the Thai government want to tax the sh*t out of everything I ship, then I will look at locating said business over the border in Lao or Khmer. I currently have a business designing and building bespoke kitchens, although I do other carpentry jobs too. When I retire from this business, which will be soon, I won't want to part with the tools that have provided me with a living. They are, many of them, 20+ years old, but were expensive, made in Switzerland, Germany and Japan mostly, and are still better than I could buy today. If I find the Thai customs want to charge me extortionate sums to bring them with me (not for work, but I would want to do all my own home improvements etc), then they can kiss goodbye to any money and business I would bring to the country. I'll simply invest elsewhere.
My wife, who is a qualified accountant and has worked in the past for companies that import goods, is of the opinion that they would tax all my old stuff as if it was new, which would add up to thousands of Euros. I'm hoping she's wrong. I'm sure there are others who post here who have greater knowledge of these matters, and will be able to advise you (and me!) accordingly.
-
The brain works better when it gets nicotine - almost like an optimized computer. Nicotine is a "work-drug" that enables its consumers to focus better and think faster. The brain also becomes more enduring, especially in smokers: Nicotine experiments show that smokers in prolonged working situations are able to maintain concentration for many hours longer than non-smokers.
http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html
One recent study has found that one of nicotine's metabolites, cotinine, may improve memory and protect brain cells from diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Another new study shows that nicotine can help improve some of the learning and memory problems associated with hypothyroidism.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031112072839.htm
Cigarette smoking may improve attention and short--term memory in persons with schizophrenia by stimulating nicotine receptors in the brain, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050710202418.htm
I'll continue to take my snus then - nicotine without all the crap that's in cigs.
Good for you. Mind you, they are trying to ban that too, along with e-cigs.
The problem is that it has never actually been about health.
The whole anti-smoking crusade is purely ideological, as is abundantly apparent in the anti-smoker's stance vis-a-vis the new phenomenon of e-cigs.
Completely harmless, no by-products (that mythical toxin, second-hand smoke), odourless - but.....IT LOOKS LIKE SMOKING! AND PEOPLE ARE AVOIDING THE SANCTIONS (PUNISHMENTS IN THE FORM OF BANS) AS LAID DOWN BY TOBACCO CONTROL!
So regardless of the fact that it is (according to the current orthodoxy) a much less harmful product than tobacco (as is snus), they want to ban it.
Because it offends them.
I could go on. I have much knowledge on this subject, most of it exposing a network of lies, skulduggery and profit.
But that is for another time.
-
1
-
-
The brain works better when it gets nicotine - almost like an optimized computer. Nicotine is a "work-drug" that enables its consumers to focus better and think faster. The brain also becomes more enduring, especially in smokers: Nicotine experiments show that smokers in prolonged working situations are able to maintain concentration for many hours longer than non-smokers.
http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html
One recent study has found that one of nicotine's metabolites, cotinine, may improve memory and protect brain cells from diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Another new study shows that nicotine can help improve some of the learning and memory problems associated with hypothyroidism.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031112072839.htm
Cigarette smoking may improve attention and short--term memory in persons with schizophrenia by stimulating nicotine receptors in the brain, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050710202418.htm
-
"Warn your kids against buying these cigarettes. They are very dangerous as they contain more than 20 addictive substances," she said."
Really 20? Isn't nicotine poison enough?
No, Nicotine is harmless. It's the tar and other chemicals in cigarettes that are poisonous.
Lethal dose of Nicotine:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning
When I was a kid, my old grandad used liquid nicotine as a pesticide/fungicide spray on our garden flowers...............
exert from wikipedia
Mods not sure if this is allowed but I did copy it and feel free to delete it as I am not sure on the rule fort this.
"
Jump to: navigation, searchNicotine poisoning Classification and external resourcesNicotine ICD-10 F17.0, T65.2 DiseasesDB 30389 MedlinePlus 002510
Nicotine poisoning describes the symptoms of the toxic effects of consuming nicotine, which can potentially be deadly.[1] Historically, most cases of nicotine poisoning have been the result of use of nicotine as an insecticide.[2][3] Whereas more recently poisoning typically appears to be due to accidental ingestion of tobacco or tobacco products or ingestion of nicotine containing plants.[4][5][6]
The probable lethal dose of nicotine has been reported as between 40 and 60 milligrams (the total amount in about 2 cigarettes if all of the nicotine was absorbed) in adults and about 1 mg/kg in children (less than 1 cigarette) .[7][8][9] Children may become ill following ingestion of one cigarette,[10] ingestion of more than this may cause a child to become severly ill.[11][5] In some cases children have become poisoned by topical medicinal creams which contain nicotine.[12]
People who harvest or cultivate tobacco may experience Green Tobacco Sickness (GTS), a type of nicotine poisoning caused by dermal exposure to wet tobacco leaves. This occurs most commonly in young, inexperienced tobacco harvesters who do not smoke tobacco.[4][13]"
In my Opinion it is not as bad as the tar in the real McCoy s. That will coat your lungs and cause permanent loss of breathing capacity if inhaled over a long period. 30 years of heavy smoking for me and I have 71% use of my lungs. When I quit 28 years ago I had 70% use of them. My smoking years were for the most part in relatively smog free areas.
The basic rule of toxicology is "the dose makes the poison", which is why the oft touted soundbite about there being "4000 chemicals in cigarettes" is a meaningless statement, since very few of those chemicals are harmful in the quantities ingested by a smoker. Remember, too much water can kill you, but we don't make a song and dance about it. And given that over the past 50+ years lord knows how many thousands of rats, rabbits, dogs etc have been subjected to up to the equivalent of 500 cigarettes smoked per day in the researchers attempts to induce lung cancer with not one single success, it makes one wonder just how dangerous these "4000 chemicals" really are.
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409
“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
The latest attempts to demonise e-cigarettes merely illustrates that the anti-tobacco pogrom has never been about health but is based on an ideological hatred of something that they personally don't like. The reason they object to e-cigarettes is because vapers are circumventing the punishments they have gleefully devised for smokers, and that really upsets them. That's why they are busy inventing more junk science to try to get e-cigs banned. And of course, let us not forget that they pose a serious threat the the profits of Big Pharma who have poured hundreds of millions into getting smoking bans enacted so they can peddle their useless NRT products.
-
Going to court over a 35% increase in warning on the packaging, when even 100% isn't going to stop anyone from smoking?
It might not stop a lot of people, but the fact that the tobacco companies fight it so hard indicates they do lose customers as a result of the packaging
"We decided to enlarge the warning and picture because the number of new smokers is high and the age is younger," he said
Which indicates that warning labels have had no impact on smoking rates whatsoever.
So what do they say?
"Well, that didn't work at all; so let's do more of the same."
Morons.
-
This is probably due to additive effects of the recent findings we have on the effects of second hand smoke, cigarettes being the leading cause of preventable death WORLDWIDE, and the pressure from a more informed public.
"However, since there is no disease proper to smoking because they're
all multi-factorial diseases, anyone – current, former or never smoker –
can get a smoking related disease . As it pertains to smokers,
despite the best anti-tobacco experts, including Sir Richard Doll, who
testified in the Scottish landmark legal case MRS MARGARET McTEAR
vs. IMPERIAL TOBACCO LIMITED, it could not be proven that had it not
been for an individual's cigarette smoking, he would not have contracted
lung cancer. [Claim1 4] This applies to any of the diseases labeled as smoking related.
When one looks at how smoking related diseases are
distributed within the USA population for example (see chart on the
right), one can draw complete different conclusions from the sound-bite Tobacco is the first avoidable cause of mortality in the world.
Indeed according to this chart based on real people with real diseases
giving real answers as opposed to computer estimates using cherry picked
risk factors as their base model, not one smoking related disease is more prevalent in current smokers than former and never smokers."
http://tctactics.org/index.php/Sound_Bites
"...and the pressure from a more informed public."
For that, read "...and the pressure from a brainwashed and misinformed public."
Most of the stuff you read about smoking is pure, unadulterated guff. If you go back to the original research behind the press releases, you will find that in most cases statements have been taken out of context and presented as fact without mentioning any of the opposing (and thus unhelpful to the 'cause') aspects and conditions.
The site I've linked to above exposes many of the subterfuges used by the Tobacco Control Industry in pursuit of their ideological dogma. All the info is linked back to the original research - it's not just an opinion site, it's about facts. Facts most people are unaware of because they've had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Smokers stink. They make people around them stink.
They stink
How very eloquent.
Do you know why it never occurred to people to make statements like that 20 - 30 years ago? It's because they hadn't been subjected to the relentless propaganda that you have been subjected to. So it never occurred to them to be so rude about something so trivial. And in those days of course, they didn't mind about other people smoking, even if they didn't smoke themselves. But then the fanatics started with the brainwashing agenda. You were obviously a perfect subject, since you parrot the mantra so well. The Tobacco Control Industry will be most gratified, I'm sure, that their army of idiots is growing apace.
However, don't get too smug about being one of the brainwashed mob; the anti-smoker's edifice is built on foundations of sand, and those foundations are starting to crumble as the tidal eddies of truth wash around them. They are discovering the veracity of that old adage: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time". Their lies and exaggerations are starting to come back and bite them now. A few years hence, Andre, and you won't dare make statements like you just did because you won't have your gang of anti-smoking bully-boys standing behind you nodding their approval. They will be far too busy trying to save their professional careers. Believe me. I have my ear to the ground on this subject, and (to mix metaphors) I know better than most which way the wind is blowing. It is poised to change direction.
This change of direction will come sooner than I had originally expected, and the reason for that is the totally unanticipated advent of the e-cigarette. The e-cigarette has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the anti-smoking fanatics, and they are struggling to deal with it. For the last couple of decades they have hidden their prohibitionist agenda under the cloak of 'Public Health', but now we have e-cigs they have been exposed for the agenda-driven ideologues that they are. They are now reduced to indignant utterances like "But it looks like smoking....", and "But it means they're getting round the ban on smoking in bars...".
E-cigs are odourless, emit water vapour (which is anyway all around us to a greater or lesser degree depending on humidity) and have no known or anticipated health issues. They are neither tobacco products nor tobacco cigarettes. So the anti-smoking lobby should love them, right? After all, it's all about health and (let's not forget) the chiiildren. Ha! Hoist by their own petard! Joe Public is not so stupid as to not notice that the objections to e-cigs have nothing to do with health and everything to do with ideological fanaticism.
-
5
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I went to a BBQ at a mates placeawhile back and we were sitting around the table outside having a few beers and a chat when the mate and a couple of others lit up. Well one woman went right off tap, moaning and complaining about it being a filthy habit and thier 2nd hand smoke is ruining her health. She refused to move and continued ranting and demanding they put thier ciggies out until the mate stood up and told her to politely shut and move as it was his home and he can do what he wants and won't be dictated to by non smokers in his own property. Got a few laughs around the table even from non smokers.
Interesting that you should use the BBQ situation as your anecdote:
"A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois
found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of
dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes. Dioxins are a group of chemicals
known to increase the likelihood of cancer."
So, all you BBQ loving anti-smokers who are paranoid about a whiff of tobacco smoke being lethal, stick that in your pipe and smoke it! And enjoy your next BBQ! 220,000 fags, remember!
The reality is, of course, that the whole concept of "second-hand smoke" is a construct of the Tobacco Control Industry.
It was Sir George Godber, one of the early anti-tobacco zealots, who in a speech to the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and
Health (“The Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”) which was held in New York from June 2 June 5, 1975, said that what they must do is to “foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily” to secondhand smoke.
To this end, because the research that had been done already didn't give them the answers they wanted (in fact 80% of the studies came up with an insignificant risk factor, 12% of the studies found SHS exposure to have a beneficial effect, and 8% of the studies found a very slightly raised risk factor), they moved the epidemiological goalposts and cherry-picked the figures they needed, and - ABRACADABRA, HEY PRESTO! - second-hand smoke kills! It's amazing what you can do with a bit of junk science!
Now they use a computer model, from which they produce figures, like rabbits out of a hat, showing that something like 600,000 people die every year from SHS. Only problem is, they don't die. There are no body bags, only computer generated 'virtual' deaths. As with any computer program, the results depend entirely on the data you input. Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you don't believe me, try to find one, (just one, anywhere in the world) death that has been attributed to SHS. Google is your friend. Try it. You'll find lots and lots of scary numbers, but no actual deaths. And before anyone comes up with the standard answer "Roy Castle", read this:
"...on the Five Live phone-in, the chief executive of the Roy Castle
Lung Cancer Foundation, Dr Rosemary Gillespie, was asked a direct
question: did Roy Castle smoke cigars? Her reply:
"I am not prepared to discuss whether Roy Castle smoked."
In fact it was common knowledge that he smoked cigars, but that fact notwithstanding many non-smokers die of lung cancer regardless of whether they've ever been exposed to SHS or not. They still don't understand the mechanism. They can't explain why the majority of (even very heavy) smokers don't get LC, and some do. And why nearly as many non-smokers get LC. In fact, despite all the research, the link between smoking and LC is still only correlation. Causation has not yet been established.
As for airport smoking areas, they are very often deliberately small, cramped and poorly ventilated. It is part of the "denormalisation" programme. The Tobacco Control Industry is well funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and wield undue influence with governments. It is they who dictate that smoking rooms should be as uncomfortable and as inconvenient as possible. The more difficult they make it for smokers, the more people will be driven to give up. The more people driven to give up, the more Nicorette Big Pharma sells. It's no wonder the pharmaceutical industry pours hundreds of millions of dollars into anti-smoking groups; the nicotine replacement therapy market has grown into a multi-billion global empire on the back of the bans.
-
3
-
Sounds good - I wish I'd been there.
I've been promising myself Sepang for about twelve years now, ever since I was transiting KL airport on race weekend and I was put in a hotel where many of the support staff were housed. The place was buzzing (I don't remember what day it was, but it must have been the Friday or Saturday night) and there were flyers lying around with ticket prices. I thought it looked very reasonable compared with what I've heard about Silverstone prices, and I've always liked the track layout..
Obviously, I haven't made it to a race yet. Life does have a habit of getting in the way of plans, unfortunately...
But I will make it there one day soon!
-
Hasn't Mekhong disappeared altogether? Think the company went under a few years ago. Suspect that they based the name on where they sourced the water for it.
Mekhong has been re-introduced as an upmarket whisky
They stock it at Big C and I think it's over 400 Baht for a bottle now. Even at 40 baht I wouldn't consider it.
Heh! I've got a bottle of Mekhong in the drinks cabinet that I brought back to UK about 15 years ago, still 75% full.
I even had it on the shelf in the bar I had here in Greece for a couple of years.
And it's still 75% full.
I occasionally unscrew the cap and have a sniff, just to remind myself why I never drink it.
Never mind, I'm sure it will become a collector's item eventually:
"Wow! A twenty-five year old Mekhong? I'll give you a million Baht!"
Or something like that...
-
I think that essentially it's a great idea - many's the time I've stood behind someone at check-in who weighs double what I do (I'm a fairly average 68kg) worrying if my case is overweight.
However, as hansni points out above, you can be sure that any move the airlines make in that direction won't make flying cheaper for average guys like me, but it will make it more expensive for the heavier people.
But the principle of paying a flat rate per kilo (person and baggage) for any given flight is really something they should have been doing for years. It's not beyond the wit of the airline companies to work extra-wide seats into economy for those who are paying above a certain fare threshold. It would be very easy to implement, with the weighing pad just in front of the check-in desk so the girl / guy can just check the scales against stated weight on the ticket.
-
As per #27 above, I take umbrage (not really) that I melt away in the background and am not very hospitable. I am very hospitable with several comely young Thai persons and often with my neighbors farang or otherwise. Several Thais, male & female, I have helped through school, gotten better jobs, & mostly with those who do not speak English.
If I wanted to hangout with farang males, there would be some excellent places I could do it: California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, etc.
I'm a serial expat, currently living in Greece. I tend to avoid the expat community and I never go to expat bars. If I wanted to hang out with Brits, I would have stayed in UK. I like Greece a lot, and speak, read and write (although my spelling is lousy) the language. I have no problems here, despite the current economic climate. I'm not being curmudgeonly about other Brits - I do have a couple of good expat friends here. I just don't see why I should spend time with someone I wouldn't give the time of day if I was in a pub (what's left of them) in the UK just because they also choose to live here. That's not why I'm here. And I will be the same when I move to Thailand with my (Thai) wife in a few years.
-
Yes! Love Don Muang.
There are numerous posts like this. I just don't understand why people harp on about the good old days with DM being a far better airport. How quickly people forget. It was a horrible, dreadful airport. Too far away, horrible parking facilities, no mass transit option (I'm not counting Don Muang railway station), dark and dingy, terrible food and beverage outlets. It was awful.
In every respect SVB is a far superior airport. Seriously, why the love for DMK? (I'm willing to bet that at least half the people on here who slate SVB and wish for the good old days of DMK used to slag the hell out of DMK when it was our sole airport).
I have many fond memories of DMK, that great bar on the 1st floor,they brewed their own beer, Swampy always feels threatening, with it's frighteningly designed stainless steal ceilings. I never slagged DMK off and used to travel too and from there for more than 15 years. I LOVE DMK!
Same as that. Don Muang was a little raggy round the edges, but it was comfortable and friendly. I find swampy rather cold and impersonal by comparison. And yes, the German micro-brewery was great! A tad expensive, but some great beers. I wonder if that will re-open...
-
2
-
-
Just plugged in a Bangkok-Athens round trip for any date in April and 30-days duration using matrix. Late April travel came up lowest cost.
Check China airlines, they offer business class (europe- BKK) for under 2000 euros.Well, some interesting responses. I posed the question because someone on one of the threads here stated that the cheapest way to upgrade is to wait until you are on the plane, and I wondered if that was fact or b/s.
Personally, if I could afford to fly business I would. I had the good fortune to be upgraded once on Gulf, and it was bloody great. Decent food, nice wine and lots of room. But I just can't justify paying three times the price of econ for a somewhat more comfortable flight. If it was 50% more, or even double I would consider it, but the differential is so much that only people who have enough money not to worry about spending €6 - 7K for a flight can do it. I'm not in that position, unfortunately!
As we will be looking for flights later on this year, I was wondering if there was any way of upgrading without paying such a massive premium. Hence my interest in the idea (if it was possible) of upgrading on the plane for less.
Unfortunately I fly out of Athens, and I don't think China Airlines fly there. I might check out if they fly to BKK from one of the Middle East countries, though. Might be possible to fly econ to Dubai, for instance (3 - 4 hours), and then pick up a China Airlines business from there. I'll have to do some web crawling!
Etihad came up with an option for approx US$2000 round-trip but with the warning flag that not all sectors would be the same class. Their regular, all-business round-trip fare was around US$3000. All their Abu Dhabi layovers are decent length.
Other mid-east airlines lead the pack with Egypt Air and Qatar finishing 'on the podium' so to speak.
That's interesting. The only problem with not knowing which sectors are business is that Athens - Abu Dhabi would be about 4 hrs and Abu Dhabi - Bangkok would be about 8 hrs. Four hours in econ is not a problem, but the eight hour stretch would be far better in business. If I paid a premium and found that I got the short flight in business and the long one in econ, I'd be most put out!
-
Well, some interesting responses. I posed the question because someone on one of the threads here stated that the cheapest way to upgrade is to wait until you are on the plane, and I wondered if that was fact or b/s.
Personally, if I could afford to fly business I would. I had the good fortune to be upgraded once on Gulf, and it was bloody great. Decent food, nice wine and lots of room. But I just can't justify paying three times the price of econ for a somewhat more comfortable flight. If it was 50% more, or even double I would consider it, but the differential is so much that only people who have enough money not to worry about spending €6 - 7K for a flight can do it. I'm not in that position, unfortunately!
As we will be looking for flights later on this year, I was wondering if there was any way of upgrading without paying such a massive premium. Hence my interest in the idea (if it was possible) of upgrading on the plane for less.
Check China airlines, they offer business class (europe- BKK) for under 2000 euros.
Unfortunately I fly out of Athens, and I don't think China Airlines fly there. I might check out if they fly to BKK from one of the Middle East countries, though. Might be possible to fly econ to Dubai, for instance (3 - 4 hours), and then pick up a China Airlines business from there. I'll have to do some web crawling!
You should be very happy to have Athen as your starting point. Athen is one of the cheapest Airports in Europe to fly Business (booked) without asking for upgrade.
Is that so? That business class has different price differentials from different airports? I never knew that. I had assumed it was the same wherever you flew from.
-
Well, some interesting responses. I posed the question because someone on one of the threads here stated that the cheapest way to upgrade is to wait until you are on the plane, and I wondered if that was fact or b/s.
Personally, if I could afford to fly business I would. I had the good fortune to be upgraded once on Gulf, and it was bloody great. Decent food, nice wine and lots of room. But I just can't justify paying three times the price of econ for a somewhat more comfortable flight. If it was 50% more, or even double I would consider it, but the differential is so much that only people who have enough money not to worry about spending €6 - 7K for a flight can do it. I'm not in that position, unfortunately!
As we will be looking for flights later on this year, I was wondering if there was any way of upgrading without paying such a massive premium. Hence my interest in the idea (if it was possible) of upgrading on the plane for less.
Check China airlines, they offer business class (europe- BKK) for under 2000 euros.
Unfortunately I fly out of Athens, and I don't think China Airlines fly there. I might check out if they fly to BKK from one of the Middle East countries, though. Might be possible to fly econ to Dubai, for instance (3 - 4 hours), and then pick up a China Airlines business from there. I'll have to do some web crawling!
-
Well, some interesting responses. I posed the question because someone on one of the threads here stated that the cheapest way to upgrade is to wait until you are on the plane, and I wondered if that was fact or b/s.
Personally, if I could afford to fly business I would. I had the good fortune to be upgraded once on Gulf, and it was bloody great. Decent food, nice wine and lots of room. But I just can't justify paying three times the price of econ for a somewhat more comfortable flight. If it was 50% more, or even double I would consider it, but the differential is so much that only people who have enough money not to worry about spending €6 - 7K for a flight can do it. I'm not in that position, unfortunately!
As we will be looking for flights later on this year, I was wondering if there was any way of upgrading without paying such a massive premium. Hence my interest in the idea (if it was possible) of upgrading on the plane for less.
-
1
-
-
No, someone definitely mentioned about upgrading on the plane. I honestly don't know if this is in fact possible, but I thought I'd ask the question. I've upgraded at check-in before (to premium econ) but it interested me that someone said they'd upgraded to business on the plane more cheaply.
Getting From Bkk To Mukdahan
in Thailand Travel Forum
Posted
Those were my thoughts. And it seems that Savannakhet airport is basically Mukdahan's local airport, too, being just over the river. If there are no visa complications then that would seem to be the quickest and easiest way to get from BKK to Mukdahan.
Thanks for the input to both of you.