josephbloggs

So far the Max has dropped out of the sky twice, but it is the general culture of the company that is suspect as it is run by bean counters not engineers, and safety concerns are generally ignored or swept under the carpet. I don't trust the company. Two 787s did catch fire but luckily they were on the ground. Watch the documentary I posted and let me know what you think. I believe the 777 was the last "properly" built Boeing plane. I hope I am wrong but I think eventually we will see a 787 fall out of the sky. If the company is proven to have a history or lying, of cutting corners on safety to increase profits, then why would you trust their products? If saying "well 787s aren't falling out the sky constantly" is all that you need to reassure yourself then good for you. Boeing was always allowed to certify their own aircraft as safe rather than it being done by the FAA. That didn't end well. They took the opportunity of self certification to cut corners and compromise safety and that culture permeates the entire company.

I don't know about him but I absolutely do. I will never ever set foot on a 737 (Max or otherwise), and I avoid 787s as best I can although I have had no choice on a couple of routes. Short flights I will only go Airbus (A319, 320, 321). Long haul preference is A380 or A350. The only Boeing I am truly comfortable with is a 777 - it's a good plane. So yes, it is a crucial factor for me at least and I am sure I am not alone.

This is nine years old but considering what has happened since (737 Max crashes, safety cover ups etc) it is very relevant and also quite shocking. Undercover reporting from inside the factory, Boeing staff saying they would never fly on one! Whistleblowers saying safety concerns were ignored. Worth a watch. (Yeah yeah, Al Jazeera blah blah before the Boeing fanboys jump in).

Yet they still manage to kill dozens of people each year and rip faces off babies. So it doesn't really matter if their jaws "lock" when doing it to me, it's a pointless argument, it's the inherent aggression in the breed along with their power.

Mine neither. We all know it is locked in aa cage because it is dangerous and would probably be aggressive towards them but it's fun to watch the poster try to justify it with nonsensical reasons. Also I am sure the cage wasn't suddenly constructed just for this building project....

Incorrect. Previously artists would make a lot of money from record / CD sales. Now that revenue stream has pretty much gone and streaming doesn't provide nearly as much so artists make the majority of their money from touring. Nothing to do with post Covid people getting out more.

Yeah, never seen any efforts to eradicate mosquitos, you're absolutely right.

And?

Because of builders tools, apparently.

Maybe not ,but then I don't agree with having dogs in cages either. (But in the case of pitbulls that's probably the best place for them, permanently) Let's imagine for a moment the builders weren't using power tools. Would it be able to wander around and play with them, or would you still lock it in a cage?

Seriously, you book the cheapest budget airline you can find and what do you expect? You could have paid a bit more to go TG but you chose not to. Caveat emptor. Thai fly daily, Thai Lion Air maybe three times a week? So no flights for several days and undoubtedly it was cancelled because it was pretty empty. Thai would have flown regardless. Really, I don't see how you can come back and whinge, you get what you pay for. I never fly budget airlines other than internal flights or maybe somewhere with frequent and short flights like Vietnam. It is not worth the small saving in my opinion, definitely not for anywhere over two hours or with infrequent flights. Really, I don't see how you can come back and whinge, especially as it seems the flight timing was important to you but you went with the cheapest budget airline.

So good it is just watching them from inside a cage? Why can't it wander around and play with the builders? My dog can, and does. And anyone who says they are handsome is deluded. I am a dog lover (and a dog owner) but pitbulls are fugly as hell.

The usual idiots will be along soon to say their pitbulls can sleep with babies and wouldn't hurt a fly. I am sure this guy said the same. The same kind of idiots who say guns don't kill people....

Absolutely not true.

Couldn't agree more. More intelligence and talent than all the bitter and grumpy old AN posters combined and timesed by 100.

Yeah, sounds like a real expert: "It looks like she has some mini marbles in some parts of her lips if you know what I mean." Spoken like a true surgeon, thanks for sharing.

Yeah, because you become a global superstar by not having any talent. Just a typical AN bitter / jealous old man comment. Get back in your rocking chair grandpa.

Ah yes, sorry, I mixed you up with the OP. Was asking his reason as we may be able to tailor advice for him based on why or what he wants to know. I don't know for sure of course, but I am fairly certain they are all 100% foreign owned. I just can't see that any of those huge multinationals would have a majority Thai partner - it is asking for trouble. And with the kind of investments they are making the BOI would welcome them with open arms, absolutely. I've randomly searched a few from my list on the BOI database and they are all there. That database used to tell you the ownership and registered capital but now it doesn't.

That is talking about Foreign Business Licenses (FBL) for non BOI companies which is very difficult. If you get BOI privileges you can be 100% foreign owned. We applied for BOI with 100% foreign ownership, no Thai shareholders at all, and we got it. Since then we have also received a FBL for non BOI activities. Granted it can't be for protected industries. Is there a reason for your question or are you just curious?

There are bajillions, including: Toyota Motor Company Nestle Unilever Honda Siemens P&G Mitsubishi Shell DHL IBM Mitsubishi Samsung Coca Cola 3M Ford Bayer Nokia LG PepsiCo Microsoft General Electric Airbus Nissan Bosch HP Cisco There my research ended as I got bored. I would say any multinational with a presence in Thailand (including the one I work for) will be 100% foreign owned through BOI. No way will they risk having a controlling local partner.

Also remember the person you are replying to can't read. BKK will have a higher flight density capacity than Heathrow.

Oh dear, too quick to make a mockery and in fact you ended up making a mockery of yourself. Slow down before you bash next time and use a bit of common sense and read carefully. I assume you have actually been to Suvarnabhumi? Yet you believe it handles ten flights per hour? One landing and one take off every 12 minutes?? The article clearly states the new runway will increase capacity to 94 flights per hour. Heathrow handles around 72 per hour (combined take offs and landings): 1,300 flight movements per day / 18 hours per day it operates = 72 flights per hour. So BKK makes a mockery of Heathrow - and it does, in many ways. The newly opened SAT-1 concourse will handle 112 flights per day - that is not the entire airport, just a small addition to the main terminal.

I can confirm that Seatran has excellent live saving equipment. Live vests under all the seats, floatation devises on the decks and lots of lifeboats/liferafts. They were all stamped with their last inspection date and the date of their next due inspection (which was July 2024 on the ferry I was on). Raja on the other hand......

Well my post was from five months ago so a bit irrelevant now, but the reason I didn't want a bus or train is because it was only a four day trip, so wasting two days on the journey there and back made no sense. For a longer visit, no problem. Nothing to do with mixing with the commoners (maybe a bit), a train would be fine, but I'll never get on a long distance bus in Thailand. I actually just spent 8 days on Samui and got back a couple of days ago. This time I drove and it was much easier than I expected. Left home in Bangkok at 6am and was at the Seatran pier at Donsak at 2pm. Unfortunately I had booked a 7pm ferry and all earlier ferries were full, so I had a few hours to kiil which was not ideal but also not the end of the world. Coming back I intended to stay a night in Hua Hin to break up the journey. An 8am ferry from Samui to Donsak got me to Hua Hin before 4pm, but then I decided to keep going to Bangkok as it was still daylight and Hua Hin holds no interest for me whatsoever. I wouldn't hesitate to drive again. The bit between Bangkok and Hua Hin is a pig: ugly scenery, horrible roads, construction, trucks (so leave early and you miss the nastiness) but the rest of journey is scenic, quiet, and excellent roads.

That's because it doesn't happen.