Thai Airways Regrets Move To Don Muang

[qualtrough]

Today's Bangkok Post has an article saying that Thai Airways is losing money because passengers don't want the inconvenience of having to switch between airports. Benefiting have been the domestic carriers who decided to stay at the new airport. The article went on to say that Thai may be reluctant to move back since they spearheaded the move to reopen the old airport and spent 20 M baht doing so. My favorites part of the article:

"The use of two airports has increased the flight transfer time in Bangkok from between two and three hours to between five and seven hours.

Critics said THAI may have underestimated the impact of passenger connectivity to its business as statistics show that there are always passengers on every THAI domestic flight who need to transfer to international flights."

Should anyone be surprised by this development? Really, what were they thinking? Further proof in my opinion that the whole airport saga was primarily political in nature and had nothing to do with safety. I note that the runways appear to be working or have been easily repairable.

Edited April 25, 2007 by qualtrough

[Totster]

Lets hope they move back.. or at least have some connecting flights to each destination affected from Suvarnabhumi

totster

[OlRedEyes]

As stated, cannot see why this is surprising. I suppose if there is a business philosophy that the customers needs are secondary, or worse, it may be a surprise...

[bdenner]

Thai International - Som Nom Na.

I've been hearing some bad stories about the transfers, traffic hold ups, taxi rip offs, baggage lost, lack of transport, etc. As I said in the past my 6 year association with Thai is over and it's Tiger now, Udon - Singapore then onward.

[PeaceBlondie]

Until Suvanapbhoom opened, I usually travelled by air from Chiang Mai (CNX) to Don Muang and onward internationally. It was a bit silly to have to go to BKK to end up in Tokyo, but easy enough. Now, it's at least twice as complex. I'm going to ride the bus to BKK, and spend the night downtown, before heading to Europe next month. Upon my return, arriving in BKK from Europe at 645 am, I might find a flight from Suvanaphoom, but with Thai Air charging almost 3000 baht, and only having a couple of flights per day, why should I?

There is a mistaken impression that air travel is fast and easy. Not always.

[briley]

peaceblondie - Air Aisa flights all go Chiang Mai to the new airport - and much under 3000 baht

[ovenman]

There is a mistaken impression that air travel is fast and easy. Not always.

True, it's often the local stuff at either end of the journey that can wind up taking as much time as the transcontinental leap(s) in the middle.

This would have all worked out better had the AOT opted to open Don Mueang for international operations and let AirAsia move their entire operation to the old airport (which they would have done in a heartbeat). The operational load shift to Don Mueang would have been the same, perhaps even greater, and THAI could have kept their operations solely at Suvarnabhumi which would have made more sense all the way around.

[quiksilva]

The sooner they move back to the new airport the better.

[whatsupdoc]

This would have all worked out better had the AOT opted to open Don Mueang for international operations and let AirAsia move their entire operation to the old airport (which they would have done in a heartbeat). The operational load shift to Don Mueang would have been the same, perhaps even greater, and THAI could have kept their operations solely at Suvarnabhumi which would have made more sense all the way around.

Probably allowing AirAsia to use Don Mueang for both domestic and international flights would give them a (too) big competitive advantage over Thai Airways. I think it has a political reason not to do it, but using Don Mueang for budget airlines and Suwannabhumi for regular ones would be by far the most sensible option.

[ovenman]

This would have all worked out better had the AOT opted to open Don Mueang for international operations and let AirAsia move their entire operation to the old airport (which they would have done in a heartbeat). The operational load shift to Don Mueang would have been the same, perhaps even greater, and THAI could have kept their operations solely at Suvarnabhumi which would have made more sense all the way around.

Probably allowing AirAsia to use Don Mueang for both domestic and international flights would give them a (too) big competitive advantage over Thai Airways. I think it has a political reason not to do it, but using Don Mueang for budget airlines and Suwannabhumi for regular ones would be by far the most sensible option.

No doubt that politics are involved. At one point, the AOT had actually decided to do allow both international and domestic operations at the revamped Don Mueang and AirAsia was going to move, but the AOT subsequently back-tracked.

[marshbags]

Today's Bangkok Post has an article saying that Thai Airways is losing money because passengers don't want the inconvenience of having to switch between airports. Benefiting have been the domestic carriers who decided to stay at the new airport. The article went on to say that Thai may be reluctant to move back since they spearheaded the move to reopen the old airport and spent 20 M baht doing so. My favorites part of the article:

"The use of two airports has increased the flight transfer time in Bangkok from between two and three hours to between five and seven hours.

Critics said THAI may have underestimated the impact of passenger connectivity to its business as statistics show that there are always passengers on every THAI domestic flight who need to transfer to international flights."

Should anyone be surprised by this development? Really, what were they thinking? Further proof in my opinion that the whole airport saga was primarily political in nature and had nothing to do with safety. I note that the runways appear to be working or have been easily repairable.

Thanks for this Qualtrough and with you anticipated kind permisssion the url for this article is as i have just viewed.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=118315

Thai just didn,t give a ###### about their customers in the N.E. area as one example i am familiar with.

As posted before the transfer, courtesy of my local Udonthani travel agent:-

" All the local agencies had a meeting prior to the move and advised the C.E.O. of Thai Airways that they were concerned about all the passengers it would effect and he promised to take the message on board and would ask for a review. "

They chose to ignore the advice of the agency members of the Isaan area and moved anyway.

My particular Rep said at the time it was purely political and had a lot to do with prior arrangements with the past administration........ tea money, kickbacks ect. ect.that had already been paid out.

I have heard several stories along the lines that Bdenner posts about and with only a couple of weeks to leaving i am still very apprehensive and unsure of what to expect.

I am flying Thai Airways to D.M. as Air Asia told me there was no guarantee on actual flights, otherwise i would have flown with them.

marshbags

[Ricardo]

Dear Thai Airways,

May I just say, we told you so, from most of us here at ThaiVisa ? It is just so nice to know, that old & balding though we may be, our commercial judgement is still spot-on.

Except for the optimists who felt that TG & Nok-Air would make more money, as a result of the move to DMK, since no connecting passengers ever use their transferred flights. Full-marks for your national feeling - but zero for your business-sense.

That the board of Thai Airways understand the hub-and-spoke concept so little, and the importance of having Domestic & International hubs at the same airport, leaves me (almost) lost for words. In the real world - they would now resign in apology, rather than be voted-out at the next shareholders-meeting. Don't hold your breath !

Meanwhile expect continued disruption to tourists' travel-plans, with lower levels of repeat-visitors, until a face-saving reason is found, to reverse the decision-to-transfer, may that come soon.

And hope that TG start a meaningful Marketing-Department, with real research of customers' requirements & views, to guide and improve future performance.

[Big A]

THAI Airways

You deserve everything you get...som nam na

[firstknight]

what a big hassle cause to those frequent travellers.... they should stay as it is or just close down suvarnabhumi (sorry for the spelling if wrong) and all go revert back to don muang....

[Krub]

The decision for Thai Airways to move some of its fligts to DM was never a commercial decision.

It has been imposed on them and on us making our lives difficult or impossible to transit to/from domestic destinations before/after international flights

[Ricardo]

The decision for Thai Airways to move some of its fligts to DM was never a commercial decision.

It has been imposed on them and on us making our lives difficult or impossible to transit to/from domestic destinations before/after international flights

I agree that there may well have been some political interference, with Thai Airways board, in the decision to switch many flights away from their hub.

However board-members & senior management, when faced with instructions to do something daft, always have the option to resign in protest. Personally I always felt that, as a professional accountant in the airline-business, it was my duty to take that step, when faced with something I knew to be wrong.

You need to put the greater public good, or the interests of the business, before your own personal interests. In return you are well paid.

[Krub]

The decision for Thai Airways to move some of its fligts to DM was never a commercial decision.

It has been imposed on them and on us making our lives difficult or impossible to transit to/from domestic destinations before/after international flights

I agree that there may well have been some political interference, with Thai Airways board, in the decision to switch many flights away from their hub.

However board-members & senior management, when faced with instructions to do something daft, always have the option to resign in protest. Personally I always felt that, as a professional accountant in the airline-business, it was my duty to take that step, when faced with something I knew to be wrong.

You need to put the greater public good, or the interests of the business, before your own personal interests. In return you are well paid.

Resigning will not reverse the decision of a board. It will give your vote to the majority

[marshbags]

Dear Thai Airways,

May I just say, we told you so, from most of us here at ThaiVisa ? It is just so nice to know, that old & balding though we may be, our commercial judgement is still spot-on.

Except for the optimists who felt that TG & Nok-Air would make more money, as a result of the move to DMK, since no connecting passengers ever use their transferred flights. Full-marks for your national feeling - but zero for your business-sense.

That the board of Thai Airways understand the hub-and-spoke concept so little, and the importance of having Domestic & International hubs at the same airport, leaves me (almost) lost for words. In the real world - they would now resign in apology, rather than be voted-out at the next shareholders-meeting. Don't hold your breath !

Meanwhile expect continued disruption to tourists' travel-plans, with lower levels of repeat-visitors, until a face-saving reason is found, to reverse the decision-to-transfer, may that come soon.

And hope that TG start a meaningful Marketing-Department, with real research of customers' requirements & views, to guide and improve future performance.

Why the President / CEO ??? should come all the way to Undothani to listen to concerns from the ones on the front line, who, in most cases supply and book our tickets is beyong comprehension and at best a farce.

Talk about going through the motions and lip service.

They didn,t give a ###### about the inconveniences ect that passengers would encounter, ( they and their families of course are not effected so it isn,t an important issue. )

Incidently they did it also to support and provide backup for NOK Air as well.

It will have a steam rolling effect on tourism in the North East and other areas where they depend on them for business, especially the small related industries ect.

Many of the ones who initially go through this nightmare transfer situation will not come back, while spreading the word on to other potential sightseers at the same time.

Yes Ricardo, we did attempt to tell them didn,t we, but then again we are only paying passengers so as is typical of Thai Airways executive metality, we or our observations and concerns do not deserve serious consideration.

How dare we, i can hear them say, what do we know

marshbags

P.S.

Let us hope that something becomes of these pre forecast situations.......soon

Edited April 26, 2007 by marshbags

[Ricardo]

The decision for Thai Airways to move some of its fligts to DM was never a commercial decision.

It has been imposed on them and on us making our lives difficult or impossible to transit to/from domestic destinations before/after international flights

I agree that there may well have been some political interference, with Thai Airways board, in the decision to switch many flights away from their hub.

However board-members & senior management, when faced with instructions to do something daft, always have the option to resign in protest. Personally I always felt that, as a professional accountant in the airline-business, it was my duty to take that step, when faced with something I knew to be wrong.

You need to put the greater public good, or the interests of the business, before your own personal interests. In return you are well paid.

Resigning will not reverse the decision of a board. It will give your vote to the majority

Sorry to disgree, but the resignation of one or some or all of a board attracts attention to the harmful decision being steam-rollered through, and the threat of a resignation often causes a decision to be re-examined, when common-sense may yet prevail.

You vote against the decision, and if/when it is passed, you resign and you tell the media why you made that decision. This is called 'having integrity' or 'the courage of your convictions'.

Otherwise you might as well just forget having a Board, since the decisions will all be made by the Chief-Executive, and all the experience and knowledge of the other board-members is just ignored. This is the CEO as team-leader, rather than dictator, and is more normal overseas.

You may tell me that, here in Thailand, things are different. I agree - they often are. But the responsibility of the board of a major company is to the customers, employees, shareholders and country at large. If they believe something harmful is being proposed - then they have a duty to resist it. As the Thai Airways board clearly failed to do - in this instance.

[Soju]

I made the following post to a forum on another website, but just now read this thread and think it is very appropriate to post it here. I don't think I fully buy the political argument presented here because THAI's president was touting both the pro's and con's of a move to Don Muang at the same time. The way they went about the process didn't seem to me to be politically influenced more than it was just incompetence by the THAI board of directors. Anyways, here's a copy of my post:

Time to oust THAI president Apinan Sumanaseni

First of all, let me say that this post contains my own personal, very highly opinionated view. I'm sure others will not agree with me and I welcome your comments.

There have been many reports in the Thai press over the past months which show a clear lack of direction by THAI's president and management. There have been numerous flip-flops and even contradictory statements by THAI's president coming even within a single day. Apinan's comments recently make him appear to be nothing short of a bumbling buffoon. I've mostly bit my tongue over these reports because I've found the Thai press to be far from reliable and I didn't want to attack Apinan if the press had misquoted him, especially being all the quotes I've seen are likely Thai to English translations done by the press rather than direct English quotes.

After the announcement that THAI would move some operations to Don Muang, I made a decision to stop giving THAI my business except for cases where there is no other reasonable alternative with respect to cost, schedule, and convenience. I recently was reading the April 2007 THAI inflight magazine, Sawasdee, which now confirms, with hard undeniable evidence, my suspicious about Apinan's total lack of ability to manage the THAI organization. First, let me quote the article, from page 55.

Star Alliance supports staying at Suvarnabhumi Airport

Star Alliance, the largest airline alliance serving Thailand, today announced its support for maintaining operations and smooth connections through Suvarnabhumi Airport for all nine members serving Bangkok, Thailand.

"We fully endorse the policy of our home carrier and founding member, Thai Airways International, to retain its hub operations at Suvarnabhumi Airport", said Joan Albrecht, Star Alliance Chief Executive Officer, summarising the position of the Star Alliance Thailand Country Steering Council. "By moving together under one roof at the new Suvarnabhumi airport Star Alliance carriers have signalled their joint intention to offer fast and comfortable connections and services in safe, modern and passenger-pleasing facilities."

Thai Airways International President, Apinan Sumanaseni said: "THAI's and Star Alliance's decision to maintain hub operations at Suvarnabhumi Airport will strengthen the region's hub position with the support of the alliance. THAI and member carriers of Star Alliance in Thailand continue to support the Star Alliance "Move under one Roof" concept, whereby airport services such as check-in and airline lounges, are provided by member carriers from the same terminal. By remaining at Suvarnabhumi Airport, the member carriers will be able to continue to provide the best in convenient service to Star Alliance passengers for maximum flight connectivity."

The Star Alliance and THAI comments follow recent proposals by Thai authorities to re-open the old Don Muang Airport to some international and domestic traffic, which could potentially disrupt connections for Star Alliance customers travelling through the Thai capital.

At Suvarnabhumi Airport the "Move under one Roof" concept is realised by having all Star Alliance carriers grouped together between check-in aisles A and K in the single terminal, with Thai Airways International occupying rows A to C. There is also a joint Star Alliance information and ticketing counter. Star Alliance customers can enjoy Thai Airways International lounges and the Star Alliance common baggage service facility on arrival at customer-service points.

In addition to Thai Airways International, a further eight Star Alliance member carriers serve Bangkok: ANA, Austrian, Asiana Airlines, Lufthansa, Scandinavian Airlines, Singapore Airlines, SWISS and United. Together, Star Alliance member carriers in Thailand operate around 1,000 flights each week out of Bangkok, which represents 47.2 per cent of all international seats.

The Star Alliance "Move under one Roof" strategy is being rolled out around the world. Last year the first dedicated Star Alliance Terminal in Asia was opened at Tokyo's Narita Airport. Across its network, the alliance has ongoing terminal projects to improve convenience in Beijing, London-Heathrow, Los Angeles, Madrid, Miami, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Shanghai and Singapore.

In the section of that article I highlighted, you can see that even THAI's president agrees that their operations should all be under one roof and that by dividing services between BKK and DMK it would inconvenience passengers and disrupt their connections. So why did THAI decide to move it's operations to DMK? I have yet to see anyone to list a single advantage or give a single explanation as to why THAI should have made that move.

I'm sure some will mention that the Thai government / AOT wanted to reopen DMK and so THAI, being the largest carrier at BKK felt obligated. But this is clearly a misplaced argument because it was well publicized that Air Asia wanted to move to DMK but only if they could move all their operations there. Certainly all Air Asia flights would be equivalent if not more than the number of domestic flights THAI moved to DMK. The decision was made to move only domestic operations back to DMK, but anyone can easily understand that if THAI had refused to move any of their operations back to DMK that a modification to the decision would have been made so that international carriers (Air Asia) would be allowed back to DMK if necessary to further reduce flights at BKK during the period of repairs being done. Thus the logical thing for THAI to have done would have been to refuse to move any flights and tell AOT that they need to allow Air Asia domestic and international back to DMK if they still needed to ease the congestion at BKK even more.

I'm also sure that some will mention that domestic check-in is much easier at DMK than it was at BKK and that this is an advantage of THAI moving some operations to DMK. This is not the case however. Certainly things are vastly improved, not only at DMK but also at BKK. But realize that it was announced that due to the reopening of DMK THAI would hire an additional 300 workers (that number is based on my memory, so I'm not 100% sure it is accurate, but certainly close). I would certainly hope that in hiring 300 more workers something would improve. But just think what THAI could have done by remaining at BKK and hiring those workers. They could have the check-in counters manned an hour earlier and drastically reduce the morning crowds. They could have staff roaming the lines, answering questions, directing people to the proper lines if they're in the wrong ones, helping some passengers use the e-checkin to avoid the lines altogether, etc. And they could have added staff enough to get their long-awaited but still unopened arrival lounge in operation. They could have done so many things to make the BKK experience much more enjoyable. Much more than it is now and much more than it is at DMK. But instead they chose the completely ridiculous route of going back to DMK. I should also mention that TG is still making extensive use of busing passengers to the aircraft at DMK, and that the DMK departure area at the gates is just as crowded if not more so than back in the old days, with a lack of adequate seating nearby many of the gates (much worse than I've ever seen it at Suvarnabhumi).

Add to this the comments made in the "TG not happy after move to Don Muang" thread where it is stated that THAI has spent 20 million baht in moving operations back to DMK and may have lost as many as 70,000 foreign travelers due to the inconvenience of transferring from one airport to another. Plus additional ongoing expenses of operating at dual airports. These are not things that were likely overlooked. I and many others commented on these very things back when the idea of reopening DMK was first proposed. Even someone without any knowledge about the airline business could have easily seen how utterly stupid this decision was from a business standpoint. Nobody needed to try it out before seeing this result. The result was totally predictable.

Now the focus of my post is why has Apinan made such foolish decisions since taking office. I'm focusing here on the decision to move to DMK, but there are certainly many other foolish decisions which have been made in the past year, such as the elimination of F limousines, caviar, amenity kits, etc. which have been mentioned many times here in this forum. Business leaders make foolish decisions everyday, so maybe I'm overreacting here, but for the most part foolish business decisions at least have some sort of logic behind them, even if the logic is flawed. For the life of me, I cannot see any sort of logic in Apinan's decision to revert domestic operations back to DMK. But even if he did have some crazy mixed-up reason for moving, why did he say in Sawasdee that such a move would inconvenience passengers and disrupt connections? Why did he lie about their commitment to the Star Alliance and to their customers to remain at Suvarnabhumi? Apinan flat out lied to us and insulted our intelligence by making such a bold statement while at the very same time planned to do just the opposite of what he promised. Such a liar has no business being the president of a major airline. Maybe my words here are a bit harse, but I am highly offended when the president of a major corporation treats his customers like idiots like Apinan has done here.

So some questions beg to be answered:

1. Is Apinan really as totally incompetent as he appears to be and if so why was he ever appointed to his position?

2. Why have the other members of THAI's board sat back and allowed Apinan to make such foolish decisions which are destroying the airline? Are they just as incompetent as he is?

3. Are these decisions being made really being made by someone who's just a bumbling idiot and has no idea of how to run a major corporation, or are they a deliberate attempt by him and perhaps some of THAI's board of directors to cripple the organization?

In my mind, one thing that needs to be done immediately is that Apinan needs to be ousted along with any of his cronies and this matter investigated. He currently is systematically destroying THAI. There isn't much I or other customers can do except vote with our pocketbooks, but hopefully the stockholders will realize the damage he is doing and maybe along with the Thai press they can put a quick end to his reign of terror.

I'm sure I'll catch a lot of flack for making these comments, but from seeing a lot of recent comments on this forum, I'm sure a lot of others will be at least somewhat in agreement with me. My primary goal in this post is to try to direct people's lack of direction in their complaints about the recent changes with TG. IMHO, there is one source (Apinan) of all these problems and we need to direct our attention at that source so that TG can get back to the way it was two years ago. I loved TG and still do. I do not wish the organization any harm. And that is why I feel we must speak out about what is happening so that we can hopefully get back the TG we loved. I still have a lot of respect for the TG organization and employees. It is only the THAI president and like-minded board of directors that I have lost all respect for.

Thanks for listening to my rant.

[Soju]

The decision for Thai Airways to move some of its fligts to DM was never a commercial decision.

It has been imposed on them and on us making our lives difficult or impossible to transit to/from domestic destinations before/after international flights

I agree that there may well have been some political interference, with Thai Airways board, in the decision to switch many flights away from their hub.

However board-members & senior management, when faced with instructions to do something daft, always have the option to resign in protest. Personally I always felt that, as a professional accountant in the airline-business, it was my duty to take that step, when faced with something I knew to be wrong.

You need to put the greater public good, or the interests of the business, before your own personal interests. In return you are well paid.

Resigning will not reverse the decision of a board. It will give your vote to the majority

Sorry to disgree, but the resignation of one or some or all of a board attracts attention to the harmful decision being steam-rollered through, and the threat of a resignation often causes a decision to be re-examined, when common-sense may yet prevail.

You vote against the decision, and if/when it is passed, you resign and you tell the media why you made that decision. This is called 'having integrity' or 'the courage of your convictions'.

Otherwise you might as well just forget having a Board, since the decisions will all be made by the Chief-Executive, and all the experience and knowledge of the other board-members is just ignored. This is the CEO as team-leader, rather than dictator, and is more normal overseas.

You may tell me that, here in Thailand, things are different. I agree - they often are. But the responsibility of the board of a major company is to the customers, employees, shareholders and country at large. If they believe something harmful is being proposed - then they have a duty to resist it. As the Thai Airways board clearly failed to do - in this instance.

Agree with your thinking on this Ricardo. The current president of THAI and all board members who went along with him should be immediately dismissed and should never again work in any sort of management position for the rest of their lives. They have proven themselves to be completely worthless individuals with respect to management. Either they made utterly foolish decisions, or they just went along with what someone else told them even when they disagreed, or they are purposely involved in trying to destroy the airline they are being paid to manage. Any way they have proven to the business community how worthless they are and do not deserve any second chance with THAI or any other business in the future. If I was looking to hire a manager and found someone who stood up at a THAI board meeting and resigned in protest over such a ridiculous decision being made, I'd hire them in a second because it shows they have true management abilities and are not just some worthless yes-man. Whatever the reason for Apinan and his board making these silly decisions, their actions are hopefully extremely short-sided and they will pay for their lack of proper leadership in completely destroying their careers. Of course this is only my wish, and the way things work in Thailand, who knows - maybe they'll end up being promoted for their foolishness. But as long as these jokers are allowed to run THAI I will refuse to give them any more business than I have to. I'd estimate that approximately 90% of my air travel this year that I would have given almost exclusively to THAI will now go elsewhere. If enough people do likewise, they will hopefully get the message rather quickly that the airline is doomed unless they change the management to someone with brains and guts.

[sabaijai]

The decision for Thai Airways to move some of its fligts to DM was never a commercial decision.

It has been imposed on them and on us making our lives difficult or impossible to transit to/from domestic destinations before/after international flights

I agree that there may well have been some political interference, with Thai Airways board, in the decision to switch many flights away from their hub.

However board-members & senior management, when faced with instructions to do something daft, always have the option to resign in protest. Personally I always felt that, as a professional accountant in the airline-business, it was my duty to take that step, when faced with something I knew to be wrong.

You need to put the greater public good, or the interests of the business, before your own personal interests. In return you are well paid.

Resigning will not reverse the decision of a board. It will give your vote to the majority

Sorry to disgree, but the resignation of one or some or all of a board attracts attention to the harmful decision being steam-rollered through, and the threat of a resignation often causes a decision to be re-examined, when common-sense may yet prevail.

You vote against the decision, and if/when it is passed, you resign and you tell the media why you made that decision. This is called 'having integrity' or 'the courage of your convictions'.

Otherwise you might as well just forget having a Board, since the decisions will all be made by the Chief-Executive, and all the experience and knowledge of the other board-members is just ignored. This is the CEO as team-leader, rather than dictator, and is more normal overseas.

You may tell me that, here in Thailand, things are different. I agree - they often are. But the responsibility of the board of a major company is to the customers, employees, shareholders and country at large. If they believe something harmful is being proposed - then they have a duty to resist it. As the Thai Airways board clearly failed to do - in this instance.

Agree with your thinking on this Ricardo. The current president of THAI and all board members who went along with him should be immediately dismissed and should never again work in any sort of management position for the rest of their lives. They have proven themselves to be completely worthless individuals with respect to management. Either they made utterly foolish decisions, or they just went along with what someone else told them even when they disagreed, or they are purposely involved in trying to destroy the airline they are being paid to manage. Any way they have proven to the business community how worthless they are and do not deserve any second chance with THAI or any other business in the future. If I was looking to hire a manager and found someone who stood up at a THAI board meeting and resigned in protest over such a ridiculous decision being made, I'd hire them in a second because it shows they have true management abilities and are not just some worthless yes-man. Whatever the reason for Apinan and his board making these silly decisions, their actions are hopefully extremely short-sided and they will pay for their lack of proper leadership in completely destroying their careers. Of course this is only my wish, and the way things work in Thailand, who knows - maybe they'll end up being promoted for their foolishness. But as long as these jokers are allowed to run THAI I will refuse to give them any more business than I have to. I'd estimate that approximately 90% of my air travel this year that I would have given almost exclusively to THAI will now go elsewhere. If enough people do likewise, they will hopefully get the message rather quickly that the airline is doomed unless they change the management to someone with brains and guts.

Such ideas might hold true for the private sector but THAI is a state enterprise, majority-owned by the government. Issues such as management efficiency, ethics or profitability take a back seat to politics. Active and retired Royal Thai Air Force officers hold or have held various positions in the enterprise.

Virtually all investment comes from the government, including a large chunk from the Vayupak Fund, established by the Finance Ministry to finance listed state enterprises. As a state enterprise and as the official national flag carrier, THAI is very political. A Thaksin-placed chairman of the board fled to Singapore after the coup, as I recall (perhaps it was a former chairman under Thaksin, not sure).

[bluebear]

Critics said THAI may have underestimated the impact of passenger connectivity to its business as statistics show that there are always passengers on every THAI domestic flight who need to transfer to international flights."

DUH!!

its like BA thinking that it can move all international flights to Gatwick while all domestic still go to Heathrow. For an airline to split its flights like that scores a 1.2 out of 10 for intelligence.

I would hazard a guess that it effects more holiday makers from outside Thailand going to Chiang Mai /Phuket etc than locals.

Edited May 19, 2007 by bluebear